I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia's gas is a national asset.

Together, the three bills of the domestic gas reservation package establish a nationally consistent domestic gas reservation framework. Australian gas supports jobs, investment, regional communities, export earnings, and provides energy security for our trading partners. Gas powers Australian homes, underpins Australian manufacturing and industrial activity, and contributes to the reliability of our energy system.

Australians expect our resources to serve the national interest.

Australians expect a reliable supply of affordable gas at home—and that's what a domestic gas reservation scheme delivers.

It is important to recall how we got to this point. When we were first elected to government in 2022, the first thing we had to deal with was an energy crisis. A decade of chaotic policymaking from the coalition, combined with weather events, coal power station maintenance backlogs from COVID, and the consequences for global gas supply due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, saw energy prices spike severely that winter. In some cases, gas was offered into the Australian market for well over $60 a gigajoule. This was clearly unacceptable and demonstrated that the regulatory framework we inherited to manage our gas market was weak and ineffective. The Gas Market Review concluded that fundamental reform of Australia's gas market was essential and recommended establishing a national gas reservation scheme.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken since the release of the Gas Market Review in 2025 and has been critical to developing a package that establishes a nationally consistent domestic gas reservation framework. Gas producers, exporters, peak bodies, manufacturers, unions, state and territory governments and trade partners have been engaged through formal consultation processes, bilateral engagement, and webinars. An exposure draft of the package was open for comment from 10 to 24 September 2026. Over 25 bilateral meetings were held and around 130 submissions received. Public submissions have been published on the Department of Industry, Science and Resources' website.

At the heart of this reform is a simple proposition: exporters that benefit from Australia's gas resources should make an appropriate contribution to the domestic markets connected to those resources.

Under the framework, exporters of liquefied natural gas will be required to hold an export licence and meet a 'domestic supply obligation'. This will require LNG exporters to contribute up to the equivalent of 20 per cent of their exports to domestic gas markets. This obligation can be calibrated to domestic demand and market conditions. The scheme also permits adjustment of a domestic supply obligation to recognise existing export contracts, existing reservation arrangements or existing infrastructure constraints.

The framework does not limit the amount of LNG that may be exported. It instead establishes a predictable and proportionate domestic contribution while allowing exporters to continue participating in international markets.

Those contributions are in the form of gas sold to domestic customers, at prices agreed in commercial negotiations between buyers and sellers.

Australia will remain a reliable energy trading partner, now and in the future.

The government recognises that the LNG sector operates through complex and long-term commercial arrangements. The bill provides flexible compliance options, including renewable gas supply, and demand reductions. The bill also includes targeted adjustment mechanisms for existing export contracts entered into on or before 22 December 2025. This reflects Australia's commitment to honouring established commercial arrangement.

The bill also includes mechanisms to adjust the amount or timing of obligations to recognise existing infrastructure constraints and existing domestic gas reservation arrangements. These provisions balance legitimate commercial or technical constraints while maintaining the central objective of increasing gas available to Australian users.

Australia has two distinct domestic gas markets: the east coast gas market, which includes the Northern Territory, and the west coast gas market in Western Australia. They comprise separate networks of interconnected gas pipelines. Conditions in one market therefore do not necessarily reflect conditions in the other.

The bill recognises this physical separation and provides scope for obligations to be calibrated to the supply and demand conditions of each market, based on the circumstances at the time. An exporter's domestic supply obligation will be directed to the domestic market which is physically connected to the export, ensuring that each exporter's contribution supports that domestic gas market.

Demand calibration will ensure obligations remain connected to forecast requirements in a domestic gas market. The Australian Energy Regulator must determine a demand-calibrated quantity for a licence holder unless exceptions apply, taking account of forecast domestic demand, forecast supply and an appropriate 10 per cent supply buffer.

Licence holders may meet their obligation flexibly while remaining accountable for the required domestic contribution. They may supply at least 90 per cent of the minimum quantity during a regulated period and, where prescribed requirements are met, defer the remaining portion. Any deferred quantity must be offset through increased domestic supplies over the following three regulated periods. A regulated period is a calendar year.

The bill also protects the integrity of the scheme. Qualifying supplies will need to be the licence holder's own gas or additional gas. If a licence holder acquires, and exports, non-additional gas from the domestic market, that quantity is added to its obligation. Anti-avoidance provisions will deter arrangements designed to circumvent key obligations of the scheme.

The bill takes a technology-neutral approach to infrastructure, to support the use of both traditional natural gas and future low-emission gases. This provides more options for cost-effective compliance and enhances the pathway to recognise lower-emissions alternatives while preserving domestic supply outcomes and energy security.

Export licences will generally run for a 20 to 50 years, providing long-term regulatory certainty for exporters. Before granting a licence, the minister must be satisfied that the applicant is fit and proper to hold the licence and the applicant intends and is capable of being an exporter of liquified natural gas. A licence may be renewed, and a licence holder that no longer intends to export may seek the minister's consent to surrender its licence. The Australian Energy Regulator will administer and enforce the scheme. Licence holders will be required to prepare compliance plans, report annually on their activities and maintain financial assurance. Monitoring, information-gathering and audit powers will support early identification of compliance risks.

A proportionate enforcement framework will include directions, civil penalties, enforceable undertakings and injunctions, supported by liabilities for executive officer. Transparency, publication and review arrangements will provide appropriate accountability. The framework also regulates changes in control and allows licences to be suspended or cancelled where serious noncompliance occurs.

The framework will be introduced through an orderly transition. The principal legislation and licensing framework are intended to commence by proclamation. A backstop commencement date of 1 July 2027 has been included in the bill to ensure certainty for industry. This approach offers an appropriate balance between providing surety for stakeholders and sufficient time to finalise the supporting arrangements needed for implementation. The export licensing requirement and domestic supply obligations will operate from 1 January 2028, giving industry and the regulator time to prepare.

This bill makes reliable domestic natural gas supply a normal and predictable part of LNG export activity.

The related Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill integrates the framework with the Gas Market Code and transitions from the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism. The Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill provides for recovery of the costs incurred in administering and regulating the scheme.

Together, the package will deliver a streamlined, fit-for-purpose framework that strengthens Australia's energy security and improves the predictability of domestic supply in the long-term interests of Australian households and businesses, while providing greater regulatory certainty and maintaining Australia's position as a reliable LNG exporter and trading partner.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Together, the three bills of the domestic gas reservation package establish a nationally consistent domestic gas reservation framework. Australia's gas supports households, manufacturers, regional communities and our international trading relationships. Australians rightly expect our resources to serve the national interest, including by supporting reliable domestic supply.

This bill makes the supporting amendments required for that framework to operate through existing gas market institutions and for an orderly transition from current arrangements.

This bill has three principal elements. It amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, amends the Gas Market Code, and repeals the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism in the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958.

Amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Gas Market Code establish an additional gas framework to ensure an exporter's domestic supply obligation makes a genuine contribution to domestic supply, rather than being met by reallocating gas already available to Australian users.

Gas produced above a baseline set by the Australian Energy Regulator will qualify as additional gas. The regulator may also approve other gas as additional on application, if prescribed circumstances are met.

This is an important integrity safeguard. It helps prevent exporters from satisfying their obligations by purchasing or redirecting gas that would otherwise have remained available to domestic buyers.

The Gas Market Code amendments also prescribe carefully defined flexibility mechanisms. The core principle is that licence holders must supply, not merely offer, gas to the market.

A licence holder must supply at least 90 per cent of its domestic supply obligation in the relevant period. For the remaining portion, up to 10 per cent in total, the licence holder may meet flexibility requirements where qualifying gas has been genuinely offered to domestic buyers on domestically competitive terms but is not purchased, where a contractual call option is not exercised, or where exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances outside the supplier's control prevent delivery. Any resulting deferred quantity must subsequently be offset.

This will balance the obligation to supply with bounded flexibility to ensure the scheme is workable in practice, recognising that markets and demand are dynamic. A regulatory framework which allows the market to operate is in the interests of all participants.

The Gas Market Code amendments support a demand-responsive scheme. The regulator's methodology for determining the demand calibrated quantity must consider forecast aggregate demand, the target level of supply and forecast supply from sources other than licence holders. It must draw on the relevant Australian Energy Market Operator gas outlook for the domestic market.

The regulator will also provide licence holders with forward estimates of a licence holders' demand calibrated quantity for the next four years and must publish demand-calibration determinations and estimates. This will improve transparency and give industry greater visibility of future requirements.

The bill modernises and simplifies the existing gas expression-of-interest framework and streamlines the information required. It removes the prescriptive initial-offer and final-offer stages and repeals the $12 per gigajoule pricing cap and conditional ministerial exemptions, which were introduced in response to an energy crisis in 2022.

A decade of chaotic policymaking from the coalition, combined with weather events, coal power station maintenance backlogs from COVID, and the consequences for global gas supply due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, saw energy prices spike severely that winter of 2022. In some cases, gas was offered into the Australian market for well over $60 a gigajoule. This was clearly unacceptable and demonstrated that the regulatory framework we inherited to manage our gas market was weak and ineffective. The Gas Market Review concluded that fundamental reform of Australia's gas market was essential and recommended establishing a national gas reservation scheme.

The bill strengthens market conduct requirements. Suppliers must report expressions of interest to the Australian Energy Market Operator, keep these expressions of interest current, and retain relevant negotiation records. Good-faith requirements will expressly consider whether a licence holder has unreasonably refused an offer and whether proposed terms were fair and reasonable.

Experience has demonstrated that only requiring the offer of gas has not worked in the interests of gas users. Stronger conduct requirements reinforce that merely 'offering' gas to the Australian market is not enough: the reservation requires real gas, not paper compliance. The amendments are designed to shift the balance of bargaining power to help make sure Australian users can get a better deal.

The bill also supports an orderly transition from the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism and heads of agreement. The ADGSM and HOA have played important roles for responding to potential shortfalls, however it placed significant burden on the three Curtis Island exporters, including by requiring regular reporting to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and meetings with ministers. From 1 January 2028, it will be replaced with a regulatory model that is intended as an enduring legislative solution.

The amendments have staged commencement. The Gas Market Code amendments concerning additionality and demand calibration, as well as other amendments supporting the principal bill commence with that bill. The remaining Gas Market Code amendments commence on 1 July 2027, and repeal of the ADGSM commences on 1 January 2028. Transitional arrangements preserve the ADGSM for domestic shortfall quarters ending before that date, avoiding gaps or unnecessary overlap.

The bill ensures that the new domestic gas reservation scheme works coherently with existing gas market legislation and delivers a practical transition to the new national framework.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia's gas supports households, manufacturers, regional communities and our international trading relationships. Together, the three bills of the domestic gas reservation package establish a nationally consistent domestic gas reservation framework that supports reliable domestic supply while maintaining Australia's role as a trusted LNG exporter.

This bill imposes a levy on export licences.

The levy reflects the principle that the costs of administering a regulatory framework should be borne by the industry that benefits from it. It will ensure the efficient costs of regulating LNG exports under the new framework are met by licence holders rather than the wider public.

The levy will apply where an export licence is in force at any time during a regulated period and will be payable by the licence holder. The amount, or the method for calculating it, will be prescribed by regulations. Regulations may set different amounts or calculation methods for different classes of licence holders, allowing the levy to reflect differences in regulatory effort or scheme participation.

Under the principal bill, a levy for a regulated period will be due on 31 January of the following regulated period. Unpaid amounts will attract a daily late-payment penalty, which the Australian Energy Regulator may waive where there are good reasons. Levy and penalty amounts will be recoverable as debts due to the Commonwealth.

The bill will commence on 1 January 2028, aligning with the commencement of the export licensing requirement and domestic supply obligations contained in the principal bill.

Together, the three bills establish a nationally consistent domestic gas reservation framework that supports reliable domestic supply, a competitive gas market and Australia's ongoing role as a trusted LNG exporter.

As I conclude the introduction of these three bills, I want to thank my colleagues, my cabinet colleagues and, in particular, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Chris Bowen, and also the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator the Hon. Tim Ayres, for their remarkable work in helping me get these bills to the chamber here today. And I commend all three bills and the entire package for a national gas reservation scheme to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, the Albanese government is introducing the next tranche of legislation in the most ambitious tax reform package in a generation, one that makes our tax system fairer, more sustainable, and funds income tax cuts for workers.

In June, the parliament passed the first tranche of legislation which cut taxes for workers again and again.

It limited negative gearing to new builds for future investments, encouraging new supply.

And it returned the capital gains tax regime to its original intent by restoring the taxation of real gains.

In August, we passed the second tranche of legislation—locking in a permanent instant asset write-off for small business and loss carry-back for companies up to $1 billion in turnover.

Through these first two tranches of legislation, we have delivered tax cuts for 13 million workers, support for more Australians to get into the housing market, and we're rolling out $3.8 billion in measures that lower taxes for businesses and startups.

This bill is the next step.

The first three schedules to the bill implement the core components of the minimum tax on discretionary trusts announced in the budget.

This is all about better aligning the tax treatment of income from assets and income from work.

It's also about funding those income tax cuts for workers that we are delivering again and again.

We know that there are legitimate reasons to use trusts, including succession planning and asset protection, but the flexibility provided by discretionary trusts allows some people to plan their tax affairs in ways that aren't available to most workers and families.

This is not a new issue or a new challenge.

Over half a century, governments of both political persuasions have received many reviews and reports recommending trusts tax reform.

In 1972, the then Commonwealth government commissioned a review of Australia's tax system.

When that review was handed to the Whitlam Government in 1975, it looked at the problem of income splitting through trusts in great detail and recommended reform.

Ten years later, the draft white paper prepared by the Hawke Keating government in 1985 raised this issue once again.

In 1998, Prime Minister John Howard committed to reforming the taxation of trusts in 2000, and the need for change was repeated the following year in the Review of Business Taxation report, known as the Ralph review.

While Howard and Costello followed through on the CGT reforms in the Ralph review that introduced those lasting distortions in the housing market, their plans to reform the tax arrangements for trusts were not implemented.

The number of discretionary trusts has more than doubled over the past 20 years—putting an increasingly unsustainable strain on the budget.

But, still, the vast majority of Australians do not have a trust.

More than 95 per cent of individual tax filers do not receive trust income and more than 90 per cent of small businesses will not be affected by these changes in any given year.

The majority of trust income also flows to the top earning 10 per cent of households.

And approximately 90 per cent of total private trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households.

Treasury analysis shows that in 2022-23, families with discretionary trusts faced an average tax rate around four percentage points lower than families with similar incomes who do not use a trust.

And the widespread use of discretionary trusts as part of complex structures adds complexity to the tax system and compliance costs for taxpayers.

If we leave this issue for another day and for another government, the risks to the integrity and the sustainability of the tax system will only grow.

The burden of that inaction will fall on regular people, and particularly on young Australians and on future generations.

That's why we're taking action with this bill.

The minimum tax on discretionary trusts in this bill will reduce a range of tax planning advantages available through discretionary trusts.

As set out in schedule 1, from 1 July 2028, trustees will pay the 30 per cent minimum tax on the taxable income of discretionary trusts.

Beneficiaries other than corporate beneficiaries will receive non-refundable offsets for the tax payable by the trustee.

A 30 per cent minimum tax aligns with the marginal tax rate for workers on incomes between $45,000 and $135,000.

A range of trust types will be excluded, including fixed trusts, charitable trusts, special disability trusts, superannuation funds, primary production income and certain income relating to vulnerable minors.

Deceased estates and discretionary testamentary trusts established for genuine testamentary purposes will also be excluded.

The legislation also ensures that all distributions from trusts to registered charities and deductible gift recipients are also exempt, as well as distributions to other income-tax-exempt entities like sporting clubs up to a reasonable cap.

There are also a range of ways that trusts may be able to reduce the impacts of these changes, such as making different decisions about the distribution of income or, for businesses operating through a trust, paying a wage to employed beneficiaries.

Importantly, the legislation also includes expanded options to limit or eliminate restructuring costs for small businesses and others using discretionary trusts.

These are sensible options that we have developed through close consultation with stakeholders.

Schedule 2 provides expanded rollover relief from 1 July 2027 to assist taxpayers that wish to restructure out of a discretionary trust into other arrangements, such as a company or a fixed trust.

And schedule 3 provides an option for trusts to make an election for income tax purposes, and for as long as they choose to continue to make distributions to prenominated beneficiaries in line with an upfront nomination, they will be exempt from the minimum tax.

That election will not require a restructure or restrict a trust's discretionary powers. It's not expected to result in state and territory stamp duties being payable.

Together, these reforms will improve the sustainability and integrity of the tax system and better align the tax treatment of income from work and income from assets, while providing appropriate transitional arrangements for existing structures.

The other schedules, 4 and 5, to the bill contain the next tranche of legislation to implement the government's reforms to negative gearing and CGT.

Schedule 4 clarifies the operation of the CGT reforms for a range of more complex and specific circumstances including for a range of trust structures.

And schedule 5 legislates the definition of a new residential dwelling and exemptions from the limits on negative gearing for affordable and public housing and other purposes.

These reforms are about removing the distortions that have locked too many young Australians out of housing for too long.

They're about making our economy more productive by ensuring investment decisions are made for economic reasons, not tax reasons.

And they're about targeting the tax support for investment in housing to new builds and affordable housing—so that these investments are supporting new supply.

Our government's tackling the housing challenge from every responsible angle: boosting supply, rebalancing the tax system, and helping first home buyers into the market.

The final schedule in the bill provides transitional relief for excess super contributions in the first year of payday super.

Since 1 July this year, the government's landmark reforms to ensure super is paid at the same time as wages and salary have been in effect.

Payday super will strengthen the super system and help deliver a more secure retirement for more Australian workers.

The amendments in this bill ensure individuals are not adversely impacted where the timing of employer contributions in the first year affects their concessional contributions caps.

Labor built the superannuation system; we're always making it stronger.

All of our efforts, payday super and the amendments in this bill, are about safeguarding and strengthening the superannuation system.

Combined, the government's tax reforms mean the personal income tax burden share on workers is expected to be two percentage points lower over 10 years.

It will fall even further as these reforms run their course over the longer term.

The government thanks the many stakeholders and community members who have contributed to the development of these reforms, including in response to the July consultation paper and the draft legislation we released in recent months.

Reform on this scale is complex and the feedback that we received has been a really important part of getting the implementation details right.

It is helping us build a better tax system especially for workers, for businesses, for young people and for future generations.

And that's why I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Income Tax Rates Act 1986to ensure that the net income of discretionary trusts is subject to a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent for income years commencing on or after 1 July 2028.

It operates in conjunction with the core legislation in the tax reform No. 3 bill, which I just spoke at length about, and, for all of the reasons I outlined in that speech, I also commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics for consideration and an advisory report by 1 July 2027.

The legislation that's just been introduced into the parliament never went to the Australian community or a federal election. The federal government took to the Australian people last election and said 50 times over that they wouldn't introduce exactly this type of legislation. What we now have is small and family businesses, farmers and tradies who want one thing from this government, which is a degree of certainty. They certainly don't want a continued tolerance of the deceit and dishonesty that has come from the Albanese government. These are Australians who backed themselves. They're Australians who invested and created jobs for their communities. And what we have heard from the Albanese government, despite all the spin and despite all the deceit, is a problem where the government simply cannot tell the Australian community the truth.

We have no confidence in the numbers the Treasurer throws up. We have no confidence in the legitimacy of their agenda or the consequences. Frankly, I don't think they understand the consequences of it. What we know full well is that this government has gone to the Australian people and deceived the Australian people, and they've introduced this legislation into this parliament and don't understand the practical implications and consequences for everybody to see. I can assure all members of the backbench that you are going to want this legislation to go to an inquiry too. In a few weeks time, as the small-business owners of the country go to their financial advisers, you are going to get a train wreck that is going to be revealed to you, and they are going to come back to you as the local member of parliament and say, 'Your government has deceived us again.' And let's be very clear about this: trust in your government is already extremely low.

But, even more than that, you're going to hear how they're going to incur costs of up to $50,000 just to restructure their affairs, just to stay within the compliance of the law. Do not misunderstand the scale of the train wreck that is about to come. You have a problem at the moment with the legislation in front of you where, if people move structures, once they move structures it automatically triggers a stamp duty obligation. We know that to be the case. In fact, the Treasurer has admitted this, although he is again deceiving the Australian community. He's going out and he's briefing all of the Labor backbenchers right now. We read about in it the papers where you were complaining increasingly about the impact on small businesses. He was saying that he was in consultation with the federal minister, the state premiers and state—

Member for Goldstein, I ask that you withdraw that statement that you made about deceiving the public, the comments that you made in relation to the Treasurer. Minister for Infrastructure?

The member has moved a motion that something be brought on, and he's not actually sticking to the motion. He doesn't get to just use it as an opportunity to sledge people.

With the greatest respect, Deputy Speaker, I'm speaking specifically to the legislation around trusts and moving a motion to refer it to the House economics committee to have a proper inquiry about the information that is available to the public, including for Labor backbenchers to understand the implications of what the Treasurer is leading them to do.

Member for Goldstein, can you get to the motion that you've moved and the issue rather than the sledging, please. Get to the motion.

I've read out the motion. I'm now giving the rationale and justification, which is that the problem that Labor backbenchers have is that they went to an election, firstly, and they said to the Australian community that they weren't going to introduce this legislation. So there's a reasonable justification to have an inquiry on that trigger alone. The second justification is that we have the Treasurer briefing caucus where caucus members are turning around and saying, 'We're sick and tired of these attacks on small businesses. We're getting feedback,' so maybe give them a voice. The third one—

Minister for Infrastructure?

The motion that the member has moved is to refer a bill to a committee. He needs to address the motion rather than use it as an opportunity to speculate on things of which he knows nothing about.

The third point is that we have reports where the Treasurer claims he's speaking to state treasurers. We now have the Queensland treasurer saying that that is misleading.

Member for Goldstein, what was the motion that you're moving?

The motion was that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics for consideration and an advisory report by 1 July 2027. I am simply making the case about the reason why the Labor members of the caucus who went to an election saying they weren't going to do this maybe should have the House economics committee inquire into the legislation the government is putting in, including that, once you actually do this, you will have people move their business operations and it will trigger a stamp duty moment. We know full well from public reporting, including from the words of the Treasurer himself—he's the guy, by the way, Minister, who put this legislation in—that it's going to create problems with stamp duty. We also know that the Queensland treasurer has turned around and said very clearly, 'He hasn't consulted with us.' So, people in Queensland who conform with this legislation, you're going to have to pay stamp duty to conform with this legislation.

We also know that if people move over to the new structures, as the Treasurer would like the Australian people and small businesses to do, they're going to have to go back to their banks. They're going to have to renegotiate their finance facilities. I understand from members of the Labor Party that they don't understand this. I do understand that members of the Labor Party do not understand the consequences of the legislation the Treasurer has just introduced. For your benefit, I am saying to you very clearly it is in the Labor members' interests that this go off to an inquiry. The third point, as I said before, is that, when they go off to the banks, they're going to experience the reality. The banks are going to look at financing facilities for small business in an environment where asset values are declining by design of this treasurer. Just remember that, by design, he's trying to crash house values. Then in addition to that, in an environment of declining consumer confidence and declining small business confidence and an environment where people are going to need more and more security, what they're going to find is that they're not going to be able to access finance. Once you do that, then you're going to have a problem where a lot of small businesses are not going to have any liquidity. When that happens, people lose jobs. That's why yesterday the International Monetary Fund, among many reasons, warned 800,000 Australians are about to lose their jobs because of this Labor government.

If the Labor Party don't want to understand the consequences of what they're introducing into this parliament, if they don't want an inquiry into what they're introducing into this parliament, this government is closing its eyes. It is deaf to the consequences of its legislation. And we know full well that the small businesses of this country are desperate to have their say. Apart from the fact that this legislation didn't go to an election, we know that this 30 per cent minimum tax on trusts, which he said 50 times over wouldn't be done but is now being considered by this parliament, will have massive consequences for small business—around $50,000 per small business, an estimated $13.3 billion deadweight loss on the economy that is going to directly impact small business.

I'm telling you, Minister, this is very relevant, and the fact that you don't understand that it is relevant highlights just how problematic it is. This government, when it introduced its budget, has continued to have to deal with the consequences because it didn't understand how its budget was going to be implemented. We've now had five back-downs by this treasurer because he does not understand the consequences of his legislation. So there should be an inquiry to make sure that we understand the consequences of the Treasurer and him not understanding his own legislation. We know the Prime Minister likes to humiliate the Treasurer in public, and he likes to slap him down. But I'm sorry; this is time for the parliament to slap the Treasurer down so that people understand the consequences of his legislation. You just need to look at what has happened only in the past week. Only in the past week, we've had the government not understand the impact on small businesses from the credit card surcharge ban. That's why we need an inquiry into this legislation, so we can make sure there's proper accountability and proper scrutiny of the laws so the Australian community can have confidence that, even if this parliament has a complete absence of understanding of the consequences of what they're doing, at least it was fully fleshed out.

But at the moment the government wants to shut down any discussion of their legislation, which they lacked the courage to take to the Australian community and to the last election. And small business is being thrown under the bus under this legislation. We know, from evidence out there in the public domain, that people have companies in which trust structures transfer money between each other because they've got to deal with issues of cash flow. This is very common, by the way, in the construction sector. But under the proposed legislation that this government has introduced, those different entities will have to pay 30 per cent minimum tax every time they move different parts of their revenue, which means they could end up paying more than 100 per cent of the revenue in tax.

Does Labor understand the insanity of what it is seeking to do? You are going to crash the construction market. You are going to kill small businesses. You are going to destroy the engine room of the economy. You are going to put hundreds of thousands of Australians out of work. And you are doing this with the objective of some bold claim of equity? This government has no idea what it's doing. All we're doing is asking you to refer this legislation to a committee that you chair, where you actually have a say. But, more to the point, the people of Australia will get to have their say.

I know the member for Flinders is a very big advocate for small business in her communities. I know the member for Page is as well. I look over there and I see the member for Deakin, as an example, on the other side of the chamber. We know full well that he got elected on a promise of not introducing this legislation. The least he could do is have the courage to vote for this bill so the Australian community can have their say on the legislation that affects them through a House Economics Committee inquiry. Let's go to the member for Sturt. What about her? Remember her? The member for Sturt talks specifically about why we need an inquiry into this type of legislation.

Minister?

Again, this is not an opportunity to sledge members—

Member for Goldstein, you've moved a motion; speak to the motion. And it doesn't give you open slather to broaden that motion to—

I am speaking specifically about the legislation, and—

I am on my feet, seeking to take a point of order.

Minister.

Thank you for giving me the call, and I ask the member to respect that I was on my feet. I had yet to speak, and I don't need to be shouted at across the dispatch box. You have moved a motion that is requesting that a bill go to an inquiry. You need to address the motion. It is not an opportunity to point to people on the backbench and sledge people. It is not an opportunity to do that. You need to address the motion.

Let us be very clear. The members on the other side of this chamber did not have the courage to send this legislation to an election, and that is the point of why we need this inquiry. And every Labor member who was elected on that side of the chamber went to an election saying 50 times over that they would not introduce this legislation. They can get up at that dispatch box as much as they want and say, 'Oh, we need to make sure we're addressing the motion,' but every single time that this Labor member, this minister, and every one of them comes into this parliament and refuses to have a debate, refuses to have a conversation about the impact this legislation is having on the Australian community, we are seeing exactly the contempt for our democracy that the Labor Party has. And we will not back down.

But you need to understand, Labor members of parliament—every member of parliament needs to understand—the trainwreck, the impact this legislation is going to have on the Australian community, because there are small businesses out there right now who are bleeding. They are struggling to keep their doors open. They are living with the consequences of declining profitability. They are having to make decisions about whether or not they keep the doors open. They are having to make decisions about whether they can keep their people employed, and they're wondering whether they can feed their families. For the minister to get up in this chamber and try and shut down debate about that important issue is a disgrace, because now is the time when we need more speakers standing up for the future Australia we want to build.

I at no stage attempted to shut you down, so you need to withdraw that comment. I have simply asked you to do what the standing orders require you to do, and I do not need a lecture from you about that.

Member for Goldstein, will you withdraw?

I'm sorry—there's no basis under the standing orders to withdraw.

Member for Goldstein, you did say something that the minister has asked you to withdraw. The minister has asked you to withdraw the comments that you made—that she was shutting down debate, which she hasn't done. Can you please withdraw your comments in relation to that.

To assist the House, I'll withdraw.

No, no. Member for Goldstein, you need to withdraw the comments that you made.

Member for Goldstein, if you're not going to have this debate in an orderly fashion, I ask that you remove yourself from the chamber.

Member for Goldstein, I have asked you twice. I asked you to withdraw the allegation that you made—that the minister was shutting down debate. I asked you to withdraw that politely and calmly, and you haven't done that. I ask that you withdraw those comments. If you don't, instead of having the chatter across the chamber, you can withdraw yourself from the chamber.

On a point of order, I did withdraw, and the minister on the opposite side has been intervening across the chamber. I'm simply responding to her interventions. You can withdraw the minister from the chamber as well.

Is the motion seconded?

I stand with great pleasure to second the motion moved by the shadow Treasurer—very sensitive, the other side of the chamber.

Member for Page, can we just get to the motion, please, instead of pointing out members on the opposite side. Please get to the point of the motion which you are now seconding, and which you have less than 10 minutes to prosecute.

Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, with the great deal of respect, I am going to get to the essence of the motion, but I'm just raising a point which is very valid within this parliamentary democracy chamber. I made the point that members opposite are very sensitive, obviously, about this motion. I understand why they're very sensitive about this motion. As the shadow Treasurer has mentioned, it's a really important part of why we want to refer this legislation to the economics committee. This is a really important part of why we're doing this. Every member opposite knows that it was deceitful of those opposite the way they campaigned at the last election. Those opposite said they weren't going to introduce this legislation, so I understand the sensitivity on the other side, but it's an important part about this motion.

Member for Page, can you get to the motion, please.

With all due respect, I am talking to the motion. The motion I'm talking about is the fact that we are referring this to an economics committee because this wasn't debated. The fact that this didn't go to an election and the fact that this wasn't debated publicly so the Australian public could get their heads around what this legislation would mean were never debated, so the fact that we're referring this to the Standing Committee on Economics is a really important part. Now, with all due respect—and I have high respect for you, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour—if you are saying to me right now that in this chamber I can't look to the other side and say they're very sensitive about this because they went to an election saying they wouldn't do this, which is part of the reason we're moving this motion, then democracy in this chamber is getting to a dangerous part.

Member for Page, if I can just interrupt, I'm telling you to directly be relevant to the motion, but also to direct your comments to me in the chair.

I am.

No, you're directing them to the other side. I'm asking you, member for Page, to direct your comments to me in the chair.

Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, I was. I said to you, Deputy Speaker, that members opposite are very sensitive about this because they didn't take it to an election, and we are referring this to a committee. I referred that with all due respect through you, Deputy Speaker, and I will continue to direct my remarks through you. Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, for a motion such as this about referring something to the committee, in 13 years of being in this chamber, I haven't seen people opposite be so sensitive. I'm commenting on that and it's relevant for me to comment on that, because I would be sensitive too if I were sitting opposite and I was a member of a government that implemented a policy that they said they wouldn't implement at the previous election. It's very appropriate that I mentioned that, Deputy Speaker.

I want to go to an example, because I think those opposite also are trying to paint anyone who has a trust as somehow some rich person who is avoiding tax, which is not the case. There's a lovely lady who cuts my hair. They have three businesses: a hairdressing business; her husband's a diesel mechanic, so they have a diesel mechanic business; and they have a bus run. Their family has three businesses that they are operating. As soon as she heard this through the budget, she said, 'Kevin, what would this mean for me?' I told her, 'This will not be good for you.' These aren't rich people. They're protecting income through different—

You're giving financial advice, are you?

I don't know what that interjection was, Deputy Speaker, but I'm sure you'll take note of those. These aren't rich people, but these people did not go to the election knowing that the government of the day was going to do something they said 57 times they wouldn't do and was going to change the whole modus operandi of their business.

The other reason I think this has to be referred to the committee is that this was quite rushed. While they're saying they're doing consultation now, they didn't do consultation before the budget. There were lots of unforeseen ramifications for this, and we've seen lots of backdowns and things around this legislation because they didn't foresee what this would do.

The other thing that's really important about this is in relation to the compliance costs. You know who the great winner of this is going to be: tax accountants. We have a productivity crisis in this country right now. This isn't going to be helped by new, complicated legislation, where everyone who runs—I'm sure you're aware, Deputy Speaker, that 350,000 small businesses across this country use these structures to protect income, or, as with the example I just gave you, they might have multiple different businesses. A diesel mechanic business is very different from a hairdresser, which is very different from a bus run. That required them to have a trust structure, as recommended by their accountant. This is going to throw everything up in the air for that young family and the way they conduct their three businesses, and the compliance costs for them are going to increase. So, when they go and see their tax accountant, it means the cost of that is going to go through the roof as well. Again, this is not a big ask, and I know those opposite are very sensitive because of this. But the chaos that this has caused—we've seen charities come forward because of the unforeseen ramifications for them. We've seen lots of small businesses have to reallocate or dispose of certain assets or whatever—and the tax implications it's going to have on that.

I am going to close on the point that I made at the start. I think it's important as to why it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics. I think there is great disappointment within the Australian public about the political system in Australia, and part of that is a trust issue. The trust issue is a big issue. To repeat what I was saying at the start, part of the reason that I think the economics inquiry is an important part of this is that this wasn't consulted on, this wasn't taken to an election, this wasn't explained to the Australian public, how this would work wasn't explained to the 350,000 small businesses across Australia and it wasn't publicly debated. Again, I think this is a small ask. I think the government has lost a lot of trust, with all due respect, from the Australian public with these tax increases, because, again, this is a tax increase. The bottom line of this is that this is a tax increase, and I think they would regain some of the trust lost if they did allow a parliamentary committee to go through a process. As the shadow treasurer said, they chair the committee, so they can control how that committee works. But this would be a really important thing to do to regain trust of the Australian public and the Australian people.

I had a small business come to me the other day about this. They said, 'Why do you think the government is doing this?' I said, 'With all due respect—and I say this as a matter of fact—there are probably not a lot of members opposite who've had a small business where they've used a trust structure and they've had two or three operations.' As I've said before, you're a diesel mechanic over here, you've got a bus run there, you're a hairdresser there—I don't think any of those opposite have ever used a structure like this to manage or protect income or to disperse it differently because of which members of the family are involved with different parts of their business. I think those opposite don't understand it. With all due respect, I think they don't understand it. I think this was rushed. I think it's disappointing that they do.

I think what we've seen since the legislation was introduced is the other reason this needs to go to the parliamentary committee, as suggested by the shadow treasurer. I think there are a lot more unforeseen consequences of this legislation. That needs to be fleshed out before this legislation is introduced and does a lot of harm, because we know, when this government talks about tax reform and when this government talks about tax in general, they are always, always talking about tax increases. This is going to have a lot of consequences on productivity in our country. It's going to have a lot of consequences on compliance costs in our country. So I support this motion moved by the shadow treasurer.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Nicolette Boele Colin Boyce Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Pat Conaghan David Farley Andrew Gee Helen Haines Garth Hamilton Andrew Hastie Alex George Hawke Kevin Hogan Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Dai Le Julian Leeser David Littleproud Michael McCormack Melissa McIntosh Zoe McKenzie Llew O'Brien Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Wilkie Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Libby Coker Julie Maree Collins Emma Comer Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Cassandra Fernando Ali France Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Matt Keogh Peter Khalil Ms Catherine Fiona King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost Rob Mitchell David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Clare O'Neil Alicia Payne Fiona Phillips Tanya Joan Plibersek Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Amanda Louise Rishworth Tracey Roberts Michelle Rowland Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Anne Stanley Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee; Report

On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's Report 518: inquiry into the 2023-24 and 2024-25 major projects reports.

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

by leave—Today will be the final time that the committee does table a report into the Defence Major projects report, but it will not be the end of the parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's scrutiny of Defence expenditures.

A government member: Hear, hear!

Thank you, Former Chair. The Major projects report has served as a landmark of Defence accountability for eighteen years. What commenced as a response to poor visibility on the progress of major projects evolved over the years into a very technical document that has provided the data necessary for parliamentary scrutiny.

It has also provided for broader national discussions on Defence acquisitions, which remain some of the most expensive and complex projects undertaken by the public sector.

Conducted at the request of the committee, the MPR has reviewed 63 major projects and contributed to improvements in the performance of the Department of Defence in areas as diverse as risk management, project governance, financial reporting, records management, and lessons.

This report, the outcome of the committee's inquiry into the 2023-24 and 2024-25 major projects reports, finds that although there have been improvements in Defence performance, Defence projects continue to experience scope, budget and schedule difficulties, when compared to the original second-pass approval.

A particular focus of the committee in this report has been Defence's use of 'minimum viable capability' (MVC). The broad concept of MVC is one where Defence seeks to minimise the cost to taxpayers—which is obviously reasonable—while being able to acquire and integrate new technology and assets into the Australian Defence Force (ADF). However, it has caused a difficulty, or a challenge, as compared to the original purpose of the MPR, which did highlight specific milestones and points in which the committee was able to assess the acquisition of projects in accordance with Defence requirements.

Given the importance of parliamentary oversight and accountability, the committee has made the recommendation to clearly specify the details contained within the MVC, especially as they relate to projects identified to the committee.

Now, it is worth just taking a moment, for the benefit of the House, to understand how we got to this point and why we have chosen not to continue with the MPR. The request, or the advice, of not proceeding with the MPR did not originate from the committee; it originated from the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General themselves suggested that the compilation of this very, very comprehensive document, over time, was not serving the parliament adequately and was not serving the parliament in a way that gave proper parliamentary oversight.

Therefore, there is a better way, which the Auditor-General suggested and which obviously focused on things like their own performance audits—which have the ability for the Auditor-General to provide recommendations, as opposed to just reporting what is in the MPR, which is a crucial difference—as well as the parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit being able to specifically inquire into projects that it deems necessary, which we have done and we are doing, having already commenced two separate inquiries on two separate Defence acquisition projects.

I understand that the other place made a recommendation to continue with the MPR, but, actually, that recommendation doesn't heed the advice of the Auditor-General. I want to make clear that the public accounts and audit committee has had a proud history of overseeing our Defence acquisition. It is a responsibility of this committee to do so, but it will do so in a way which actually serves the parliament properly and doesn't just provide information for information's sake but is able to get to the bottom of acquisitions and inquiries that it sees as the most important ones or ones where there are the greatest issues. That is a far more effective way of having parliamentary oversight in this matter. I invite anyone, in either this place or the other place, to watch our public hearings when we continue to scrutinise the defence department, and I think it will be clear to anyone that we take this responsibility extremely seriously, and we will continue to do so.

In addition to the changes in reporting due to MVC, having noted that changing strategic circumstances were prompting Defence to classify increasing amounts of information in the MPR, the committee concluded scrutinising major Defence acquisitions through a single consolidated report was no longer fit for purpose. We needed to evolve, and that's exactly what we've done.

As a first step in this reformulation of Defence scrutiny, the committee's third recommendation is that Defence should provide information to the committee as requested, containing specific data on the projects the committee deems necessary. This will be specific information that assists the committee to audit and assess Defence's performance and governance of its major acquisition projects.

Further, the committee will increase its scrutiny of performance audits in the Defence portfolio, and we are already commencing that with our inquiry into the procurement of the infantry fighting vehicles Land 400 phase 3. We are also going to be consulting with the newly created Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence to ensure that we can assist them in the best way possible with their scrutiny and their oversight of Defence in their own newly formed committee in a methodical, robust and comprehensive way.

I want to thank the Auditor-General and her team for the exceptionally diligent and detailed work that they have done over the years in scrutinising the MPR and producing the MPR and scrutinising Defence acquisition. They are exceptionally hardworking and focused and professional public servants, and the committee is in great debt to their work. We appreciate their advice and their collaboration and the constructive relationship that they have with the committee, and I think that we owe them a great thanks.

I also want to thank the secretariat for all of their hard work in preparing this, especially Dr Fiona Allen, who was the lead secretariat for this report, obviously working with Jenny Adams, who is an outstanding secretary of the committee. I'm very grateful for her ongoing counsel and all of her work in assisting me in steering the committee.

But I also do want to thank the Department of Defence for assisting in the process of the MPR over the years. I think it is a healthy thing where the department comes to the parliament and answers questions on Defence acquisition. I understand that there are genuine strategic concerns that the department has that they didn't have when the MPR initially was formed. However, having that relationship with the parliament is essential, and the public accounts and audit committee will continue its role in scrutinising Defence procurement.

Defence will continue to be scrutinised—it will evolve; it will be more focused—but it is not going to disappear. The same concerns that motivated the committee to act almost 20 years ago today are still relevant and, unfortunately, we face a more complex strategic environment and the stakes are even higher. Therefore, we must continue our work. I thank the committee members, I thank the deputy chair and I commend the report to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Their courage, our responsibility: the continuing operation of the National Redress Scheme and Australia’s commitment to survivors.

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

by leave—It is both a profound responsibility and a deeply personal privilege to table this report on the continuing operation and future of the National Redress Scheme, Their courage, our responsibility.

As chair of this inquiry, this past 12 months, the committee and I have been committed to ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the scheme's operation, including the challenges, barriers and opportunities for improvement identified by support services and, most importantly, survivors who have engaged with the scheme.

Particular attention has been given to understanding what is required to provide meaningful survivor centred and trauma informed redress for those the scheme was established to support and how to process the growing number of applications.

Since this inquiry commenced on 30 October 2025, the committee has received 54 submissions, including 36 from organisations and government agencies, and has heard from survivors with lived experience, advocacy bodies, support services and government representatives.

Thank you to all of you for your submissions and contributions to this inquiry.

Your contributions have informed the 31 recommendations in the report. Some of these include ensuring a survivor centred scheme grounded in trauma informed practice, the case for an extension beyond 2028, preserving capability through increased resourcing, ensuring the integrity of the scheme and building a lasting legacy.

The National Redress Scheme is a world first initiative, established in 2018 in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

It represents Australia's most significant national effort to acknowledge the abhorrent harm caused by institutional sexual abuse and provides survivors with a pathway to recognition, redress and support outside the court system.

When the scheme was established, it was anticipated that around 60,000 survivors would apply.

Today, more than 85,000 applications have been received, with indications the numbers may reach 109,000, nearly double the projected applications. These figures are distressing. They reveal a level of abuse and institutional failure far greater than anticipated.

As a survivor of sexual abuse as a child, I approached this inquiry with both the responsibility entrusted to me as chair and an understanding of the lived experience that so many survivors carry.

This was never simply an inquiry about legislation, administration or government programs.

It was about people.

We heard from survivors about disrupted education, unemployment, poor health, isolation, anxiety, depression and difficulties forming and sustaining relationships.

We heard how trauma can re-emerge throughout a person's life - through parenthood, relationships, illness, ageing and grief. We heard healing and recovery don't meet an administrative timeline or end date. They are lifelong.

This scheme exists because survivors spoke up and have continued to these past eight years.

No scheme can undo what was done.

But a scheme such as the National Redress Scheme can:

It can say clearly: what happened to you was wrong.

You are believed.

You deserve to be heard, supported and respected.'

Throughout this inquiry, the most important voices were those of survivors.

The courage of survivors who shared their experiences with the committee cannot be overstated. Many revisited some of the most painful experiences of their lives so that others might be better protected into the future. Your courage has helped shape this report.

The committee heard that the scheme has made a genuine difference in the lives of many.

For some survivors, redress was the first formal acknowledgement from an institution that the harm inflicted upon them had occurred.

For others, counselling, psychological support, personal responses and simply being heard were every bit as important as financial compensation.

But we also heard really clearly where the scheme must improve.

Survivors described lengthy delays, difficulty accessing records and processes that could feel both overwhelming and retraumatising.

We heard concerns about high-control groups, unresolved claims, legal fees, claim farming and the barriers faced by some of the most vulnerable applicants.

We heard trauma-informed practice cannot be an aspiration. It must be embedded in every stage of the scheme.

That means compassion, dignity and respect - alongside accountability, good governance and integrity.

Throughout this inquiry I met survivors who had only recently learned about the scheme.

Others told us they had spent years deciding whether they were emotionally ready to engage and only recently disclosed their experiences to family members or support services.

The committee also heard compelling evidence that the scheme should continue beyond 2028, with the extension of the deadline for applications to 2027 and the continuation of the scheme until all applications are finalised.

These recommendations require serious and urgent consideration.

The inquiry also heard that the support surrounding the scheme must not disappear when the scheme eventually concludes.

Counsellors, advocates, legal assistance providers, survivor organisations and support services have developed invaluable expertise in supporting people experiencing complex trauma.

That expertise must be preserved because survivors' needs will continue, and Australia's responsibility must continue alongside them, because recovery from abuse is lifelong.

The National Redress Scheme must leave more than a record of payments made and applications processed.

It must leave a lasting legacy.

Future survivors should not have to wait for another national reckoning before receiving support, recognition or access to justice.

And, importantly, support and integrity must go together.

A survivor-centred scheme must also be a scheme of integrity. Strong safeguards against fraud, claim farming and exploitative legal practices must protect survivors and ensure redress reaches those for whom it is intended.

As the scheme enters its final phase, rigorous assessment, quality assurance and appropriate fraud prevention and enforcement will be essential.

I want to thank my fellow committee members, particularly: the deputy chair, Senator Dean Smith; the member for Griffith; Senator David Shoebridge; and Senator Richard Dowling.

Your collaboration and commitment to this inquiry have resulted in a bipartisan support for this report.

I also extend sincere gratitude to the committee secretariat, whose professionalism, expertise and dedication were central to this report. Thank you personally to Eva Glisich and to Joel Bateman.

To every redress support service who contributed to this inquiry: thank you for your commitment to sharing your experiences and recommendations.

And, most importantly, to every survivor: thank you for your courage, your honesty and for entrusting us with your stories.

This report is dedicated to you, every victim-survivor of institutional child sexual abuse.

May it contribute to a future in which survivors are heard, believed, supported and respected.

May it strengthen accountability and drive further reform.

The impacts of institutional sexual abuse endure. And so too must our commitment to justice, healing, redress and prevention.

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Public Works Joint Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee; Reference to Federation Chamber

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Northern Australia Joint Committee; Report

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's report entitled Developing the north is not a catchphrase.

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

by leave—Today we table the first report into our emerging industries inquiry for the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. This is the first of several themed reports we plan to table.

Northern Australia is vibrant, resilient and strategically important. It is Australia's gateway to South-East Asia, it is the home to some of the most pristine and unique natural environments in the world, and it is central to our resource, agriculture and pastoral industries.

It is, in every sense, a region of immense national importance and opportunity. Northern Australia has the potential to safeguard our national future prosperity. It is critical, however, that this development delivers lasting benefit for the people who live there.

The reality is that we in the north do not enjoy the same level of services and quality infrastructure as those in the south. This is not new. Governments of all colours over many decades have struggled to overcome this.

This report seeks to learn from the northern Australian development to date and outline how we might improve the structures which underpin northern development.

The Albanese government has committed substantial resources across a range of portfolios, and there are many organisations and agencies doing important work across the north. However, we will only have a lasting impact if we coordinate, co-invest and complement the work of each other. To support and enhance this, this report recommends a review of the governance framework for northern Australia.

In extension of this, the report recommends the consideration of a northern Australia statutory authority. Officials work very hard in the Office of Northern Australia, yet the scale of the work that they need to undertake is massive. This recommendation seeks to identify areas where they can be further empowered.

Our committee has also called for continued investment in northern led research and innovation. It is imperative that we continue to undertake research in the north and we work to ensure that the northern expertise informs local development.

An additional challenge which this report addresses is the massive pipeline of infrastructure development for northern Australia.

The government is investing heavily in the north through a number of different vehicles. To help streamline this investment, we recommend Infrastructure Australia reinstitute its northern Australia infrastructure audit.

This will provide a forward plan of major projects, allowing communities to have visibility of which projects are coming up. It will also help ensure workforce planners have the line of sight that they need to deliver these projects.

This report recognises that, to address structural barriers in northern Australia, we need strong cross-portfolio and cross-jurisdictional collaboration. In particular in remote communities, a wide range of actors need to be brought together to work towards a common goal. That is not always easy, but it is critical.

This committee has held remote hearings in the Kimberleys and the Top End of the Northern Territory, and we will continue next year with our remote schedule. Our job is to bring the voices of the north to Canberra and to keep this parliament focused on this vitally important region.

I want to thank the members of our committee for their commitment and contribution. There are not many of us in northern Australia, but the collegiality and commitment we share for our home is very important. I want to thank the deputy chair for her work in this inquiry and her contribution also. Working in a bipartisan way to deliver the north for the north has never been more important.

In the member for Brand, we are lucky to have a hardworking Minister for Northern Australia. The minister understands the issues of the North and, most importantly, she speaks frankly and with purpose when it comes to northern Australia. This report seeks to ensure the systems which operate across northern Australia are streamlined, coordinated and effective and that they support the continued advocacy of the minister. Some of these recommendations will require further conversations, but the important part is that we have that conversation. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of this day for the next sitting.

Northern Australia Joint Committee; Reference to Federation Chamber

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

BILLS Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026; Second Reading Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026

Australia needs to take a closer look at carbon credits and offsets. The stakes are high. Like it or not, carbon markets now play a significant role in Australia's emissions reduction framework. Well over $1 billion flows through carbon projects in this country every year. Major industrial facilities rely too much on carbon credits to meet their obligations under the safeguard mechanism. Governments, businesses, farmers and investors all have a growing interest in the success of our carbon market. For Australians to have confidence in the role that carbon credits play as we transition our economy to net zero emissions by 2050, those credits must represent real, measurable and additional emissions reduction. Regrettably, however, that confidence is in short supply. For years, scientists, economists, environmental organisations and market participants have expressed concern about whether or not Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, generally represent the emission reductions that they are claimed to represent.

At the same time, many of Australia's biggest polluters have relied more and more heavily on offsets—more heavily, in fact, than they have tried to reduce emissions within their own operations. While offsets may have a role to play in Australia's transition to a clean economy, they were never intended as a pay-to-pollute scheme through which companies can continue polluting rather than undertaking meaningful onsite abatement. The basic principles which guide the use of offsets are well established and straightforward. First, reduce emissions wherever possible. Second, transition to cleaner technologies and energy sources. And third, and only then, offset residual emissions that cannot be eliminated.

But our biggest polluting companies are buying record amounts of carbon credits, while the heavy industry sector reduced climate pollution by just 2.3 per cent in 2024-25. Mining giant Rio Tinto was Australia's largest user of carbon credits under the safeguard mechanism scheme, surrendering 1.2 million credits in 2024-25. The company's published climate reporting shows that its global scope 1 and scope 2 emissions barely moved last year, reducing from 31.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to just 31.5. Several other coal and gas companies, like Woodside, Glencore and Peabody, are prodigious users of carbon credits, while the top 10 users account for almost 60 per cent of all credits surrendered. This pattern has contributed to understandable and rational public scepticism about the role of carbon credits in our climate framework.

Perhaps the most influential and respected body of work regarding ACCU methodologies has come from Professor Andrew Macintosh and his colleagues at the ANU, who have argued consistently that Australia's carbon credit regime has failed to deliver real and additional carbon abatement. Professor Macintosh has described the scheme as a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs, including private households who purchase ACCUs to offset their personal emissions. These concerns led to the commissioning of the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units, chaired by Professor Ian Chubb. The Chubb review concluded that the ACCU scheme was essentially sound but made 16 recommendations to improve its governance, transparency, confidence and integrity. The government accepted those recommendations in principle, but the review's central conclusion was not widely accepted. Scientists, climate advocates and environmental organisations argued then, as now, that legitimate concerns about the integrity of methodologies used to calculate the efficacy of carbon offsets have been consistently understated or overlooked. The central concern then, as it is now, was whether the credits being generated represent genuine emissions abatement.

The controversy surrounding the review itself reflects the broader challenge confronting this parliament as we debate this bill. For carbon credits to play a substantial role in Australia's race towards net zero we have to have confidence that every credit represents a real environmental outcome. Complicating this trust exercise is the reality that carbon credits will always be an imperfect solution. Besides the imperative that credits function as the option of last resort for companies and organisations to reduce their emissions after all other avenues have been exhausted, as climate scientist organisations like the Climate Council have emphasised, there is no guarantee that carbon stored in land based offsets will remain permanently stored there. Regenerated forests can be destroyed by fire, by flood and by drought, all of which are increasing in frequency and intensity due to climate change. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to carbon offsets.

It's also against this backdrop that the Chubb review proposed 16 very sensible recommendations to strengthen governance and transparency. This bill now seeks to implement many of them, and one of the most welcome elements of the bill is its focus on transparency and on public disclosure. While Australia's carbon credit methodologies are publicly available, confidence in the scheme depends on more than access to legislative rules. Australians should be able to access the data and the evidence needed to independently scrutinise project outcomes and assess whether carbon credit projects are delivering the genuine emission reductions that they claim. This bill takes useful steps in that direction. It strengthens independent oversight through the creation of a carbon abatement integrity commission. It expands publication and information-sharing powers. It establishes mechanisms to respond when carbon credit methodologies pose integrity risks. And it strengthens the compliance framework that underpins the ACCU scheme. All of these are good, but there's still a lot more to do. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, IEEFA, has argued that the transparency provisions could be further strengthened through the publication of facility-level measurement methodologies, greater visibility around methodological changes, and disclosure of baseline adjustments when reporting methods change. These are sensible proposals.

The bill also contains important reforms on First Nations consent and native title. Indigenous-led carbon projects can create meaningful opportunities for First Nations communities by supporting ranger programs and land management activities, generating employment and providing an ongoing source of income for traditional owners and Indigenous organisations. These opportunities have to be built on genuine consent and partnership, which is why I support the measures in this bill that strengthen free, prior and informed consent for projects affecting Indigenous land and interests. I also urge the government to strike a careful balance between First Nations participation and timely project approval. It's absolutely important that traditional owners participate meaningfully in decisions affecting projects on their land. But at the same time, governments must ensure that consent arrangements remain clear, practical and workable. Communities deserve meaningful participation, but project assessment processes must also remain sufficiently predictable to support investment and development.

While there's much to support in this legislation, there are also areas where further attention is required. The first concern is the proposed carbon abatement integrity committee. The creation of an independent integrity body is a step in the right direction. The Chubb review identified the need for stronger governance and enhanced independent oversight of the ACCU scheme. The establishment of the carbon abatement integrity committee will address some of those concerns. But as the Environmental Defenders Office has argued, stronger protections could further reinforce that committee's independence. These could include requiring methodologies to be reviewed on a regular and transparent basis so that emerging scientific evidence can be incorporated and integrity risks identified before they become entrenched.

The EDO has also advocated for stronger conflict-of-interest safeguards so that decisions about methodology, development and approval remain independent of commercial interests. It's argued that the committee should be able to initiate its own reviews of methodologies where integrity concerns arise, rather than relying solely on ministerial direction. Such reforms would help ensure that the integrity framework remains responsive, evidence based and capable of maintaining public confidence in the ACCU scheme.

A second area requiring attention is the new integrity risk method declarations framework. The creation of a mechanism allowing intervention where methodologies present integrity risks is a positive development. But experts have raised concerns about whether or not the framework relies too heavily on ministerial discretion. The Smart Energy Council argues that integrity risk method declarations should be anchored in science and independent technical advice, not political judgement. Others have similarly emphasised the importance of strong governance and of independent integrity oversight.

Where significant integrity issues arise, it's my belief that decisions should be guided by transparent evidence and independent expertise, and that public trust will be lost if decisions appear vulnerable to political judgements. While this bill focuses on improving transparency and streamlining administration of Australia's carbon crediting scheme, it's the integrity of the offsets themselves which most concern experts and Australian communities. A high-integrity carbon market has to satisfy several criteria: it must generate genuine emissions reductions; it must employ robust and evidence based methodologies; it must operate transparently and minimise conflicts of interest; and it must avoid and prevent greenwashing. This legislation represents an important contribution towards that goal, but it should not be regarded as the final word.

The government's legislative response to the Chubb review is only one step in a much larger process. There remains considerable work ahead. Questions remain—questions regarding methane measurement and reporting, regarding methodology development and regarding how ACCUs and Safeguard Mechanism credits are being excessively relied upon to meet compliance obligations under the Safeguard Mechanism. Most importantly, there is much work to be done to rebuild trust in carbon credits. Serious questions are still being asked. Until strong governance, public accountability and genuine environmental benefit can be demonstrated, those questions will persist. Most importantly, Australians expect a carbon offsets regime that treats credits as supplementary to deep and sustained emissions reduction, not a substitute for it.

For those reasons, I support the intent of this bill, while encouraging the government to continue strengthening the integrity, the transparency and the independence of Australia's carbon credit framework in the years ahead.

I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. For a community like Newcastle, climate change is not an abstract debate. It's about the future of our coastline, the health of our environment, the jobs our kids will have, and whether a city that has powered Australia for generations can remain an energy powerhouse in a very different energy economy. Newcastle knows what transition looks like. We know that change can be difficult, but we also know that change creates opportunities and that standing still is simply not an option. For too long, Australia's climate debate was trapped between denial and division under the former coalition government. We cannot afford to go back there. We need to reduce emissions, protect our environment and build a clean energy economy that creates good, secure jobs in the Hunter. That's why this bill matters.

If carbon credits are going to be part of Australia's transition to net zero, Australians need to be able to trust them. They need to know that a credit represents real action, that the rules are transparent, that projects have proper oversight and that government can act when a method raises serious integrity concerns. But integrity and certainty can go hand in hand. Carbon projects can require significant upfront investment and, particularly in the land sector, long-term commitments. Businesses, landholders, project developers, investors and buyers need confidence that a credit represents genuine abatement and that the rules are transparent and predictable.

The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, ACCU, is an important part of Australia's climate policy framework, but no climate policy should be set and forget. The scheme has been subject to independent reviews, as it should be, including the Chubb review and reviews by the Climate Change Authority. Importantly, the Chubb review found that the ACCU Scheme was fundamentally sound, while also recommending improvements to strengthen its integrity, transparency and governance. That's how you would expect things to go. This distinction matters because you can and should be strengthening a scheme—we always want to strive for improvements in every policy framework—but you've got to be able to strengthen that scheme without creating the impression that the existing ACCUs or the framework itself is somehow inherently unreliable, because that is not the case.

This bill strengthens the integrity, transparency and administration of the scheme. It strengthens consent requirements for projects on native title and claimed native title land. It establishes a new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee with stronger expertise, independence and transparency. It gives government new powers to manage methods where there are serious integrity concerns, and strengthens compliance and relinquishment requirements. It also makes targeted changes to the new vehicle efficiency standard to ensure the scheme operates as intended. This is all about making sure Australians have confidence in the system.

I know some people are sceptical of carbon credits. We often hear it in this chamber. But an offset should never become an excuse for a major emitter to simply keep polluting. Carbon credits should complement genuine emissions reductions, not replace them. The government's climate policy must continue to drive down emissions at the source, but there will be emissions that are difficult to eliminate immediately, particularly in sectors where technology is still developing. For those residual emissions, high-integrity carbon credits can have a role. A carbon credit should represent genuine, measurable and lasting abatement. It should not be a licence to pretend the pollution has disappeared. This bill strengthens the system that makes those judgements and gives government a mechanism to respond when a method no longer meets integrity standards. We should improve the system because we take it seriously.

Getting this framework right matters particularly for industries that are the hardest to decarbonise. We don't have to look very far in Newcastle to understand what that means. Take Orica on Kooragang Island in my electorate. Orica is one of Newcastle's major industrial employers, and its Kooragang Island facility produces ammonia, an essential input for agriculture, mining and manufacturing. Decarbonising a facility like this is a massive undertaking, but Orica is investing heavily in doing exactly that. Its $37 million emissions-abatement project at Kooragang Island has reduced nitrous oxide emissions from its nitric acid plants by 95 per cent, with the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the site expected to be close to 50 per cent.

The project has also been approved as eligible to generate Australian carbon credit units, and Orica is taking that next step. Backed by a $432 million investment from the Albanese Labor government, it's progressing a renewable hydrogen project that will install a 50-megawatt electrolyser on Kooragang Island. Once operating, that renewable hydrogen is expected to displace around 7.5 per cent of Orica's natural gas use. MCi Carbon's plant Myrtle, also backed by this Albanese Labor government, is taking CO2 captured from Orica's ammonia production plant next door and turning it into materials that can be used in concrete, plasterboard and other building products. The plant is expected to capture around 2½ thousand tonnes of CO2 a year and produce around 10,000 tonnes of new materials.

The emissions from one industrial process become the input for another. Waste becomes a resource. This is what industrial decarbonisation looks like in the real world. It's hard work, and it doesn't happen overnight. These industries are not sitting idle. They are investing, innovating and working to reduce their emissions. But the scale of the transition is enormous. Think about industries like cement, aviation, shipping and energy-intensive manufacturing. Many were built decades ago around infrastructure and processes that no longer fit for a net zero economy. That means replacing gas with electricity, transforming production processes, rebuilding infrastructure and developing technologies that simply did not exist when these industries were established. We need to support these industries to reduce emissions as quickly as technology allows while continuing to invest in the technologies that will help them go further.

That's where high-integrity carbon credits can have a role. They can help address genuinely residual emissions while businesses invest in cleaner technologies and processes, but that only works if the credits themselves are credible. A tonne of carbon pollution cannot simply disappear because someone has purchased a certificate. There must be genuine abatement, transparency and accountability. That's precisely why strengthening Australia's carbon credit framework matters. Importantly, the Chubb review recognised the strength of the ACCU Scheme and identified opportunities to build on that foundation through improvements to integrity, transparency and governance. That's exactly what good policy should do: build on what works, learn from experience and continuously strengthen our frameworks. We should be focused on building confidence in the scheme, supporting high-integrity carbon abatement and ensuring ACCUs continue to play a vital role in Australia's emissions-reduction efforts.

The ACCU Scheme is not simply about helping businesses manage their emissions. It also creates a commercial incentive for Australian businesses and landholders to undertake projects that avoid emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere. In the land sector, that can mean environmental plantings, revegetation and changes in land management. Those projects require people—project developers, ecologists, foresters, nursery workers, contractors, carbon specialists, monitoring teams and land managers. The ACCU Scheme and the safeguard mechanism are helping create an Australian carbon industry, directing private capital into regional landscapes and supporting Australian jobs. In Newcastle, this emerging industry is already creating jobs. Businesses such as Carbon Neutral, based within the University of Newcastle's innovation ecosystem, are developing carbon projects right around Australia, bringing together carbon science, land management and private investment. Newcastle isn't only home to those traditional industries that are having to carbonise; it's also becoming home to businesses supplying the expertise, technology and projects that make transition possible.

There is an important connection here with investment certainty. The safeguard mechanism creates a durable domestic source of demand. For covered facilities, emissions baselines are generally declining by 4.9 per cent each year through to 2030. That provides an incentive for direct industrial abatement and for investment in high-integrity Australian ACCUs, where residual emissions remain. If we get integrity, confidence and investment certainty right, we can mobilise private capital into genuine abatement while supporting new industries and jobs. That's good for the climate, regional Australia and Australia's industrial competitiveness.

We should not be asking hard-to-abate industries to choose between pretending their emissions don't exist and shutting down. We should be driving and giving them a pathway to decarbonise. Newcastle is already showing what that pathway can look like. We have companies investing in emissions reductions, researchers developing new technologies, workers with skills to build and operate them and a growing ecosystem of businesses that can turn industrial decarbonisation into new jobs and industries. It's not about giving industry a free pass. This is about giving industry a pathway. If Australian companies want to compete in a world increasingly demanding lower carbon products, we need credible mechanisms that help them reduce emissions, while the next generation of technologies comes online.

Australia also has an opportunity to become a significant producer of high-integrity carbon abatement. That means supporting projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere, avoid emissions, restore landscapes and improve land management while ensuring the carbon abatement itself is properly measured and credited. We have spent generations building Australia's industrial economy. Now we have the opportunity to use that expertise to build its clean industrial future. We can create skilled jobs, attract investment and develop technologies and expertise that can ultimately be exported around the world. And we can show that a region built on heavy industry can also lead Australia's transition to net zero.

We should also be honest about how we get there. Australia lost years of investment, certainty and the time that we could have been spending building those industries and infrastructure that we now need. For almost a decade, the coalition spent too much time fighting the reality of climate action rather than preparing Australia for the future. Anyway, that's why this government's getting on with the job. We don't have any time to waste. We've legislated emissions reduction targets. We're investing in renewable energy, supporting new transmission, backing manufacturing, investing in skills, strengthening the systems that underpin Australia's carbon market.

I want to make a particular point to the Greens political party, because Newcastle is a community that cares deeply about climate change and our natural environment. We want stronger action on climate change. We want clean energy. We want genuine emissions reductions, and the government's getting on with that. So I hope the Greens support this bill. There is a difference between demanding perfection and delivering real, substantive climate action. Let's not have a repeat of those mistakes of the past. The last time Australia had a major opportunity to take meaningful action on climate change, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme got voted down in the Senate, where the coalition and the Greens joined together. Let's not repeat that.

This bill has important strengths for First Nations communities. We want to see that First Nations knowledge and perspectives are embedded. They have got to be represented in Australia's carbon market. Ultimately, this bill is about trust—trust that the numbers are real, trust that the rules are clear, trust that projects are properly scrutinised, trust that people with expertise are making the decisions, and trust that First Nations rights are respected.

Newcastle has never been afraid of change. We're a city of workers and innovators and have been for generations. We've powered Australia. We've built things Australia needs, and now we've got the opportunity to help build what Australia needs next: a cleaner, more competitive and more sustainable economy. That's what this bill helps deliver.

When I was a tomato farmer, I learnt pretty quickly that you cannot run a successful business on uncertainty. You need to know what you're planting, what it's going to cost and whether you have a market when the crop is ready. You make decisions months in advance. You put your own money on the line, and, once you've planted a crop, you can't simply change direction halfway through the season. That's the reality of farming. It's the reality facing businesses right across the electorate of Dawson. Whether you're growing tomatoes, running cattle, operating a transport business or investing in a new project, you need clear rules and a reasonable chance of getting a return.

This Albanese Labor government seems determined to make everything harder. The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 is another example of the government making it harder to do business. Just scratch the surface, and what do we find? More red tape, more uncertainty and more power for the minister. It's like buying a tractor advertised as an upgrade, only to discover it costs more to run, takes longer to do the job and someone else is going to decide when you get to use it.

The coalition will oppose this bill because this legislation goes well beyond improving administration. It changes the rules around native title consent. It removes an important financial safeguard, and it gives the minister new powers to interfere with the existing carbon credit methods. These are serious changes with real consequences for regional Australia, and those consequences deserve proper scrutiny.

Let me start with the issue that concerns me most—the impact on farmers. Under the existing carbon credit system, eligible projects on native title land can be registered conditionally. Project proponents then have up to five years, through the first reporting period, to demonstrate that the necessary consent has been obtained. Native title holders already have strong legal protection. Their consent is required, and they have the right to negotiate. The coalition recognises these protections and their importance, but Labor wants to take this process much further. Under sections 27 and 28, a registered native title claim could become an eligible interest even before the claim has legally been determined.

The bill also introduces a more complicated two-stage consent process. Under section 32, the Clean Energy Regulator could revoke a project declaration before the first reporting period where there is no reasonable prospect of obtaining the required consent. Let's just think about that. A farmer could spend months planning a project. They could engage advisers and consultants, prepare the paperwork and commit their own money. Then they could find themselves caught in negotiations over a claim that has not yet been determined. And, all the while, the costs just keep mounting.

I know what it's like to have your own money tied up in a farming operation. I know the pressure of making decisions when your livelihood depends on getting them right. And I know farmers don't have endless time or endless money to spend navigating complicated government processes. Yet Labor wants to introduce another layer of uncertainty. And for what purpose? What problem is this fixing?

The government points to the 2022 Chubb review, but the review did not recommend everything contained in this bill. Its recommendation on native title dealt with obtaining consent before conditional registration. It did not recommend extending eligible interests to unresolved native title claims. This is a very important difference between encouraging consultation and creating an additional legal requirement that could delay a project. Labor is trying to present the two as though they are the same. They are not, and the people who understand these processes are raising serious concerns.

The National Farmers Federation has warned that negotiations under the existing arrangements can already be lengthy, difficult and expensive. It has raised the reports of landholders being asked to pay money upfront simply to arrange an initial meeting. Now imagine adding even more complexity to that process. AgForce Queensland has also warned that the proposed changes could increase costs, create uncertainty and delay projects for the agricultural producers. In Dawson, where agriculture is a major part of our economy, those concerns deserve to be heard. Our farmers already have to contend with floods, fires, cyclones, rising input costs and unpredictable markets. They don't need the Albanese Labor government adding legal uncertainty to that list. Farmers need to farm, not do unnecessary paperwork.

The concerns don't stop at the farm gate. Last week, the High Court handed down a significant decision concerning the Mount Pleasant coalmine in New South Wales. The court found that planning authorities had failed to properly consider scope 3 emissions—the emissions produced when Australian coal is used overseas. This has raised serious questions about investment certainty across the Australian resources sector. In Dawson, where the coal industry supports thousands of jobs, that uncertainty matters. From the mines of the Bowen Basin to the workers and businesses servicing them from Mackay, our community sectors deserve and depend on a strong resources sector. We cannot afford a situation where Australian jobs and investment face growing legal uncertainty over emissions produced when our coal is used in other countries. Against that backdrop, the Albanese government wants to introduce even more uncertainty into the carbon credit system. Our mining communities need clear rules. They need investment confidence and certainty that the industries supporting them regionally have a future.

That brings me to another deeply troubling part of this bill: taxpayers money. Under the existing legislation, the government must have regard to achieving carbon abatement at least cost when purchasing carbon credits. I think that's a sensible requirement. If you're spending public money, you should be looking for the most economical way to achieve that result. It's the same principle any family with a budget or a small-business owner understands: you don't spend more than you need to just because you can. But Labor wants to remove that least cost test and replace it with a 'value for money' test. That might sound harmless, but here's the problem. The legislation doesn't clearly define what that means. Instead, the accompanying documents point to a range of other considerations including environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits. Those considerations may have merit in particular circumstances, but they should not be an excuse for looser spending rules.

Under Labor's proposal, the government could justify paying more for carbon credits based on a broad assessment of those additional benefits, and taxpayers would be left asking: How much more? Who decides? Where is the accountability? Families across Dawson are watching every dollar. Small businesses are doing the same. They're dealing with higher power bills, higher mortgages, higher rents, higher insurance costs and the rising price of just about everything, and they expect the federal government to show the same financial discipline that they have to exercise every single day. Taxpayers deserve better than that. The government should be tightening accountability, not weakening it.

That leads me to my third concern: more power to the minister. Under part 3 of this bill, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy could make a method transition declaration when specified criteria are met. Those criteria include whether a carbon credit presents a material risk to the scheme. In practical terms, an existing project could be required to move away from the method it was established under. The declaration would be subject to parliamentary disallowance. That provides some oversight, but it doesn't eliminate the uncertainty facing people who have already invested. Imagine putting your savings into a project, following the approved rules and then discovering that those rules could change before you've earned a return. Would you feel confident making that investment? Would your bank? Would your business partners? Of course not. That's why the National Farmers Federation have argued that these powers should be limited to generally exceptional circumstances.

We've already seen how political decisions can create uncertainty in the carbon credit market. In September the government reached an agreement with the Greens during a dispute over the native forest management methodology. Changes affecting carbon credits associated with the proposed great national koala park were also announced. The full consequences remain to be seen, but it demonstrates why parliament should be cautious about giving ministers additional powers over established projects. For regional industries, investment certainty matters, and this bill risks undermining that. It also sits along Labor's safeguard mechanism, which is already placing pressure on major industrial facilities through declining emission baselines. The coalition has made it clear that we will scrap Labor's safeguard mechanism, because Australia's economic future depends on keeping our industry strong, competitive and capable of employing more Australians. Nowhere is that more important than in regional communities, like mine in Dawson.

When I look at this legislation I see the farmer wondering whether another investment is worth the risk, the contractor trying to keep local workers employed and the small-business owner who is already struggling with rising costs. And I see the families whose livelihoods depend on the success of those businesses. These are the people for whom I fear the consequences when Labor gets it wrong. They deserve certainty. They deserve fair rules. They deserve a government that treats their money with respect. Integrity is not achieved by creating more uncertainty, transparency is not achieved by weakening a clear financial test, and confidence is not achieved by giving a minister greater powers to change the rules.

The Albanese Labor government should refer these contentious provisions to a Senate inquiry—let the farmers speak, let the industry experts speak, let the people who actually operate under these laws speak, and then listen to them. The people of regional Australia should not be expected to pay the price of poorly designed policy. As a former farmer, I understand that you reap what you sow. If this government keeps planting uncertainty, adding costs and changing the rules, it cannot expect regional Australia to produce the investment, the jobs and the growth our country needs. Dawson deserves better. Australia deserves better. That is why I and the coalition will be opposing this bill.

As we debate this legislation and prepare to vote on it there really is one simple question that all of us in this chamber need to answer: are we prepared to implement the expert and independent advice on how to strengthen the integrity, transparency and accountability of Australia's carbon market? That is the question at the heart of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. Australia's carbon market has grown to become one of the largest and, indeed, one of the most respected carbon markets across the globe. Its success demonstrates that strong environmental outcomes can go hand in hand with economic opportunity and investment.

Listening to the member for Dawson talk about uncertainty, it is not lost on people who recall what happened under a decade of coalition government how dripping with irony his comments were. What we saw, in stark contrast to what we are seeing now, was 10 years of deep uncertainty when it came to carbon policy and when it came to the regulatory frameworks that not only businesses but also the broader community had to deal with. Those were dark days. They were dark days because businesses, small businesses and big businesses, had absolutely no idea what was happening, had no idea what legislation was coming down the pipeline next, had no idea how to plan for their businesses and their economic prosperity and had no idea how to hire or what skills to build. We cannot go back to those days.

The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme provides a mechanism for businesses, landholders, traditional owners and other participants to generate carbon credits by avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas emissions or removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it over the long term. Projects under the scheme deliver these practical outcomes in many different ways. Participants may adopt new technologies or modernise equipment and infrastructure, driving productivity at the same time. They can improve business operations and energy efficiency, adopting cheaper and cleaner ways of producing energy, or they can implement better land and vegetation management practices, helping protect our environment and incentivising better economic outcomes, incentivising better pricing for business and incentivising more sustainable outcomes across the deck.

It's working. Since 2011, the ACCU Scheme has delivered more than 190 million tonnes of emissions abatement through over 2,600 projects. The market is valued at more than $4 billion. That is a market that didn't exist until just a few short years ago. Critically, the scheme is an important part of Australia's plan to reduce emissions and achieve net zero by 2050. Beyond its contribution to climate goals, the scheme is generating significant economic, social and cultural benefits, particularly in regional and remote areas. ACCUs have become a new agricultural commodity, helping farmers and landowners to have the opportunity to diversify their income and to attract investment via activities such as soil carbon sequestration, plantation forestry and reforestation.

The scheme is also creating meaningful economic opportunities for First Nations communities, supporting employment, enterprise development and long-term investment. In doing so, it's helping Indigenous communities build that economic independence while maintaining strong connections to country and to culture. The scheme recognises and rewards the environmental value of traditional land management knowledge and practices, including strategic and controlled burning early in the dry season. These methods are expected to generate substantial economic returns, an estimated $7.7 billion, across northern Australia. Indigenous organisations are already playing a leading role in the sector, generating the majority of carbon credits produced through savanna fire management projects. This reflects the central role that First Nations communities continue to play in caring for country and delivering positive environmental outcomes at the same time. The income generated through these projects provides far-reaching benefits beyond emissions reduction. It supports stable long-term employment. It strengthens Indigenous ranger programs. It funds education and training initiatives, protects cultural heritage and enables First Nations communities to continue caring for country using knowledge that has been passed down through generations.

That's why the integrity and transparency of this scheme matter. When First Nations communities invest their expertise and resources into carbon projects, they deserve confidence in that system. They deserve to know that it operates fairly and effectively. Under the current carbon credits act, which established the scheme, carbon projects may be granted conditional registration on native title land and proceed for a period of up to seven years before the consent of native title holders is required. As Anna Boustead, CEO of the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, has said:

This legislation loophole has driven a 'land grab' of carbon projects, with hundreds of carbon projects registered over the last four years primarily by non-Indigenous carbon developers. Many of these projects were registered without consent from Traditional Owners.

This reflects findings from the independent 2022 Chubb review, which made 16 recommendations to improve the scheme. Recommendation 11 calls for amendments to the carbon farming initiative act so that ACCU projects cannot be conditionally registered on native title land without first obtaining the consent of native title holders. Closing this loophole will bring the scheme into closer alignment with that principle of free, prior and informed consent, strengthening the rights of First Nations peoples to have a genuine say in projects that are proposed on their country, on their land. In practice, this strengthening of First Nations consent requirements means there must be consent for the project application before it is registered and consent to how it will operate before any ACCUs are used.

The bill also strikes that balance between stronger protections and practical administration. While enhancing safeguards for native title holders and claimants, it also streamlines administrative arrangements for area based emissions avoidance projects. This will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens for eligible interest holders.

I want to take a moment to talk more about that principle: free, prior and informed consent. It's a cornerstone of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It's also a fundamental principle guiding the Australian Greens' engagement with First Nations issues. The Greens political party have stated that they will ensure Australia complies with those principles and all other international instruments that recognise the rights of First Nations peoples. If that commitment, that bond, that compact that the Greens political party has made is indeed genuine, then they will vote for this bill. Talk without action is the natural enemy of change, and if the Greens political party choose to tell the Australian people that this is what they believe, then they have to stump up and vote in the same way. You cannot say it without putting your vote behind it.

By strengthening requirements for free, prior and informed consent and improving the recognition of native title rights within the scheme, this legislation advances the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It ensures that First Nations communities have a stronger voice in decisions affecting their country and greater control over projects undertaken on native title land. Voting against these reforms means rejecting practical measures that give effect to that most important principle: free, prior and informed consent. Voting against these reforms means rejecting the strengthening of not only First Nations people's rights within Australia's carbon market but also the carbon market itself and the certainty that it grants to communities, First Nations peoples and, indeed, business. I therefore urge the Greens to support this legislation. In doing so, you will be supporting stronger protections for First Nations communities, greater integrity in this scheme and the implementation of principles that you have long advocated for.

This bill implements other amendments to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act. What they have in common is enhancing that integrity and transparency of the scheme. The amendments include the evolution of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee into the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. This new body will have expanded responsibilities and a stronger focus on ensuring the integrity of the scheme as it continues to grow. Critically, the new committee will be required to have First Nations representation, reflecting the importance that the Albanese Labor government places on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander input into the operation of the scheme.

This bill also transfers the responsibility for government purchasing of ACCUs from the regulator to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. The reforms will also make it easier for landholders to undertake a broad range of emissions reduction activities within a single project. It will allow both carbon sequestration and unrelated emissions avoidance activities to be credited under the same project. This will support the development of more flexible framework-style approaches.

This bill also implements amendments to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act to improve the administration of the new vehicle efficiency standard and to better align the operation of the scheme with its original policy intent. In particular, the amendments adjust the timing of key milestones within the new vehicle efficiency standard, including the calculation of interim emissions values and final emissions values, the timing for extinguishing liabilities and the expiry dates for NVES units. These changes will ensure that industry participants have a full two years to use, trade or extinguish NVES units that they have earned or received through transfers from other vehicle suppliers. This provides greater certainty and greater flexibility for businesses who are participating in the scheme.

The question I asked at the beginning of this speech should have a simple answer. It should not be a partisan question. These reforms should not become a political football. To quote Anna Boustead again:

Today's proposed amendments mark a meaningful shift towards recognising and protecting Indigenous rights and interests within Australia's carbon market …

As I said, support for this legislation is support for strengthening integrity and transparency. Support for this legislation is support for empowering First Nations people. Support for this legislation is support for ensuring that our carbon market continues to deliver for business, communities, First Nations people and all Australians.

I reflect on the member for Moreton's contribution there, mentioning dark days. There are indeed dark days in Australia, not from the period 2013 to 2022, when the coalition were last in government, but for the employees of the Kemerton Lithium Plant in my own electorate. Hundreds were laid off when that facility closed, citing the unviable cost of energy in Australia today and the unviable cost of business in Australia today. This bill, the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency)—so-called—Bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing accordingly.

Indeed, the member for Moreton reflected on business uncertainty, and I do wonder whether businesses around Australia today feel any sense of certainty when the taxation regimes that they face, through the extensive use of trusts, legitimately, by small businesses and farmers across Australia, are under attack from the Albanese Labor government. I wonder whether businesses feel any sense of certainty at all when it comes to their capacity to pay their tax bills with credit cards, which one minute was perfectly fine but the next was sneakily banned some eight hours after the announcement by the ATO that they would no longer accept small businesses paying their taxes by credit card, followed by a couple of texts flying around between journos and the PM and the Treasurer. And we find that that has suddenly been pushed out to 30 June next year.

This bill goes a long way beyond making just a few administrative changes—a little nip and a tuck, as the bill title would imply—and instead greatly expands Australia's native title regime and the reach that it has through doing business in Australia. It removes the least cost financial test and hands the Minister for Climate Change and Energy sweeping new carbon credit powers. These are deeply consequential amendments that the coalition simply cannot support.

Let's step through these in turn. The very significant expansion of native title changes and reach in Australia is effectively the principal concern that the coalition has with the bill. The reason for that is that, under the current arrangements, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 provides for the conditional registration of eligible offsets projects on native title land before the consent of eligible interest holders has been obtained. What that has meant in practice in the many years subsequent to the passage of that legislation—through the Gillard government, I might add—is that a project may be established for up to five years, which is the first reporting period, before it is required to provide evidence to the Clean Energy Regulator that the eligible interest holder's consent has been obtained to undertake that project. That's worked satisfactorily in our country since 2011, but this bill, in clauses 27 and 28, drastically upends that process. What the bill would actually mean going forward is that a mere claim to native title would become an eligible interest in the project. That doesn't mean that the title claim needs to exist at law; it doesn't mean that the title claim needs to exist—but rather that the claim has been made. And that means that a proponent for one of these projects, of which the government publicly says it is so desperately short, would need to, under the passage of this bill, actually engage in a consent process with anyone who sought to make a claim.

Just think about what that means for the business certainty that the member for Moreton seemed so interested in. It is simply extraordinary to involve people who might not actually have a claim at law in the approvals process for a carbon credits project. Amongst other things, this makes the approvals process so much more cumbersome for setting up a carbon abatement project, and that just flies in the face of the idea that we're desperately short of carbon credit union units in Australia.

At clause 32, the bill goes on, the Clean Energy Regulator would be allowed to unilaterally revoke a proponent's project declaration at any time prior to the first reporting period—five years, as we just said—if there is no reasonable prospect that the consent will be obtained between proponents and eligible interest holders. Just think about what that means for business certainty, where this decision can be unilaterally yanked by the minister at any point in the first five years of the project.

We, of course, acknowledge readily that native title laws have existed in Australia for well over 30 years. Although their composition has always been the subject of complex and significant national debate and, indeed, many protracted legal proceedings in various courts across Australia there has always tended to be a recognition by lawmakers in this place that there are practical limitations to the application of native title laws. That's why the bill that we have before us goes so much further than is acceptable, because it is the definition of 'mission creep' or 'scope creep' rather than a nip and tuck.

Let's turn to the issue at hand in terms of any bill that comes before the parliament. What are you actually trying to fix? What proposed change does this bill represent as a solution? Under the current carbon credits regime, native title holders enjoy absolutely rock-solid legal protections. We see that because these include provisions that a project proponent must obtain the consent of a native title holder and there is a built-in right to negotiate. This change not only upends that but also goes way beyond what the government's own report recommended.

In introducing this bill, the assistant minister asserted that the changes the bill is trying to make arise from the 2022 Chubb review. But, when you read the Chubb review, that's not the case. Recommendation 11 of that review was the only recommendation that went to issues around native title. It proposed that project proponents be prevented from conditionally registering projects prior to obtaining the consent of eligible interest holders. The review did not recommend an expansion of eligible interest holders to cover a mere claim of native title, which, as we said, is a claim that may not exist in law and might be vexatious in nature. Anyhow, the 2022 Chubb review did not recommend the expansion of eligible interests. In fact, the review went only so far as to state:

Proponents, in keeping with current industry best practice, should consider the need for, and the benefit of, consent from not only Native Title holders but also Native Title claimants.

That's a reasonable proposition. If this bill only adopted the recommendation of the Chubb review, then we might find ourselves in an entirely different position when it comes to supporting this bill. But the legal realities of expanding the native title regime are unclear at best. This is, as I said, an expansive and well-litigated part of Australian law. The reality is that by fiddling in an unconsulted way and an ill-considered way—this stuff is headed straight for the courtrooms of Australia.

According to the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, who support the bill—and I believe they have met with the assistant minister—11 per cent of Australia's landmass is currently under native title claim that's awaiting a decision to be made by the Federal Court as to the area's native title status. That is a huge part; 11 per cent of Australia's landmass is under a claim awaiting determination. That's before you open the door to any sort of vexatious claim that might be made under the expanded provisions should this bill pass the parliament.

In their submission to the prior consultation process on this bill, the National Farmers' Federation recommended that the government replace the regime and instead opt for a right to negotiate similar to that which applied under the future acts regime. The NFF, in making their submission, provided some particularly compelling evidence. They found that negotiations underway with the current regime are already difficult, protracted and not always conducted in good faith by all parties. They provided reports of landholders having to pay money upfront simply for an initial sit-down meeting with an eligible interest holder. If that's a feature that we want to become part of the Australian economy, I don't want any part of it.

Worryingly, the National Farmers' Federation went on to state that such events are not isolated. They reflect a pattern of behaviour experienced by the sector nationwide. They went on to say that the ACCU Scheme should not convert a prospective claim that has not yet been formally determined into an indefinite consent right. I believe that's a point that is strongly made. They're not alone though in raising concerns about the significant expansion of native title through this bill, which, as I said, is a wolf in sheep's clothing and not merely a nip and tuck.

AgForce Queensland, which represents 6,000 farmers who manage some 55 million hectares of land, argue that the proposed changes represent risks that create substantial uncertainty and significantly increase project establishment costs, transaction complexity and delays for agricultural producers. These are landholders who we want to be where they are ready, willing and able to undertake carbon abatement projects. These are landholders who otherwise are seeking to do the right thing and to invest capital in the production of carbon credit units—which, if we accept the government members' submissions on this bill, are desperately short and in demand and should be fostered. So this bill represents an own goal, when you consider those who already own the land in Queensland that we're talking about.

They're not alone. Other large consumers or users of carbon credits, including from the oil and gas industry, have raised substantial concerns with this proposal. They see that it creates investment uncertainty, which will reduce and delay ACCU supply. These are businesses that have nothing directly to do with the production of carbon units but, rather, rely on the ability to have a functioning ACCU market in Australia to meet the current requirements of the government's net zero legislative framework. So we either, as the coalition have suggested, take a knife to the net zero agenda of the government, bin the safeguard mechanism and accept that there is this uncertainty in the supply of ACCUs, or we reject this bill and the uncertainty it creates for the supply of ACCUs that Australian businesses are currently relying on. It's an own goal, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing and fundamentally it doesn't represent a step forward when it comes to dealing with these issues.

So our plan is, as I said, to get rid of the safeguard mechanism, because we've seen, in my own electorate, the impact of the carbon credits market, the net zero legislative agenda—driving up the cost of energy in Australia and driving a loss of jobs. Hundreds of jobs have been lost at Albemarle's Kemerton lithium refinery, and they cited that it was the cost of power and the cost of doing business in Australia that effectively shut that facility—a facility that represented hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment and never achieved nameplate production capacity.

But unfortunately the story from my electorate is far from the only one. Multiple facilities covered under Labor's carbon tax and the emissions safeguard mechanism have closed or are in the process of being shut down. In some cases there have been billion-dollar bailouts of those facilities to keep them online, as we've seen at Tomago and other places, like Whyalla. But while the energy minister wants to pursue his green dreams rather than supporting cheaper power in our country, the only large industrial facilities that depend on carbon credits under the safeguard mechanism that'll stay online are those bailed out by the poor old taxpayer.

That is not the limit of the economic madness that we see in pursuit of these policy goals, though, because of course the energy minister wants to put offshore wind turbines on Geographe Bay, directly related to carbon credits and this other legislative framework. Yet, on the government's own numbers from the CSIRO's GenCost report, offshore wind is three times more expensive than onshore wind, and that gap is increasing over time. So we've got a bill that will jeopardise the investment and will reduce and delay ACCU supply. We've got projects that aren't supported locally; indeed, they are actively rejected by their communities. And we've got legislative proposals before the parliament that say they're one thing—just a nip and a tuck—but represent a substantial step backwards when it comes to the supply of ACCUs. We've got only one choice, and that's to reject this bill.

The Albanese Labor government will be known as the government that fast-tracked Australia's renewable energy transition—a renewable energy transition that has been described as the biggest technological shift since the industrial revolution of the 19th century. And just as the industrial revolution shaped economies and societies, the renewable energy transition will change all Australians' lives for the better. It will mean cheaper energy because renewable energy is consistently demonstrated to be cheaper than gas or coal. It will mean a long-term vision for Australia's energy grid that guarantees a reliable and efficient source of power, taking advantage of Australia's abundance of natural resources like solar and wind. It will mean a more sustainable environmental footprint as we look towards meeting our emissions reductions targets.

The Albanese Labor government will be known as the government that met the energy moment, a government that isn't in denial about our global reality, a government that refuses to waste years on internal ideological squabbles, kowtowing to industry lobbyists while the world literally burns. While Australia and the world find themselves on the brink of environmental collapse, our friends in the Pacific watch sea levels rise and we all deal with the more frequent and stronger storms and freak weather that we've been facing. This government is prepared to act now to build the infrastructure that will shore up our energy resilience. This government is committed to leaving a world that is liveable for our children and grandchildren and the generations that follow. That is why the Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that Australia's carbon market, one of the biggest integrity schemes in the world, is fit for purpose, efficient and transparent.

Carbon credits incentivise big polluters to engage in emissions-reduction activities and help them meet their safeguard mechanism obligations. For example, they encourage industry to employ new technologies, upgrade their equipment or change their business practices to prioritise productivity and energy efficiency. Since 2011, carbon credits have achieved 190 million tonnes of abatement over 2,600 projects, amounting to a market value of more than $4 billion. Carbon credits are a crucial component of Australia's climate policy framework. They are a crucial part of Australia's objective to achieve net zero by 2050.

The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill strengthens and reinforces the regulatory framework around carbon credits. It will mean that consent needs to be sought for projects on native title land and before carbon credits can be issued. It will grant new powers to the minister to compel a project's transition to an alternative method where the current method poses a material risk to the integrity of the carbon credits scheme. A method is a set of rules and requirements that determine what activities are eligible for carbon credits. Methods cover a range of projects in agriculture, energy efficiency, landfill and waste, mining, oil and gas, and vegetation.

The bill will strengthen the compliance powers of the Clean Energy Regulator to reverse a decision where false or misleading information for a project has been identified and to issue fines rather than pursue a remedy in a lengthy and complicated court process. It will reassign responsibility for the buying of carbon credits from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, separating their powers and functions and avoiding conflicts of interest. It will streamline the administration of the Carbon Credit Scheme, facilitating easier transitions to new methods and providing the regulator with more flexibility to adjust audit frameworks and manage outstanding consents and regulatory approvals.

It will replace the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with a carbon abatement integrity committee, a body that will provide crucial advice to the minister and the secretary of the department, spearhead method development, perform compliance checks and routine reviews of methods and reviewed the crediting period extensions during which carbon credits can be claimed. The committee will require that at least one member be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and the bill will make changes to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, a single framework for reporting company information about greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. It will streamline the way in which this information is published and improve transparency by empowering the regulator to be able to require a more detailed publication of information.

The bill will make changes to the new vehicle efficiency standard. The new vehicle efficiency standard incentivises manufacturers to send more energy-efficient vehicles to Australia, giving Australian consumers more choice when it comes to electric and hybrid vehicles. The new vehicle efficiency standard has meant more Australians are purchasing more energy-efficient vehicles. In August this year, electric vehicles outsold petrol vehicles for the first time, an increase of 171 per cent on the same month last year. The bill improves the new vehicle efficiency standard by fixing the timing misalignment for vehicle suppliers, giving them a longer period in which to reduce the emissions value—what determines their eligibility for carbon credits—of the cars they import into Australia in any given year.

Australia's carbon market plays a substantial and meaningful role in reaching our 2050 net zero target. Our carbon market is one of the best of its kind in the world. This bill is about improving and maintaining the transparency, accountability and integrity of Australia's carbon credit scheme. It's about strengthening Australians' confidence in the system. This bill will help cultivate an environment in which emissions-reduction activities are an attractive proposition for investors who want to do their bit. It will support vital research and development in new emissions-reduction technologies. While striving towards our emissions-reduction targets, the economic benefits will flow to industries, local communities and landholders, and it will create more long-lasting jobs. This bill is a trifecta of successes. It will benefit the climate, it will benefit the economy and it will benefit Australian communities.

This important bill is just one plank of the Albanese Labor government's comprehensive mission to reduce the production of emissions in this country and to do what we can to pull ourselves back from the point of no return, from the point of complete climate disaster. It is non-negotiable. We need to do all we can to mitigate the effects of climate change, which are already currently being felt across the globe in economies and communities, while ensuring that Australians can affordably and reliably access the energy they need. We, unlike those on the opposition benches, have been steadfast on this question. The Albanese Labor government has set a target of between 62 and 70 per cent reduction on 2005 standard emissions by 2035, while those opposite have opposed this and just about every other climate target and have abandoned net zero by 2050. Our commitment to net zero by 2050 and our interim targets are practical and achievable. They're informed by scientific consensus and backed by industry.

Eighty per cent of global GDP is covered by national net zero commitments, with global investment in clean-energy projects amounting to over US$2 trillion. That is why we've introduced a reformed safeguard mechanism that will require that Australia's biggest polluters cut their emissions by five per cent every year and we've committed to making Australia's energy grid 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030. Australia is on track to meet these objectives while embracing technological changes along the way that will also improve the speed, efficiency and effectiveness of our methods.

The Albanese Labor government has made and continues to make record investments in renewable energy. Since we came into government, Australia's wind and solar capacity has increased by 60 per cent. We have had record levels of renewables in line with record demand for them. Coal and gas generation are at historic lows, which is good because these are the most expensive forms of energy. The reason that these power stations are closing is not because they've suddenly become greenies; it's because they are no longer economical. They can't compete against renewables. Renewables and batteries have been more accessible and affordable than ever before, all of which has translated to cheaper electricity bills for all Australians.

The government introduced a $1.7 billion energy savings package to help households, businesses and local governments to cut their bills. We've invested in clean energy right across the country, including a 30 per cent discount on solar batteries, an initiative that has experienced one of the highest uptakes in my electorate of Boothby and has been wildly popular across the country. This not only benefits those houses that put the batteries on but also drives down demand for expensive gas generated electricity in the evening, benefiting everyone by taking the peak down. From July this year, the government's Solar Sharer Offer has meant that retailers are now required to provide three hours of free power every day by tapping Australia's excess and abundant solar energy.

We have invested in the electrification of our economy, including, as this bill seeks, to reinforce the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, giving consumers more choice and better choice when it comes to electric vehicles. When we came to government, there were only 45 types of EVs on the market. Now there are over 160. When we came to government, there were no EV models under $45,000 on the market. Now there are eight models that can be bought for less than $45,000. To encourage greater uptake in EVs, the government has made EVs more affordable with tax discounts. On top of this, we are building more EV chargers right across the country. We've expanded clean fuel use by supporting green hydrogen and low-carbon liquid fuels in industry. We continue to harness new technologies to facilitate the renewable energy transition, and we will, with this bill, bolster Australia's carbon credit scheme.

Australia is primed to take the renewable energy transition to the next level, the biggest global energy shift since the Industrial Revolution. We have the policies to back it, the natural resources to give life to it and the technologies to facilitate it. The Albanese Labor government has a vision for Australia that recognises the global environment in which we exist. The coalition has opposed us at every turn. While we want Australia to be a renewable energy superpower, they would prefer that we languish in tired squabbles about the realities of climate change, denying what is before us. It is happening. Countries around the world are experiencing the effects of climate change every day now, and it's the Albanese Labor government that is committed to taking urgent and appropriate action. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. I think this is not an administrative tidy up. I think this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's fundamentally flawed, and I think it's a regressive net zero bill. It begins with extending expanding the native title regime and removing the least cost test. It gives the minister sweeping new powers over carbon credits. I think these are really consequential changes that will make Australia poorer and make it more difficult to do business in Australia and make it more difficult to develop our country and our resources. I think that's a retrograde step, because we need our economy to be strong and we need to be successful if we are to navigate all of the challenges that we face into the future.

The bill's most serious flaw is its expansion of the native title arrangements. Under the current act, an offsets project may be conditionally registered on native title land before consent is secured, but evidence of consent must be provided by the end of the first reporting period within five years, and sections 27 and 28 of this would make a mere native title claim an eligible interest, whether or not the title has been established at law, and impose a much more cumbersome two-stage consent process. Section 32 would let the Clean Energy Regulator revoke a project declaration before the first reporting period where there is no reasonable prospect of consent. What problem is this solving? Native title holders already have strong protections. Proponents must obtain consent, and holders retain a right to negotiate.

The change also goes beyond the Chubb review. Recommendation 11 opposed conditional registration before consent. It did not recommend extending eligible interests to mere claims. The review said, 'Proponents should only consider the need for and benefit of claimant consent.' The legal consequences for this are very unclear. The Indigenous Carbon Industry Network says 11 per cent of Australia's land mass is under native title claim awaiting Federal Court determination. The National Farmers' Federation recommends a right-to-negotiate model, similar to that which exists with the future acts regime, and it says, 'Current negotiations are already difficult, protracted and sometimes not conducted in good faith, including demands for upfront payment merely to hold an initial meeting.' These incidents, according to the National Farmers' Federation, reflect a pattern of behaviour experienced by the sector nationwide.

It's not just the National Farmers' Federation. Industry concern is more broad than that. AgForce Queensland—it represents some 6,000 farmers, managing 55 million hectares—warns that there is 'substantial uncertainty', higher establishment costs, greater complexity and delays. Woodside has raised concerns. AGL wants clarity on overlapping claims and how consent requirements can co-exist with timely project delivery. And the Business Council of Australia warns of unintended consequences and calls for 'specific guidelines for clear evidence requirements, standard forms and service level timeframes' to reduce delay and uncertainty.

Our concern, also, is that this would unleash a new wave of lawfare in Australia. The expansion risks unleashing this lawfare, delaying good-faith projects, driving up costs and pitting Australians against each other—without improving environmental outcomes. At a minimum, it requires deeper consultation and Senate committee scrutiny, involving farmers, legal experts and a broad sector across industry.

This bill also removes the least cost test, which currently requires carbon abatement purchases to avoid undue financial impact. Labor would replace that with an undefined and opaque 'value for money' test, allowing expensive credits to be purchased in pursuit of government policy. Now, the taxpayer should come first in this, but Labor's record doesn't inspire confidence. The cost of the Capacity Investment Scheme remains undisclosed. Rewiring the Nation has blown out by at least $1 billion—probably a lot more than that. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has risen from $2.2 billion to $8.5 billion. And the three regional hydrogen hubs have collapsed at taxpayers' expense. That's not to mention the $155 million set aside for COP, including $6 million for hotels in Fiji. The government owes it to the Australian people to be a lot more transparent about what the cost of this is. It can't just say, 'We're pursuing climate action, and it's the right thing to do, in our opinion.' You've got to disclose the costs of these things, and then we can have a debate in Australia about the costs and the benefits.

In addition, this bill gives the minister significant powers. Part 9 would give the minister the power to shut down carbon abatement projects by legislative instrument. Disallowance is not enough; the government has not shown that persistent noncompliance threatens this scheme or justifies such a broad power. And projects should not be torn up when the political fashions change. Again, the National Farmers' Federation has said that the power should 'be limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances', with proponents given time to transition to a new methodology, and we agree with that assessment.

This bill also supports the operation of the safeguard mechanism. From 2014 to 2023, the government was the largest buyer of carbon credits, and demand is now driven by the safeguard facilities because Labor's baselines are constantly falling and they operate as a tax on industry. Covered facilities have closed or are closing, while Australia's annual emissions reduction has flatlined under Labor. The coalition will scrap Labor's safeguard mechanism.

Now, there's an important debate to be had about climate change, its effect and what action looks like. It is an important debate, and I mentioned it in the first speech I gave in this place—that it's a serious and real problem for the globe, for everyone on the planet. But I said this at the time and I stand by it: if we rush towards an energy transition that makes us poorer—and I made this speech in 2022, just as I came into this place, just after the government had gone to an election promising that, for their energy transition, the modelling had shown that their climate action was going to make people's bills $275 cheaper. Well, that certainly hasn't happened. I felt that there was a real risk that if we rushed into it and lived in this delusion—and I do think it is a delusion that renewables can provide 82 per cent of our electricity whilst we remain a serious manufacturing economy—then what was going to happen, and we're seeing this already, unfortunately, was that industry was going to shift offshore to other parts of the world that don't have measures that are as punitive as ours when it comes to emissions. Now, that's a tragedy for Australia, because we lose the economic activity of those industries and all the benefits that come with it, all the employment and everything. In many cases we were doing that in a quite efficient way, but global emissions weren't going to reduce. They were just going to go somewhere else.

That was four years ago. I think this is really playing out. People in Europe are starting to understand that if global demand for all sorts of things that require emissions stays the same and we just shift the problem to another part of the world and say, 'We've done our bit'—well, no. We've only made our country poorer. And if we're poorer, we're less able to deal with—I acknowledge—the issues that climate change is going to throw at us. It often gets scoffed at in this place, but we should face Australia's ability to contribute to emissions reduction globally and therefore climate action, as it's called. Various estimates have it at one to 1.5 per cent of global emissions. People like to say that the per capita issue is significant there, as if that somehow makes the emission different. It doesn't, really. I will paraphrase a climate campaigner: it is an inconvenient truth that most of the emissions happen in Russia, India, China and the United States. If we go ahead with some of this action that's going to affect our economy and they don't, they become richer. They keep emitting, and the climate problem doesn't get solved. We just don't have the resources to deal with it.

Another point I'd like to make about the energy transition and dealing with climate change is I refuse to believe that the Labor Party are really serious about a long-term emissions reduction program in Australia until someone stands at that dispatch box as the Prime Minister in Australia and says, 'We are removing the moratorium on nuclear energy.' I think it's becoming apparent around the world—climate campaigners are starting to say—that we really do need this base-load power, the 24/7 power. It complements renewables. Renewables can't do it all. I've talked before about Centre for Independent Studies examples and modelling from around the world that shows that renewable energy is obviously very good technology in the right place and at the right percentage of the grid. Their assessment is that that's about 30 per cent. Since that report came out, since this government came to power, we can see now that we are going to have a significantly increased requirement for electricity in this country because of the advent of data centres. We can't really avoid that. I think that really needs to provoke a rethink by the current government on what they do about the nuclear power moratorium in this country. I believe it will happen; I really do. I think reality will get there eventually.

We want to oppose this bill and subject it to proper scrutiny, because it will make doing business harder. That means that fewer people are employed, and that means a reduction in living standards. We're already seeing that trend damage this country and its wonderful people enormously, and we've got to turn that trend around. So the opposition will vote against the bill. We believe it should go to a Senate inquiry so the government can hear directly from the farmers, the other stakeholders and a broad range of industry about what the consequences of this bill will be.

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. Our carbon market is truly a great success story. It's one of the most effective and highest integrity schemes of its kind in the world. Now there's a whole new part of this about energy efficiency standards and what they are going to look like for electric cars. I'm not going to comment too much on that. I drive a diesel. I love my diesel. But what I am interested in is the carbon credits, the abatement. Assuming that I'm going to keep driving a diesel, I need to have a way to reduce my carbon footprint on the world, and carbon credits play a massive part in that.

But the other part of it, which is somewhat overlooked but very important, is there's not a lot of economic activity in parts of my electorate. There are vast amounts of really not much. In a lot of communities, finding a job, finding out who am I going to be, can be a bit difficult. There's not a lot of shops. There's not a lot of industry, and that's just the nature of the distances. When I started travelling the Cape consistently, probably in the last decade or so, when I would meet kids in community, mostly they wanted to talk to me about how they were going to be the next Johnathan Thurston. But over the last few years, there's been a dramatic shift in the attitude of these young kids and what they think they're going to be when they grow up. They say to me, 'I'm going to be a ranger. I'm going to look after country.' The way that they can do that and the way that they can fund that is through carbon credits.

Now, savanna burning is worth around $7.7 billion across the northern part of this country. The way that it works is pretty simple. If you're burning at a lower temperature, not as much carbon is released into the atmosphere, and the regrowth sucks more carbon back in. So it is not only creating a net negative of carbon going into the world but it is also providing jobs, economic opportunity, hope, role models and all of these great things. It provides an opportunity on country, and that's really, really important.

They say: if you do something you love, you never work a day in your life. I believe that's true for a lot of people. Doctors who grow up wanting to be doctors and who become doctors find passion in that. It is the same with carpenters, builders, nurses. These kids are growing up wanting to look after country; wanting to be rangers; wanting to stay close to home, to the songlines, to family; and wanting the opportunity to benefit their local economy and their local towns by having jobs that are worthwhile and are providing not just locally but globally. Every bit of carbon that they're able to capture, every credit that they're able to on sell, matters. The purpose of having a job, of getting up in the morning and being a part of the economic story that is Australia matters.

It's also really good for some of our farmers. Fluctuations in prices can cause issues—drought, flood, all of these sorts of things. The ability to use carbon capture to accentuate revenue flows is really important in allowing for that diversification and to give people choice. Choice is a fundamental part of everything that we do in this country. A really important part of this bill is that it gives farmers, primary producers, native title holders and businesses the opportunity to participate in a low-carbon economy not only to make a difference to the planet but also to make money, to provide that economic surety and to get us towards net zero.

Now, net zero doesn't mean that there are no emissions. We have to accept that there will be diesel trucks, diesel cars. Most of the Cape is currently running on diesel generators. These things are going to be there for a while. The idea is to take away from the carbon that goes out by using these credits and abatements. It's an elegant system. It's a way to say: 'Yes, we understand that this piece of industry needs to continue,' but it gives us an opportunity to offset that carbon and that's what makes it so perfect. The fact that those jobs go overwhelmingly to the regions, to areas that don't necessarily have the same economic opportunities as, say, a Brisbane or a Canberra, a Sydney or Melbourne and Adelaide, makes all the difference. It gives them a chance.

Now, I've spoken to PBCs right across the Cape. I spent most of the last three weeks drifting across that really beautiful part of the country, from Cooktown to Wujal Wujal, Hope Vale, Lockhart River across to Pormpuraaw. The savanna burning is now forming an integral part of the way that those communities are looking at income coming into their town, which is paying for infrastructure. It's trying to improve the rates of homeownership to get the rates base up. In Lockhart River, small businesses are springing up all over the place, connected to savanna burning and connected to road building. It's becoming self-sufficient. It's becoming its own little industry in and of itself, and that's really exciting. For some places that have always struggled to get that economic activity and to find that driver, this can be that driver. This can be the thing that makes a difference. We talk about closing the gap. We talk about economic opportunity. And this provides some of it—in something that is so rooted in tradition, spirituality and thousands and thousands and thousands of years of experience that it's just able to happen. It's got almost no overheads.

It's so, so important for our region, and I'm excited to be a part of it. I'm excited to back these communities in, so that, when I am travelling around, I can look the councillors in the face and the elders in the eye and say, 'Yes, we are making a difference here. We are providing something for kids to do. We are providing opportunities for role models to exist.' Having an athlete like Johnathan Thurston as a role model is great. John's a fantastic guy. But he doesn't beat somebody that you see at home. He doesn't beat Uncle Robert, who you see every day in his uniform talking about how the money's coming in and then going to buy a nice big bit of meat—which can be quite expensive in the Cape in some places. That's the sort of thing that I want my kids to see in the regions. I want them to see pathways forwards and the opportunities that are presented.

We talk about the environment more globally and what that means, and about climate change, and all of these things are really, really important. I know this first-hand: the Torres Strait is probably one of the most impacted places on the planet in terms of climate change. We've got to put seawalls up. We're doing climate resiliency projects right across the Cape because of how close and how low lying a lot of these communities are. And that's so important; that global conversation is really important. We have to make sure that we are being a responsible global citizen. People talk about the numbers. But if eight to 10 people do 1.5 per cent then you're at 15 per cent. Everyone has to get on board; everybody has to participate.

As I said, it's hugely important on a global scale. But, ultimately, we are all here for people, and it's the people that I'm most excited about here—not the climate-change aspect of it, which is incredibly important, but the jobs and the economic opportunity and the role models. I've met people in the Cape who are rangers and are the first person in their family to ever have a job. How tall that makes them feel, and how strong, and how much, I guess, a local identity within their own community—a leader within their family. That self-respect and that self-determination is an integral part of, I guess, being a person. Being able to participate in the economy because of the work you've done is an incredibly powerful thing if you've never had that before, and it's an incredibly powerful thing if your family has never really experienced that before. When you get up in the morning and you go to work, and your children see you get up in the morning and go to work, it creates that pattern and it creates those role models and it creates that system—and to do it in a place that you love, in a place that you belong to.

Let's not get this twisted: when you're talking about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, they belong to the place that they were born. To work on that place and to take care of that place in a traditional manner that has always been done that way, but then to also be a part of a broader global impact, part of the economic story of Australia, part of the global energy transition and part of the capturing of carbon that allows other industries to exist, is truly important.

You always hear about the story of JFK going through NASA, and he speaks to a cleaner and asks, 'So, what do you do here?' and the cleaner says, 'Well, I'm helping put a man on the moon.' The same principle applies: for every bit of savanna burning that creates carbon capture, we can keep our diesels running and we can keep our manufacturing and our industries going. That's what the important part is. And that is bringing some of our remote and regional communities into the broader conversation, where sometimes they have felt isolated and left out. Things happen to them. Things get told to them. Things get placed on top of them. This is an active participation in a global movement and an Australian economic movement and a way to empower individuals at a local level.

When kids tell me they want to be rangers or that their uncle or their sister is a ranger, I see them filled with pride. There was a photo exhibition at AFL Cape York House, which is an institution in Cairns where kids come down from the cape. They use AFL football as a bit of a hook, but it's about getting kids into school and things. They do a photo shoot every year of the kids and their heroes and their role models and what they want to be. Like I said, it used to be football players; now it's rangers. They want to be on country, they want to do the work, they want to get remunerated and they want to make a difference. So, while there'll be a lot of really nice speeches about what this means globally and for climate change, sometimes it's worth remembering what it means for the eight-year-old running around Aurukun or the 12-year-old in Lockhart River to have role models and what it means for them to have an opportunity to be on country, to love their country, to work on their country and to make a difference to the nation. I commend the bill to the House.

I'd like to address my remarks to a number of aspects of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. Like everything in this place, my remarks are informed and driven by the conversations that I have in my electorate of Monash and the local communities there that I represent. This bill is introducing sweeping new powers, and that will bring with it pressure on farmers. It will bring with it pressure on farmers in my electorate, who are doing it really tough right now.

It will be my great pleasure next month to speak at the 80th anniversary of Radfords Meats in Warragul, a multigenerational meat-processing business. They've achieved a great deal in that business and a great deal for our region. But I do worry that we're not going to see new Radfords businesses emerging because of a multitude of red and green tape introduced by this federal Labor government. It's red tape on our farmers, who are responsible for our food security, but food security is national security as well. I am very proud to represent people who grow, make and manufacture meat, dairy products and horticulture which are known for their clean, green nutritional value the world over.

This bill is also going to introduce sweeping new powers and regulation across our forestry and timber industry. I am an unabashed, proud advocate for timber towns and timber communities across Australia, particularly in the great Gippsland region. I was proudly involved in a timber business prior to my entry into this place, and I will always stand up for local timber jobs and timber communities, who have never had it tougher. Indeed, I was visiting a timber mill the other day. It's a salient warning about some of the new regulation that this bill introduces and, indeed, other efforts from this government—because, on its current scorecard, the consequences for timber businesses and the timber industry have not been good at all. I will be writing to the Minister for the Environment and Water shortly on behalf of a timber business that has an ongoing referral process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 concerning private forestry operation in Victoria. The business advised me that they have engaged constructively and in good faith with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water throughout the referral process, but they are still waiting for a response. In fact, so bad is the timeliness of the response from the department that it falls outside its statutory obligations. A formal referral was lodged in October 2025 for subsequent requests for additional information, which have all been met, but they have not had an adequate response from the department on this issue. In drawing back to the bill before us, I really sincerely worry about the additional impost of red and green tape on businesses like this when departments like the one that they're dealing with are not living up to their statutory obligations.

We just need to look at the timber industry in Victoria and the bridge in Kernot, which is in the Bass Coast region. The Liberal candidate for Bass, Rochelle Halstead, and I fought really hard to secure funding for bridge repairs. It is very important to that local community, particularly for emergency vehicle access, as we head into a hot summer. Instead of getting the available timber resource from Victoria, which you would think would be the obvious thing to do, the thing that is holding this project up is timber stuck at a port in America, because that's the state of Victoria at the moment. Unfortunately it's the state of many other places around Australia, despite the fact that we've got an available resource there, despite the fact, in reference to this bill, that our foresters abide by the strongest environmental and stewardship standards anywhere in the world—indeed, those multigenerational families see that as a great source of pride. They are very proud to work in those businesses as contractors and harvesters and in our mills. Despite all of that, we're reading articles about blood timber supposedly imported from Russia and from other parts of the world with very lax environmental standards. I worry that, in setting the bar here so, so high, we are going to see an influx of these products from other parts of the world.

If you need other examples, we've got the Australian Trade Remedies Commission, which was supposed to bring down a draft decision in September—it's now been delayed for some weeks—on the importation of aluminium windows from China and Vietnam. I've visited a number of local window and door manufacturing businesses in my electorate of Monash, like Talum Windows in Inverloch. They make first-class products with world-leading people, yet they're competing right now against a 1,700 per cent increase in some of those products. That's not fair trade and that's not free trade. That, on a prima facie basis, is economic dumping. You can see why the Australian Trade Remedies Commission are taking an active interest in it. My worry with aspects of legislation like this is that we're going to see more examples of cheap imported products that do not have to abide by the same standards that our manufacturers here in Australia have to.

I also want to make reference to aspects of this bill which deal with vehicle emissions standards, which the government says will provide certainty, and the government has made a big point about transparency mattering. If you take their word, the examples that they've set so far don't instil a great deal of hope. We've seen, just in the last few days, the proposal mooted by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to have a levy applied to all Australians for roadside EV charging. I have to commend the minister for regional development, who said on breakfast TV this week that that was something she did not agree was fair or reasonable. I'm really glad to see the regional development minister's comments on that, but I really hope the regional development minister's message persuades the minister for energy and other cabinet colleagues too.

We've got issues with electric vehicles at the moment. There's an influx of them from China because the government has put so much pressure on its own climate targets, which it is not meeting, and put a 10 per cent mandate on meeting those climate targets through electric vehicles. What is happening is we're getting an influx of those vehicles from China, many of which have Huawei communications built into them. In estimates over a year ago, the department said they would begin stakeholder consultations with industry on making sure that we do have appropriate safeguards for the way consumer data and privacy settings are dealt with.

Speaking with the industry just this week, they tell me they are still waiting. So, when the government says these things are important in this legislation, for transparency and accountability, I just don't take them at their word. I really don't. Where the government says these are minor technical amendments, they are not. They're consequential changes with serious implications for farmers, industry, investors and taxpayers.

Traditionally, Australia has had a great sovereign reputation internationally as a safe, secure, stable investment destination, but I really worry that, under this government, our sovereign investment reputation is being jeopardised by some of these decisions. We've seen that with negative gearing, changes to capital gains tax and the terrible mess this week on the card surcharges. The government keep changing the goalposts on a whole range of issues, and that is the biggest thing to undermine investor confidence and investor certainty. The rhetoric that is contained in this legislation around how importantly the government values those things—I just can't take their word for it.

One of the areas that has caused concern relates to proposed changes to native title arrangements. We have existing arrangements. For example, under the current system, a carbon abatement project can be conditionally registered on native title land before the consent of the eligible interest holders is obtained, and project proponents have up to five years—being the first reporting period—to demonstrate to the Clean Energy Regulator that the necessary consent has been secured. But sections 27 and 28 of this bill would fundamentally change that process. If the Labor government wants a mere claim to native title to be treated as an eligible interest, I think there would be a number of views on that because that would mean a farmer or a project proponent could be required to negotiate with someone claiming native title, regardless of whether that title has actually been established at law. This would form part of a more cumbersome two stage consent process. Under section 32, the Clean Energy Regulator could also revoke a project's declaration before the first reporting period if it considered there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining consent.

Native title laws have been part of Australia's legal framework for 30 years. They're complex, often contested and always require lawmakers to recognise the practical limitations of their application. But this bill goes too far. It is mission creep, plain and simple. As we've seen with red tape and green tape, the regulatory creep in other areas can have profound consequences for regional communities like mine—for farming communities and for forestry communities. And that is where I have a real issue. More and more we are seeing prime agricultural farmland in my electorate of Monash affected. We've had giant battery energy storage projects imposed upon farming communities. They have no social licence. I've met with some of those proponents and said, 'You need to win the social licence of the communities in which you seek to operate, and you do not have the social licence of those communities in West Gippsland.'

Liberal member for Narracan, Wayne Farnham, and I have said very clearly that they are not welcome because that soil there is the best soil anywhere in Australia. It's prime agricultural farmland. It's for dairy, beef and horticulture, and I do not want to stand in this place and see a continuing encroachment upon that soil, upon those crops, upon that prime agricultural soil. It is something that I will stand up for on behalf of my farmers, my farming communities, every day of the week. That is where we are seeing a creep of dangerous precedents of increasing red tape and administrative burdens placed upon farming families, on agribusinesses. I want to continue to represent a region with businesses, like Radford's meats, that will be around in another 80 years to celebrate their 80th anniversaries—businesses that are proud to employ local people and produce products that are sought after across the world and, indeed, across Australia. It's a great point of pride for our region. But right now our farmers and our agribusinesses are really up against it. Every morning they get out of bed and put their house on the line to give others a shot at a job. What they do is really important for our region. It's important for Australia, and that is why I'm taking a stand on this bill. It's not fair. It's not just. It's not right. It's not sensible reform in many of its aspects, and I will always stand up on behalf of those farming families who sent me to this place.

I rise today to speak in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, which is a step in the continuous improvement journey of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. What is the scheme? The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme encourages people and businesses to run projects that reduce emissions or store carbon—for example, by using new technology, by upgrading equipment, by changing business practices to improve productivity or energy use, or by changing the way that vegetation is managed. The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme supports a wide range of projects that generate carbon credits, such as Indigenous fire management, coastal ecosystem restoration, forest regrowth and forest plantings.

Carbon markets create a regulated space where carbon credits can be bought and sold. Carbon credit brokers and businesses that bundle carbon credits from multiple projects into one large package help connect buyers and sellers, making trading easier. Australian carbon credit units are a tradable financial product. They incentivise carbon abatement activities through projects ranging from reforestation to energy efficiency. They present an additional income source for individuals and businesses running ACCU scheme projects. One Australian carbon credit unit represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere. Eligible projects include those associated with vegetation management, agriculture, forestry, energy consumption, waste, transport and industrial processes. Australian carbon credit units can be sold to private sector buyers or to the government to generate income, and the Australian government purchases the units through carbon abatement contracts.

This scheme contributes to meeting Australia's emissions reduction targets in a number of ways. Firstly, voluntary and government demand for the units makes a direct contribution towards meeting Australia's national targets over and above the reductions driven by the safeguard mechanism. Secondly, however, by encouraging innovation and the take-up of cleaner technologies, the scheme is directed at transforming some low-emission practices from 'nice to have' to 'business as usual'. The scheme also makes an indirect contribution by allowing safeguard facilities to draw on abatement beyond their own operations, and what this does is increase flexibility, reduce compliance costs and help facilities better manage the timing and availability of onsite abatement.

Over time, the role of the scheme has changed significantly. Initially, it was Australia's main emissions reduction policy, underpinned by large-scale government purchasing through the Emissions Reduction Fund. But following significant policy reforms implemented in the last five years, since the Albanese Labor government came to power, the scheme is now part of a suite of measures that target emissions reduction and that will help drive Australia along the path to net zero. In this respect, the Australian government has made, and has rightly made, ambitious commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including setting targets of 43 per cent reductions below 2005 levels by 2030 and 62 to 70 per cent by 2035 as part of the pathway to achieving net zero by 2050.

This scheme is a part of it. It remains a world-leading carbon crediting scheme. As we move further along the journey to net zero, demand for Australian carbon credit units will grow, which means that this bill is critical in order to ensure that the scheme can continue to meet demand across the diverse range of applicable industries and that the public has trust and confidence that the scheme is not only fit for purpose but that it is effective. The scheme is now part of the government's broad suite of climate policies which work in concert to drive emissions reductions across the economy. All of them have to be fit for purpose and be effective.

This bill will amend a number of existing pieces of legislation: the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024. With respect to the first, the bill does a number of things. Importantly, it strengthens governance around methodology determinations in the scheme by replacing the Independent Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. Conflict-of-interest requirements will be improved, and relevant fields of expertise will be prescribed—including, rightly, requiring ongoing First Nations representation. The independence and transparency of the committee will also be strengthened because it will enjoy new powers that enable it to obtain independent advice and information relevant to its work. The maximum time period for public consultation by the committee on methods will also be extended, and the committee will be under an obligation to publish more of its advice.

Next, the bill will provide for more flexible Australian carbon credit unit purchasing arrangements, with the goal being to ensure the appropriate separation of functions between the government, the regulator and the department. This is important in reducing criticism that conflicts of interest exist between purchasing and regulatory decisions. The bill will also amend the principles for conducting purchasing processes to replace the existing principle of purchasing carbon abatement on the least cost with the principle of receiving value for money.

Next, there are improvements to integrity, which are necessary because the scheme is only meaningful with respect to emissions reduction if abatement achieved through this scheme is genuine and actually contributing to Australia's emission reduction targets. Abatement is not genuine if it's on paper only. So, to do this, the bill will extend the fit-and-proper-person test to include agents acting on behalf of Australian carbon credit unit project applicants, increasing oversight and supporting improved compliance outcomes.

Matters that are relevant to the fit-and-proper-person test include whether a proponent has a history of insolvency or involvement with companies that have gone into administration or been liquidated; compliance with other relevant laws or schemes; compliance with industry codes of conduct; whether there has been engagement in unfair business practices, like unclear or unfair contract terms or failing to pay clients or landholders; whether there has been a failure to comply with audit obligations—for example, by failing to undertake a compliance audit when directed; whether there has been a failure to comply with an enforceable undertaking; or a failure to meet obligations under the Corporations Act 2001. In addition, failing to have systems and processes in place that enable a proponent to meet its obligations under the scheme and a failure to deliver contractual obligations under carbon abatement contracts and also whether there is an indication of phoenix activity are all relevant to the fit-and-proper-person test.

To be eligible for the scheme, a proponent must satisfy the fit-and-proper-person test, have the legal right to carry out the project activities in question and have the legal right to be issued the Australian carbon credit units from the project. To qualify, and with some exceptions, projects must also be new, in that activities must not have started, not go beyond business-as-usual activities, not be required by law, not be receiving financial support from specified government programs and not be an excluded activity under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule 2015. Projects must also follow an approved method which sets out the rules for running the project and estimating emissions reductions. 'Method' means just that—the method for conducting the project and the use of approved methods are by design so that projects can effectively measure how much carbon they remove from the atmosphere or how much carbon they prevent from being released.

The scheme only has integrity when proper and effective measurement can take place. For example, in mining, oil and gas, method projects are those that reroute, flare or combust leaked facility emissions, and project activities include storing greenhouse gases underground and destroying or converting oil and gas leaks. Another example is landfill and waste method projects to upgrade or install facilities to reduce waste emissions. Project activities for these methods include treating and destroying waste using eligible waste treatment equipment, converting waste into biomethane to produce electricity or separating organic waste from other waste. This bill seeks to support participation in the scheme by removing barriers to registering new projects at both the project registration and method design levels.

The bill will also make changes to the application of the newness requirement that the regulator must consider as part of the additionality test when assessing applications for projects to be registered under the scheme. These changes will increase flexibility for project proponents and support more projects entering the scheme. The amendments will allow the newness requirement to be assessed at the time an application to register a project is made, rather than when it's assessed by the regulator. This enables projects to commence implementation while the regulator's review and approval process is underway, broadening the scope of the scheme and providing certainty.

The bill will also introduce a targeted exception to the newness requirements for genuine research and development activities so that such activities can contribute to and proponents can participate in future methods. This change is intended to support innovation and testing of emerging abatement technologies which contribute to method development by providing greater certainty for research and development participants with respect to pathways they could use to enter the scheme in the future.

The reforms in the bill strengthen the integrity, transparency, governance and administration of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme and ensure ongoing confidence in its operation as Australia moves towards its emissions reduction targets. The bill marks an important step in the continued development of Australia's carbon market. By strengthening and modernising the scheme, it helps maintain confidence in the integrity of the system while providing greater certainty for businesses and investors to support emissions reduction projects across the country. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. This bill implements the government's response to the 2022 Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units, chaired by Professor Ian Chubb, AC, as well as recommendations made by the Climate Change Authority through its statutory reviews of Australia's carbon crediting framework. At the outset, I want to say I welcome the government's objective of strengthening the integrity, transparency and effectiveness of Australia's climate policies, particularly our carbon market. Public confidence in Australia's carbon market depends on every Australian carbon credit unit, or ACCU, representing a genuine climate benefit. If credits are not delivering real additional abatement not only will confidence in the scheme be undermined but Australia will fail to meet our 2035 and 2050 climate targets.

But, while this bill contains a number of positive reforms, it does not go nearly far enough to address ongoing and serious concerns regarding offset integrity. Most concerningly, aspects of the proposed method transition declaration framework risk allowing projects operating under methods with unresolved integrity concerns to avoid key safeguards currently built into the scheme. In other words, projects that would have had to prove that they were achieving particular milestones may not be required to do so if transitioned to a new method. While this bill focuses on improving the operation of offset markets, it does not address a more fundamental challenge: Australia's increasing reliance on offsets to meet emissions obligations. Carbon markets can play a role in our climate response, but they should not become a substitute for real reductions in emissions at the source.

For better or for worse, the ACCU scheme has become Australia's primary domestic carbon-crediting regime and now plays a significant role in compliance under the safeguard mechanism. The intent of this legislation is to strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of those arrangements by implementation of the Chubb review and the Climate Change Authority recommendations. That objective is important because serious concerns have been raised over a number of years regarding the integrity of ACCUs. Those concerns were brought to the national attention by Professor Andrew Macintosh, the former chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, which was the statutory body responsible for assessing the integrity of offset methods. Research by Professor Macintosh and ANU colleagues suggested that 70 to 80 per cent of all ACCUs issued under human induced regeneration, landfill gas and avoided deforestation methods may not represent real and additional emissions reductions. In other words, more than three-quarters of the ACCUs being issued by major emitters to meet their obligations came from methods that have been the subject of significant and ongoing integrity concerns. I note that this is a highly technical area, and Professor Macintosh's conclusions have been contested, including by the Clean Energy Regulator. So there is clearly a need for better sharing of data and audits conducted by the regulator so the evidence base is transparent and public.

But, while views differ on some of the detail, the broader concern that there are genuine integrity questions affecting several major ACCU methods has been echoed by many other expert bodies. The Australian Academy of Science reviewed four ACCU methods and found that human induced regeneration was one of the methods with significant contestability regarding whether projects were consistent with the offsets integrity standards. The review identified concerns related to baseline data, measurement uncertainty, reliance on counterfactual assumptions, attribution of carbon sequestration outcomes, carbon leakage and the impact of climate change on the maintenance of carbon stores. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists has likewise raised serious concerns regarding the operation of the ACCU scheme, particularly, again, the human induced regeneration projects.

It was against this backdrop that the government established the Chubb review in 2022. While the Chubb review ultimately concluded that the ACCU scheme was fundamentally well designed, it nevertheless made 16 recommendations aimed at strengthening governance, transparency and integrity arrangements. While this issue remains contested, I think there is broad agreement on one point: integrity concerns must be addressed transparently and rigorously and low-integrity methods should be ended or phased out.

There are a number of aspects of this bill that deserve support. The bill makes changes to native title consent requirements that are intended to better align with the principles of free, prior and informed consent. This is a positive step; although, I believe there is more work to be done to ensure First Nations communities can participate meaningfully in, and benefit from, Australia's carbon markets while drawing on the expertise and perspectives of First Nations stakeholders. The bill also re-establishes the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee as the new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. This reflects a recommendation of the Chubb review and reinforces the importance of the independent oversight of method integrity. The legislation contains several other technical reforms including changes relating to research and development participants and provisions enabling methods to combine emissions avoidance and sequestration activities within a single project.

These reforms are sensible; however, the most significant aspect of this legislation, and the area I'm most concerned about, is the introduction of a new power allowing the minister to make something called a method transition declaration, MTD for short. The MTD provision allows the minister to require projects to transition off a particular method in limited circumstances. The minister must be satisfied of three things: that the method fails to meet offset integrity standards, that continued crediting would present a material risk to the integrity of the scheme and that an alternative method is available. Projects are then provided with a transition period of between six months and two years, or even up to five years in the case of sequestration projects, to remove the replacement method.

The stated purpose of the method transition declaration process is to provide a pathway for projects operating under methods that are found not to meet integrity standards to transition to a replacement method. This appears to be reasonable at face value and a useful mechanism for dealing with low-integrity measures; however, concerns have been raised with how this mechanism may operate in practice. Concerns include that the threshold trigger is set so high it may never be used. The material risk is a discretionary power open to subjective interpretation by the minister as to what they consider to be a material risk to the integrity of the ACCU Scheme. I will be moving amendments to remove the material risk tests, requiring that a method only be compliant with the offset integrity standards for an MTD to be made.

Another major concern is that requiring the availability of an alternative method as a prerequisite to transition projects means that methods with the least integrity may not be able to be transitioned and could continue to earn credits. While other aspects of this bill clearly mirror the recommendations from the Chubb review, it is not clear where this recommendation has come from or why it is there. The MTD process outlined in this bill differs in important respects from the Chubb review recommendation that it purports to respond to. In particular, there is concern that the mechanism could be used retrospectively to legitimise projects that have failed for years—potentially including those under the human induced regeneration method—and allow them to avoid one of the most important integrity tests built into the existing method.

Under the human induced regeneration method, project proponents receive ACCUs on the basis that regeneration will occur and forest cover will be re-established. A critical safeguard within the method is the requirement that, after 15 years, the project must demonstrate that it has attained forest cover across at least 90 per cent of the project area. If a project fails to meet this requirement, proponents are required to relinquish credits that were overissued during the life of the project. It is one of the central integrity safeguards underpinning the method and provides a final check that projects have actually delivered the outcomes for which they received the credits.

This is particularly important because human induced regeneration projects account for around 30 per cent of all ACCUs issued under the scheme to date. As these projects begin approaching their reconciliation periods, there is a real possibility that some may not be able to demonstrate that they have achieved the required forest cover outcomes. If that occurs, substantial quantities of credits may need to be relinquished. That is plainly a material integrity issue for the ACCU scheme.

My concern is that the method transition declaration mechanism, as currently drafted, could allow human induced regeneration projects to transition to a new method, such as the proposed integrated farm and land management method, which, at present, does not contain the same forest cover requirement. If that occurs, the 15-year reconciliation test could effectively be avoided altogether, precisely at the point where it becomes most meaningful. This would undermine the integrity of the safeguard mechanism entirely. For this reason, I'll be moving amendments that would ensure credits issued to regeneration projects that transition to any new method remain subject to the key eligibility requirements that applied under their original method. These amendments are designed to provide certainty that the method transition declaration framework cannot be used to bypass existing integrity safeguards, and I urge the government to support them.

Australia is currently advancing its case as a climate leader and preparing for its role as a co-host of COP31 alongside our Pacific partners. The government has rightly identified keeping the 1.5-degree goal within reach. They've also identified improving access to climate finance, elevating the importance of the ocean and amplifying Pacific voices and leaderships as priorities for the Australia-Pacific COP31 partnership. Those are important objectives, but, if Australia wants to be seen as a credible climate leader by our Pacific neighbours, our domestic policies need to match our international rhetoric. Increasingly, international law and international agreements are making clear that we cannot simply rely on accounting mechanisms and offsets while continuing to expand fossil fuel production.

The recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice reaffirmed the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities'. In practical terms, that means wealthy, developed countries such as Australia have a responsibility to lead, not just balancing emissions on paper but also adopting emissions reduction measures that are consistent with the best available science.

Similarly, the Australian government signed the Belem Declaration on the transition away from fossil fuels. That declaration explicitly recognises that fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change and that transitioning away from fossil fuels is necessary to keep the goals of the Paris Agreement within reach. Countries are being called upon not only to improve carbon markets and offset integrity but, first and foremost, to reduce emissions at their source and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. That's why there's a tension at the heart of this debate. On one hand, we are seeking to improve the integrity of Australia's offset framework. On the other hand, we continue to approve new fossil fuel projects and developments, including the recent approval of the Hunter Valley Operations mine extension in New South Wales.

To conclude, this bill includes some worthwhile reforms but also some significant concerns. The method transition declaration provisions risk allowing projects operating under methods with unresolved integrity issues to avoid important obligations that currently apply to them. At a time when confidence in carbon markets is essential, we should be strengthening integrity safeguards, not weakening them. For those reasons, I'll be seeking amendments to transition the integrity provisions and the method transition declaration framework.

A carbon credit is basically a promise. It's a promise that a project has cut greenhouse gas emissions—the release of gases such as carbon dioxide—or taken carbon out of the air and stored it. If the project meets the scheme's rules, it can earn Australian carbon credit units, usually referred to as 'ACCUs'. Each credit represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent—a way of measuring different greenhouse gases using the same scale. Those credits can then be sold to businesses or to the government. That gives farmers, First Nations communities and other businesses a way to earn money from work that helps reduce emissions. But the whole system depends on what sits behind the credit. Was the benefit real? Was it extra to what would have happened anyway? Does the amount claim match what the evidence supports? Selling a credit does not by itself reduce emissions. The work behind it must do that. Someone buying a credit needs to be able to trust what they are buying. That is the starting point for this bill. It strengthens the rules behind the promise, it improves how the scheme is checked and it addresses practical gaps that have become clear through independent reviews and more than a decade of experience.

If I were still teaching law students how to read legislation, I would start with the question: what is the mischief? That's an old legal expression. It means the problem the law is meant to fix. Then I would ask a second question: how do these words fix it? Those are useful questions for parliament too, because a law can sound impressive while doing very little. It can also create a lawyers' picnic—more questions, more arguments and more time spent working out what parliament meant. The better approach is to identify the problem and give people a clear way to deal with it.

This bill goes across several parts of our emissions-reduction laws. It strengthens consent, the agreement required from people whose rights are affected. It improves independent oversight. It separates government buying from the work of policing the scheme. And it provides a carefully limited response where an existing carbon method develops a serious problem. A carbon method is the rulebook for a type of project. It sets out how the carbon benefit is worked out and what must be measured and checked. Those rulebooks are central to whether the scheme can be trusted.

One of the clearest problems addressed by this bill concerns existing projects. Under the current framework, a method can be changed, withdrawn or allowed to expire, but existing projects can continue using their original method unless they choose to move on to another one. There is some sense behind that idea. There is investment that goes into projects. People have taken a particular approach in good faith. But what do you do if there's a serious problem identified with that method? This is where this law has an off-ramp. It provides an opportunity for a sensible, well-considered transition to a more reliable method rather than doubling down on silly or completely eroding good-faith investment. It gets the balance right. It provides a way to address it. The minister can make what is called a method transition declaration, a formal decision requiring affected projects to move to a suitable alternative method if they're to keep earning carbon credits.

This is an important power. It deserves careful limits, and this bill provides them. First, the method must fail one or more of the scheme's integrity standards, the rules intended to make carbon credits trustworthy. Second, continuing to issue credits must pose a material risk to the scheme. 'Material' means significant enough to matter. The power is directed at serious problems, not small errors with little or no real effect. The independent committee must advise that those tests are met. The minister must also be satisfied after considering the advice and public submissions, people's written views, from across sectors. The decision must substantially reduce the risk. That matters. There is little point disrupting projects if the disruption does not properly address the problem. There must also be a suitable alternative for every affected project. The projects must meet the relevant requirements under that alternative or be reasonably capable of being changed to meet them. The minister must consider likely harm to the environment, the economy and the community. There is public consultation giving people a chance to examine and comment on the proposal. The committee's advice and the minister's reasons must be published. The declaration is also subject to parliamentary disallowance, meaning this parliament can overturn it. Those are real safeguards. The power is not simply a minister saying, 'I no longer like this method.' There is a problem to establish, evidence to consider, people to hear from and conditions to meet.

Some people will reasonably ask what this means for investment. People developing projects want stable rules. That is understandable, but stability cannot mean that a serious fault must be left untouched. Imagine being a farmer doing the work properly. You follow the rules. You measure carefully. You claim only what the evidence supports. Then a serious weakness elsewhere in the scheme damages confidence in everybody's credits. That affects you too. Protecting trust in the scheme protects the value of sound work. The answer is to provide a clear process for addressing serious faults while considering the people affected. That is what this bill seeks to do. It supports environmental work by protecting the link between the credits sold and the benefit delivered.

The bill also strengthens the rights of First Nations peoples in projects on native title land and land subject to registered native title claims. Native title means rights to land and waters recognised under Australian law because of First Nations peoples' traditional laws and customs. A registered claimant is someone whose claim has passed the legal steps needed for registration, even though the final decision on the claim is still ahead. The bill recognises those claimants in the consent process. That matters because a claim can take significant time to be resolved. The people concerned should not miss their chance to have a say simply because that process is unfinished.

The bill establishes two stages of consent. Agreement to the application is required before the project can be registered. Agreement to how the project will be carried out is required before credits can be issued. That distinction is practical. Agreeing to a proposal to enter the scheme is not necessarily agreeing to every detail of how it will operate on the ground. This brings the discussion forward. Before expectations harden, before important choices are treated as settled and before credits begin to flow, early agreement provides a stronger basis for working together. It helps people understand the proposal, negotiate its terms and build partnerships. That is fairer. It is also better project planning.

The bill reforms the expert committee responsible for checking carbon methods. It becomes the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. 'Abatement' simply means reducing emissions or removing carbon. That change goes beyond the name though. The bill strengthens rules about conflicts of interest where a person's other interests could affect their judgement. It sets out relevant fields of expertise and requires ongoing First Nations representation. It expands the committee's work and strengthens its ability to obtain independent advice and information. It also provides more advice and related documents to be published with appropriate protections. The practical purpose is clear: give the experts the tools to do their job, make their role clear and let the public see more of the reasoning behind important decisions. People do not need to agree with every decision to benefit from understanding how it was reached.

There is another sound change: responsibility for government purchases of ACCUs would move from the Clean Energy Regulator to the department. The regulator is the body that checks and enforces the scheme's rules. Government purchasing serves a different purpose. Separating those functions reduces the risk of an actual or perceived conflict. People should be able to see that decisions about whether credits meet the rules are distinct from decisions about which credits the government wants to buy.

The bill also replaces lease costs with value for money as a purchasing principle. The cheapest price matters, but price alone does not tell us everything about value. A project may provide other benefits for the environment, local communities or First Nations peoples. This change allows those benefits to be considered as well. It does not mean accepting weak carbon claims because the project has other attractions. The carbon benefit still needs to stand up. It means that when choosing what to buy government can consider more than the price on the page.

The bill also improves the tools for dealing with credits issued on incorrect information. It provides new clear pathways to require credits to be relinquished—that is, returned—where too many have been issued. There is also a voluntary path for people to address information they've got wrong. That is sensible. A scheme needs ways to deal with that wrongdoing. It also needs ways to correct mistakes. The regulator gains further tools for lower level breaches, including infringement notices—formal notices that allow alleged breaches to be dealt with through a financial penalty.

At the same time, the bill supports new work. It makes room for genuine research and testing without automatically shutting the door to future participation in the scheme. That matters because we want people to improve methods, test new ideas, gather evidence and learn what works. We should not create rules that punish the very research needed to develop better projects. The bill also allows methods to support both carbon storage and separate emissions reduction activities within a single project. That can better reflect how a farm or property actually operates. The law should be able to accommodate sound new approaches as they develop.

The bill also changes the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. That is the system through which companies report emissions, energy production and energy use. It creates powers to require more reported information to be published. The detailed publication rules would be set through regulations—the rules made under the act. That means the bill does not itself publish every company's information tomorrow; it provides a framework for greater public access with the details to be worked through. The bill also closes a reporting gap where a company is late in applying to register. Being late to register should not leave a hole in the information the scheme is meant to collect. Good policy needs sound data, and public trust is helped when people can examine more of that data themselves.

Finally, the bill makes practical changes to dates under the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. That standard concerns emissions from new vehicles supplied to the Australian market. Suppliers have a period in which to address an emissions shortfall by earning or obtaining units under the scheme. The present sequence of dates does not work as effectively as intended. The bill adjusts the timing so the processors can operate properly. It does not change the main emissions limits or which vehicles are covered. It fixes the timetable. Sometimes good lawmaking is exactly that practical—identify the part that does not line up, correct it and give the people following the rules a process that works. That is a clear theme through this bill. Credits should reflect real work, people whose rights are affected should have a meaningful say, experts should have the tools to check the evidence, and government should be able to address serious problems through fair and clearly limited process. These reforms strengthen trust while making room for sound projects, better research and more effective administration. The promise behind carbon credits matters to the person earning it, to the person buying it and to the country relying on it. This bill strengthens that promise. I commend this bill to the House.

I stand here to make a contribution to the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. I'm also here to support the second reading amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Wannon. His amendment makes our position clear. This House must refuse this bill because it pushes a failing net zero agenda. It increases legal battles, removes taxpayer protections and hands the minister broad powers without reason. In line with Mr Tehan's amendment, I want to explain the four main areas where this bill fails.

First of all is the expansion of native title to unproven claims. Let me start with the biggest problem in this bill, and it is the changes to native title under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. Under the current law, conditional registration lets carbon projects start on native title land. At the same time, formal consent is worked out during the first five-year reporting period, balancing progress with strict legal protections. Under existing law, native title holders already have clear, strong, consistent rights. No carbon credits can be issued unless full consent is approved by the determined native title holders. This bill changes that completely. It says that the registered native title claim, a claim that has only been lodged and never been proven in court, becomes a full eligible interest. For a Central Queensland farmer, this forces them to negotiate with an unproven claimant whose legal rights are not established.

On top of that, the bill creates a two-stage consent requirement—first, consent just to apply for registration and, second, consent on how the project will actually be run. To make matters worse, section 34 gives the Clean Energy Regulator power to cancel a project's declaration at any time before the end of the first reporting period if the regulator thinks there is no reasonable chance of getting consent. This is classic government mission creep. Native title laws have existed for 30 years, and lawmakers have always understood that practical rules are needed so land can be managed fairly. What we see in this bill is an extra red tape that helps no-one. We must ask a simple question: what problem is this change supposed to fix? Under the current law, native title holders who have proven their claims already have full consent rights. Why extend these veto rights to unproven claims? The assistant minister claimed in his speech that these changes come from the 2022 Chubb review. That is not correct. Recommendation 11 was the only Chubb review recommendation on native title. It only suggested requiring consent from established holders, meaning determined native title holders. The panel noted project creators 'should consider the need for and the benefit of consent' as best practice, far from writing a legal veto for unproven claims into law.

Now let's look at the facts. According to the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, 11 per cent of Australia's landmass is covered by active native title claims waiting for a decision in the Federal Court. The National Farmers' Federation provided real-world evidence showing what is happening on the ground. They reported that farmers trying to negotiate under current rules face long delays and are paying thousands upfront in sit-down fees just to hold an initial meeting with a claimant group. The federation said that these upfront fees reflect a pattern being experienced nationwide. As the federation argued, a carbon credit scheme would not turn an unproven claim into an indefinite legal veto.

Listen to peak industry bodies representing the people working our land and producing our energy. AgForce Queensland, representing thousands of farming families managing over 50 million hectares, warns that these changes bring heavy risk, will drive up set-up costs and will cause severe project delays. Woodside Energy, AGL and the Business Council of Australia have all warned that these rules will stop investments, create legal confusion and lead to endless court battles. While the government allocates almost $3 million for First Nations consent support and $5 million for community consultations from its $74.8 million package, grant money cannot fix giving unproven claims the power to freeze regional land management.

The second issue is ditching least-cost abatement for a political slush fund. Let me move to the second major issue of this bill. The government is removing the rule that protects taxpayer money when buying carbon credits. As it is, government carbon purchase must follow least-cost abatement, getting the most carbon reduction for the lowest cost to taxpayers. This is simple common sense. But Labor wants to repeal least-cost abatement and replace it with a vague term called 'value for money'. At the same time, the bill shifts purchasing power away from the independent Clean Energy Regulator and to the department secretary. The explanatory memorandum reveals that value for money lets the government buy expensive carbon credits to support political goals, including whole-of-government emissions reduction, net zero strategies, and subjective environmental, social, economic and First Nations cultural co-benefits. That is wrong. When the government spends public money buying carbon credits, its primary job should be to get the best result at the lowest cost to taxpayers. In this bill, 'value for money' is left completely undefined. It gives the minister an open-ended excuse to spend taxpayer dollars on high-priced carbon credits to meet political targets.

Look at how Labor handles public money without strict controls. The Capacity Investment Scheme is kept behind closed doors. Rewiring the Nation suffered a billion-dollar cost blow-out. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program ballooned from over $2 billion to $8.5 billion. The three regional hydrogen project hubs have collapsed. And the government has spent $150 million a COP climate trip, including $6 million for hotel rooms in Fiji. We should not hand the government a blank cheque to buy overpriced carbon credits.

Major industry bodies have warned against scrapping the lease-cost rule. The Business Council of Australia said that the government purchasing criteria should not be used to differentiate the abatement integrity of carbon credits in the market and that least cost must remain the foundation to which value for money is applied. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia warned that, because 'value for money' is not defined in the legislation, it creates unnecessary market uncertainty that requires a clear statutory definition. The Australian Energy Producers cautioned that the proposal lacks sufficient definition and guidance, creating uncertainty for market participants while departing from the core principle of lowest-cost abatement. Origin Energy stated that it is neither appropriate nor reasonable to introduce undefined and unlimited powers to purchase carbon credits for subjective value-for-money opportunities to support undefined policies.

With that, I will suspend my speech until a later time today.

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

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I'm reading this winning speech my office selected, written by Cohyn, Sophie and Emily from Harrington Street Public School, who took part in the Raise Your Voice competition.

Ben hiéu diau nay khöng?

How many of you understood what I just said? For those of you who didn't understand, how does it make you feel?

We are 3 girls who come from three different families, but we all have something in common: our families struggle because of a language barrier.

Australia prides itself on being one of the most culturally diverse communities in the world. But do we really support all people who are from different cultures?

Our most recent example is the census form. There are directions for online interpreting in only around 8% of languages spoken in Australia. However, even this isn't effective because the majority of people who speak a different language aren't comfortable with devices that help with translating or cannot drive to a support hub.

It isn't fair for those to get fined up to $3,000 for something they can't do.

So what's the solution?

We should advertise for in-person translators that are more accessible to the local community. That way, the neighbourhood can easily get help with translation needs. This change will ensure that language will less likely be a barrier between interactions with others.

Everyone deserves to understand and be understood.

Cousins, Mrs Margaret (Peg)

On Wednesday 7 October 2026, I attended the ACH Milpara aged-care facility at Rostrevor in my electorate of Sturt for a very, very special event. The cafe was decked out with beautiful pink flowers. The table was set with the good China and sandwiches, petite fours, fruit and cake were in abundance as a celebration took place for a wonderful lady, Margaret 'Peg' Cousins, born in 1920. On 7 October 2026, Peg turned 106. I was absolutely blown away by her. She walked into her party using a walker but otherwise under her own steam. She ate plenty of fruit and cake and enjoyed a few cups of tea. Peg, at 106, was beautifully dressed and presented and still totally sharp. She told me all about her time in the Australian Army, where during World War II, in her words, she ran the signalling team in Darwin, where she not only served her country with distinction but she met and married her commanding officer, her beloved Alan.

Peg's friends Jean, Margaret, Jill and Tony were there to celebrate with her. I asked Jean what Peg's secret was. How did she get to 106? Jean said simply and with heart, 'Peg is just a good lady with a kind and beautiful spirit, and the world needs people like Peg to stay around.' I agree. Congratulations, Peg. Happy 106th birthday.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

Raise Our Voice in Parliament has amplified the voices of young people aged 25 and under. This speech was written by a local young person from Kooyong Emily, aged 14. Emily says:

I'm a huge sports fan. Swimming, netball, cricket, footy, I can access them all through streaming and live TV.

But when my family gathers to support our favourite team, one problem remains: gambling ads.

They're absolutely everywhere.

Betting is presented to young people as exciting, entertaining and normal, while betting companies are the ones who are cashing in.

3 in 10 Australians aged 12-17 gamble.

The problem is we're growing up in a culture where gambling is "normal".

The government is eyeing the ball but is not hitting sixes.

Gambling reforms are expected to take place in 2027, but, if we're serious about protecting young Australians, these reforms don't go far enough.

It's time to step up to the crease and take a stand.

New laws should prohibit gambling advertising, sponsorship and branding across major Australian sporting broadcasts, replays and competitions.

The future of young Australians shouldn't be a gamble.

I couldn't agree more, Emily. Thank you for raising your voice. Thank you for speaking out for the young people of Kooyong.

Griffith Electorate: Housing

It would be hard to find a local in my community who isn't heartbroken or distressed by the sustained levels of visible rough sleeping. Homelessness is frustratingly the most pointy end of our nation's housing crisis. It impacts our community's most vulnerable. It was an issue that was raised with me daily during the election campaign. Everyone deserves the dignity and security of a safe place to call home, and we know that health and housing go hand in hand. That's why I worked hard to secure a $14 million commitment from the Albanese Labor government for a new health and housing hub, serving South Brisbane, West End and surrounding suburbs.

Last month, I was delighted to announce that Micah Projects had secured a site in South Brisbane to bring these important services to life. Once operational, the hub will offer free primary health care and allied health services, including bulk-billed GP and nursing care, dental services, podiatry, women's health services and wellness therapies. Importantly, these services will be delivered alongside integrated housing and homelessness supports. This investment sits alongside the Albanese Labor government's record $47 billion housing investment, including 55,000 social and affordable homes, with 7,200 now complete and 23,000 in planning or under construction.

For more than 30 years, Micah Projects has supported some of Brisbane's most vulnerable people. I want to thank their acting CEO, Bridget, and the Ellen Whitty Trust for their work in making this project become a reality, and I also want to thank Micah Projects founder and recently retired CEO Karyn Walsh AM. This investment is about giving people experiencing hardship the support they need to get back on their feet, because everyone deserves the opportunity to be well, stay well and live in a safe—

Member for Mackellar.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I'm delighted to read the speech of Beatrice, aged 13, from Mackellar for the Raise Our Voice project. These are Beatrice's words:

I've often heard it said that youth are the future. The hope for the future, the future changemakers, but only ever the future. And yes, youth are the future. But what is always excluded is the fact that we're the present too!

Yet, despite youth having uniquely important perspectives, we are ignored; our words never reaching beyond thought into action.

Parliament needs to make it their priority to have youth voices heard at every level of government. Any decision they make affects youth today—not just tomorrow. We may be young, but that doesn't make our ideas any less important.

So what is the 'one big issue' shaping our future? When I began writing this speech, I couldn't decide. Climate change, gender inequality, the housing crisis—they all came to mind. Then I realised; what if the true problem is that no one listens to those who clearly have the most at stake? What if part of the reason these problems persist is that no one listens to 30% of Australia's population?

Imagine, for a minute, that youth were heard. Voices of change, driving Australia forward.

A world where they might even say: youth are the changemakers of today.

Thank you, Beatrice. I wholeheartedly agree.

Serbian Australian Community

Alongside the Speaker, members and senators, I had the honour of welcoming His Holiness Patriarch Porfirije of Serbia to this place. His Holiness is the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church and spiritual leader of Serbian Orthodox Christians worldwide. Accompanied by the metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand, Mr Siluan, and metropolitans and bishops from around the world, his visit is a momentous occasion for the Christian Orthodox community and particularly for the wider Serbian Australian community, as evidenced by the joyous welcome of dancers and children bearing flowers on his arrival in Canberra.

Now, our churches are more than places of worship. They are places of connection, knowledge and opportunity, as well as ways for families to hold on to language and tradition. But, in a time of uncertainty and flux, the patriarch and his retinue provide hope. My own experience of the Orthodox faith, from lighting a candle at the Church of Saint Sava in Belgrade to Father Milorad ordaining my marriage to Nenad and the personal blessing I received this week from His Holiness, affirms my belief in our national values of freedom of religion. I thank the Speaker, in his first official event after his election as President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and I thank the Serbian ambassador, His Excellency Rade Stefanovic, for bringing His Holiness and the clergy to our parliament.

Small Business

Across Australia, small businesses are being squeezed in a vice. On one side, there are high electricity bills, insurance premiums and rising operating costs; on the other, the Albanese government's taxes, charges and mounting compliance obligations. The consequences are devastating. ASIC recorded 14,722 companies entering external administration in 2024-25, followed by another 14,153 in 2025-26.

These pressures are threatening hardworking Australian businesses, and Labor's so-called tax reforms are creating further uncertainty. Changes to capital gains tax arrangements and discretionary trusts have raised concerns for family businesses relying on these structures. The government claims most small businesses won't be affected, but, after so many broken promises, why should Australians trust another Labor assurance? Then there's the botched ATO credit card ban. After proposing to remove a vital cash flow option, the government was forced to delay implementation.

Small businesses are go-getters. They aren't asking for a handout. They want affordable energy, manageable taxes, less red tape and confidence to invest, employ and grow. From Rockhampton to communities nationwide, these businesses are our economy's backbone. They risk their savings, livelihoods and futures simply to have a go. The coalition backs Australians prepared to take that risk.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I'd like to contribute to raise your voice this week. My 90 second statement belong to Amy from my electorate who is 19. These are her words:

The biggest issue shaping my future is domestic and family violence, including emotional abuse, coercive control and financial abuse.

What I think about this issue, I think about my mum and me. I think about the emotional suffering, intimidation and feeling of powerlessness that comes from being controlled by someone who should have been there to make us feel safe. Family violence is not always physical. Sometimes it happens through threats, financial control and actions that make a person feel trapped and unable to make choices for themselves.

One of the hardest parts is feeling like protection often comes too late. When someone is experiencing ongoing abuse, the systems around them feel overwhelming and difficult to navigate. People can often feel powerless while waiting for something worse to happen before meaningful action is taken.

I want Parliament to improve support services for people experiencing domestic and family violence. This means recognising all forms of abuse, improving early intervention, strengthening advocacy and ensuring people have practical support when they need it.

A safer Australia is one where no one feels trapped by fear, financial Independence or uncertainty. It is a future where people are believed, supported, protected before reaching breaking point.

These are powerful reflections from Amy, and I want to acknowledge her and congratulate her on sharing her story with the parliament.

Small Business

This Labor government is adding insult to injury with their relentless attacks on small business. On this Prime Minister's watch, small business insolvencies have reached record levels. Across O'Connor, hard-working small businesses are faced with an onslaught from every side. Right now the farmers who feed Australia and the world don't know whether they'll be able to access the skilled workers they rely on for harvest. Our beautiful south coast tourist hot spots are preparing for the busy summer months, but don't know whether they'll be able to receive the skilled workers they need. This is all at a time where Labor's inflationary agenda has delivered 16 interest rate rises, while 'Albonomics' has seen rise to record inflation levels, both now higher than any major advanced economy. O'Connor small businesses deserve better.

If this wasn't enough, Labor's budget has increased taxes while their ideological net zero crusade pushes energy prices through the roof. To the many small businesses struggling to stay afloat, let alone get ahead, Labor's botched credit card ban threatens to push them over the edge. Next week I look forward to welcoming shadow minister for small business, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, to Manjimup, Albany, Esperance and Kalgoorlie. We will be visiting and listening to the hard-working small businesses of O'Connor. Only the coalition will back Australia's small businesses who have had a gutful of Labor's poor economic management.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I rise today to deliver a speech written by Zihan, a young person from my community as part of the Raise Our Voices campaign. Zihan writes:

Misinformation, hallucinations, AI slop. This is what your average Australian high school student is consuming daily. As a 16-year-old, I see the consequences of AI abuse everywhere. My classmates struggling in maths turn to AI, receive completely wrong answers, yet trust them completely simply because they came from AI. This is unacceptable and will only plague our education system moving forward. We are still students. But when I check the news, I constantly see companies laying off workers because of AI.

As our world becomes increasingly AI-driven, one crucial skill we all need is AI literacy: the ability to understand AI, use it safely and effectively and critically evaluate its outputs. That is why I advocate for AI literacy education to be implemented in the curriculum for all Australian high school students. I want a future where students use AI to aid their learning, not replace it. I want a future where they can safely use AI in their careers rather than fear it. I want a future where AI is not an enemy of teachers, but a tool that works alongside them to help students build a better future. Thank you.

Thank you, Zihan, for your intelligent and thoughtful contribution. Parliament really appreciates it.

Taxation

Do you know what's going on around Australia at the moment? Small businesses and large businesses are being contacted by their financial advisers, and they're saying to them, 'Do you realise what these trust and tax arrangement changes that were announced in the budget are actually going to mean for you?' When they have those meetings, the full horror of what these small businesses are about to experience becomes apparent. The financial advisers are saying, 'It's going to cost you a heap of money just to make the changes, but the changes themselves are going to make it harder for you to do business.' Increases in taxes—you can't use trust arrangements the way you used to when you set them up, in good faith, because they were the rules. Businesses who normally don't get involved in politics and normally don't visit their MP are now dropping in and saying, 'How can this be the case?' They're saying, 'One of my real options is to downsize the business.' Do you know what downsizing the business means? It means not growing the business, not buying new assets, not putting more people on and, in fact, putting people off. This government is anti small business, and the changes in the budget prove that. The only way for small business to again be the focus of this parliament and the engine room of Australia is to elect a coalition government that backs small business.

Brain Cancer

This morning, Brain Tumour Alliance Australia's Head to the Hill event was an important reminder of how insidious brain cancer is. Part of the event includes displays of shoes representing lives touched by, or lost to, brain cancer. My constituent Amanda Redford stores the shoes at her home and helps with the display. One little pink sparkly pair of shoes belonged to her six-year-old daughter, Ava. I attended with my staffer India Bishop, who lost her father, Mark Bishop, in 2020 to this awful disease, and I saw his best Crocs on display there. Zoe Spry, who is another constituent of mine, and her two children walk to raise funds each year in honour of their husband and father, Sim, who was lost to this disease at just 39.

The fact is that this is a cruel and deadly disease, and the statistics are bleak. Survival rates have barely changed over the last 40 years. While survival rates have improved for many other cancers, only 24 per cent of people with brain cancer survive beyond five years. Each year, more than 2,000 people receive a diagnosis and about 1,600 die from the disease. But this event was an important reminder of how we can change this. The truth is that we need to invest more in brain cancer awareness. The report they launched today has eight important asks with three key themes: that every person in Australia affected by brain cancer has access to world-class research, clinical care and support, wherever they live. We know that investment changes outcomes, and it's important that we do this.

Economy

Higher taxes, higher power bills and higher costs are the realities facing small businesses under Labor. I've seen it firsthand in my electorate of Fisher. Neal from Chilli Bins told me that his monthly fuel bill jumped by about $35,000 a month just last month. That's an extra $35,000 in one month. At Top Nosh Meals in Beerwah, Wendy told me their electricity bills are hitting $21,000 a quarter. Tom from Gateway Care, which provides food to the homeless and people who are doing it tough, is paying about $4,000 a month for electricity despite having almost 100 kilowatts of solar on the roof. These are local businesses and charities that I visited recently, much to the surprise of the Minister for Small Business. They're supporting local jobs, families and our community, yet they're being squeezed by rising costs.

Meanwhile, Labor botched its ATO credit card ban and only backed down under pressure from small business and the coalition. While Australians tighten their belts, this government keeps spending. We've seen 16 interest rate rises under Labor. Inflation is too high, and Commonwealth debt is approaching $1 trillion. That's why I'm calling for an end to the spend in this parliament. Australians are living within their—

The member for Holt has the call.

Massouris, Mr George

I rise today to speak about George Massouris and his incredible contribution to Cranbourne Secondary College and our local community. George started at Nathalia High School in 1986, before joining Cranbourne Secondary College in 1989. Over the past 37 years, he has taught and mentored thousands of students across our community. George became assistant principal in 2013, continuing to play an important role in the lives of students.

I first met George after being elected to parliament in 2022. I remember mentioning my love of baklava and, the next time I saw him, his mum had kindly made some for me. It's a small gesture, but it says so much about the warmth of George and his family. George has always understood the importance of bringing people together. Through his work, George has instrumentally been promoting the many cultures that make up our community, helping to build a strong sense of pride and belonging among students, staff and families. After 40 years in education, George deserves our sincere thanks. He leaves behind a lasting legacy, and he will be greatly missed. Happy retirement, George.

Fiscal Policy

Labor has invented a new form of small business assistance: create the problem, delay the damage, then try to claim the credit for the backflip. Take the ATO credit card debacle. Businesses rely on credit cards to manage tax payments and cashflow. Labor announced that it would remove that option. Businesses protested, and then Labor pushed the deadline back to June 2027. That problem hasn't been solved; it's just been rescheduled. Then there's a proposed 30 per cent tax on discretionary trusts—another assault on family businesses, who are already doing it tough.

While Labor adds to the uncertainty, the national economic outlook is deteriorating. I've met cafe owners, tourism operators, butchers, small business retailers and manufacturers right across Dawson. They know what happens when expenses rise faster than revenue. They go broke. That results in an apprentice not being hired, equipment not being replaced or expansion being shelved. These are the decisions that determine whether regional communities grow or die. Labor is the party of high taxes, higher power bills and a botched credit card ban. You cannot build a stronger economy by weakening the businesses that keep it running. Australia needs a government that listens before it legislates. Australia needs a Liberal-National government.

Domestic and Family Violence

Power and control. You might think that I'm talking about politics; I'm not. What I'm talking about is financial abuse. Imagine a partner who is so controlling, they control every single dollar. Now imagine that partner denying their own wife the money to buy sanitary products. That is what financial abuse looks like. It is really disgusting. There are so many different ways it can look. It can look like taking out debts or directorships in someone else's name. I met a woman, Shenane Hogg, who was beaten to a pulp and went into a nine-month coma. She woke up with a $56,000 debt. Sixteen grand in interest was earned while she was in the coma. It took her 18 months to learn how to walk. It was really disgusting.

Do you know what? This parliament, in 2024, initiated a financial abuse inquiry, and today we announced that we are supporting 58 out of 61 of its recommendations. This government is acting. We are making progress on directorships. We are making progress on whether superannuation gets paid to perpetrators and we are fixing the child support system. Five ministers are working across this. I commend this work.

Rifle Company Butterworth, Small Business

Firstly, I'd just like to acknowledge the members of Rifle Company Butterworth in the speaker's gallery and say thank you for your service. Nobly served. Well done, gentlemen—a fine effort.

I want to talk today in my 90-second statement about the situation around small business. Small business is doing it tough at the moment, paying high taxes and paying energy bills that are just going through the roof. This Labor government talks up a big game. We heard the Minister for Small Business yesterday in question time saying, 'We're listening.' Well, don't just listen, Minister; act. Please act for and on behalf of those small businesses doing it very, very tough. I could be flippant and say that the definition of 'a small business' was 'a large business when the coalition was in government', and it's become a small business. But this is not a laughing matter. This is a serious matter, and I do suspect that one of the reasons why Labor is hitting small business so hard at the moment is that it can't get in the doors of small business because they're not unionised, and Labor only ever cares about the union workers and trying to make sure—

Honourable members interjecting—

You can hear them chirp up now, because, when you actually attack their beloved union members and how they're beholden to the unions, that's the only time they arc up. Well, don't arc up about that. Arc up about small business.

Australian Workers Union

I rise to congratulate the Australian Workers Union on 140 years of standing up for working Australians. In 1886, a group of shearers met in Ballarat, determined to fight for better pay and working conditions. What started as workers standing together became one of the most important union movements in Australia's history, and Queensland has a special place in that story. From the great shearers' strike of 1891 to the Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine, Queensland unionists have helped shape the Labor movement and the rights of working Australians. It's a history that I'm incredibly proud of not just as a Labor MP from Queensland but also as a proud member of the AWU myself, and 140 years later the AWU continues that same fight. Whether it's in agriculture, manufacturing, civil construction, mining or local councils, AWU members are still fighting for fair wages, safer workplaces and secure jobs.

I want to particularly acknowledge fellow Queenslander and AWU national president Marina Chambers, along with national secretary Paul Farrow, for their leadership of this great union and, of course, Queensland branch secretary Stacey Schinnerl, who made history as the first woman to lead an AWU branch anywhere in Australia. She is a champion for workers and a deadset legend. I also want to thank the thousands of AWU delegates and organisers who stand up for their workmates every single day. To every AWU member past and present: thank you for everything you've done for working Australians. Congratulations on 140 years, and here's to another 140.

Small Business

This Labor government is strangling Aussie small business. From Denmark in WA to Sydney and to Manuka here in Canberra, wineries, cafes and restaurants are choked by rising costs and red tape. Many have collapsed under the pressure. Small business closures have reached record levels under Labor. Now their doors of businesses built over the years with risk, sweat and tears are closed. Why? Ask small business owners. They'll tell you. Labor's inflation is gnawing into their margins. Labor's red tape has bound them hand and foot, and Labor's net zero obsession is sending power bills through the roof. Small businesses ask us: 'Why would anyone start a business in this country?' Many are desperate, and when the heavy lifters in the economy, our small businesses, are sending a distress signal, you've got to listen.

Small business needs a plan. Here's the difference between the coalition and Labor: we are for small business, we are for lower inflation, we are for lower taxes, and we are for cheaper power. We have a plan to cut wasteful spending, high inflation, high taxes and high power prices. We have a plan to build infrastructure. We have a plan to build our nation. We want an Australia that is bigger, stronger and better, where young Australians can take risks, start a business, buy a home and raise a family. Only the coalition is going to put small business first.

Economy

It's not yet Halloween, but the ghost of treasurer past is back to haunt the opposition leader. Josh Frydenberg has been out and about all over the countryside telling anyone who will listen not only that he wants to jack up the GST but also that those sitting opposite are not up to it and spent too much last time they were in government. That contrasts to what we've been doing at a challenging time. We've been responsible economic managers—having that at our core—getting the deficits down, finding $180 billion in savings and getting the debt trajectory down at the same time as giving people the cost-of-living relief they need.

What is truly scary is that the Australian people don't know who's pulling the strings over there. Is it the member of the opposition? Is it the member for Canning, as we've just seen? Is it Tony Abbott? Is it Josh Frydenberg? Or, most frighteningly of all, is it Pauline Hanson?

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

CONDOLENCES Tate, Hon. Reverend Professor Michael Carter, AO; Report from Federation Chamber

The question is that the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to, and, as a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Small Business

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Labor MPs are sounding the alarm about the minister's war on small business. Today the Sydney Morning Herald quoted one Labor MP as saying 'tradespeople were told for years to use trusts' and are 'now being made to feel like the government' is 'coming after them'. When will this minister start listening to Australians who have a go, axe Labor's toxic taxes impacting thousands of tradies and stop waging war on small business?

I thank the member opposite for her question. I'm asked about small business, Mr Speaker. Last year, a record number of more than 385,000 new businesses were added to the economy—mostly small businesses. And, in fact, 1.4 million companies have registered since we came into office. That's 35 per cent higher than under the previous government and two and a half times higher than under the Howard government. Insolvency, as a proportion, is around half what it averaged under the Howard government. We've made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, giving some certainty to small businesses, and we've made the two-year loss carry-back permanent—both measures introduced by a Labor government, both measures wound back by coalition governments.

Economy

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the government helping to address inflation and global volatility, and how does that compare with other approaches?

A big thank you to the member for Spence, a champion for working people in his community north of Adelaide, for his important question. In advance of the G20 economic ministers meeting later this week, yesterday the IMF released the World Economic Outlook and today, in the last couple of hours, it released the Fiscal Monitor. What the IMF has made really clear is that global uncertainty, which has been made worse by the ongoing, prolonged war in the Middle East, is pushing up inflation around the world. It's weighing on growth, and it's also putting pressure on budgets right across the advanced economies of the world. These will obviously be the key issues in the discussions that we have with my counterparts at those G20 engagements: a big focus on fuel security and oil prices, a big focus on bond yields and borrowing costs and also on attracting more investment here in Australia.

The difference between the Australian budget and the budgets of comparable countries is profound. Our budget is in much better condition than those of other countries. We've got a sliver of the gross debt as a share of the economy that the major advanced economies have. We have the lowest average unemployment of any Australian government in 50 years. We've got stronger economic growth than all but one of the major advanced economies. So we've got a lot coming at us from around the world, but we've got a lot going for us as well. One of the reasons for that is that we have been managing the budget in a responsible way in an uncertain global environment, recognising the pressures on inflation in our economy and the longer-term challenge of productivity.

If you look at the longer-term outlook, the medium term in the budget, you can see that the big improvement over the medium term is driven primarily by the savings that were in the May budget. But sensible tax reform has a role to play as well. That's why the trusts legislation we introduced today is so important. For 50 years in this country, different reports and reviews have recommended to governments that there be reform of tax on trusts, and we're taking that on. Even though the use of trusts has doubled in the last 20 years, they're still used by only a fraction of the Australian population. More than 95 per cent of Australians don't get trust income. Less than 10 per cent of small businesses are expected to be impacted by the changes we are proposing.

So our tax reforms are all about cutting taxes for workers, which those opposite voted against. Our tax reforms are about making it easier for first-home buyers in the housing market. Those opposite voted against that, too. Our tax changes are all about better aligning the tax treatment of income from working with income from assets. That's how we will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable into the future as part of managing the budget more responsibly in the face of all this global economic uncertainty in today's fiscal monitor.

Small Business

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Labor is waging war on small and family businesses. Yesterday a Labor MP leaked to the media that they were 'not happy' about these compounding attacks on small business. When will this minister start listening to Australians who have a go and to her own Labor colleagues and stop waging war on small business?

I thank the member opposite for her question. As I mentioned in the last response, we are seeing record numbers of small businesses opening in Australia, largely due to the settings that this government has had, including $3.8 billion of assistance to small business. I meet with small businesses regularly, and regularly they tell me that the two measures that this government has introduced—the $20,000 instant asset write-off being made permanent and the two-year loss carryback being made permanent—have made a huge difference to them. These are both measures that were introduced by a Labor government and are both measures that were wound back by coalition governments.

Fuel Security

My question is to the Minister for Resources. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring that all Australians have access to secure, reliable and affordable gas?

I thank the member for Hunter for his question. He knows the vital importance of our resources sector. Today the Albanese Labor government introduced a package of bills to implement a national gas reservation scheme. This will be Australia's first national gas reservation scheme, securing the gas that Australian homes and businesses need at fair prices. This is significant structural reform, and it is about using Australia's resources to power Australian jobs, manufacturing and long-term energy and economic security. When we came to government in 2022, Australia faced an energy crisis driven by supply disruptions, ageing coal generators and an extraordinary upheaval in international gas markets. This culminated in gas being offered, under the rules that those opposite put through, into a domestic market price of well over $60 a gigajoule.

That was unacceptable—unacceptable to this government and of course unacceptable to the Australian people. Following a decade of inaction by those opposite, we acted quickly and decisively. We reformed the Domestic Gas Security Mechanism and the heads of agreement; in fact, we made sure it even worked. We implemented a gas market code of conduct. We capped the price of gas at $12 a gigajoule, which was opposed by those opposite. We released a Future Gas Strategy, which set out the role gas will play in the transition to net zero and how our gas will help our trading partners transition along their pathway to net zero. We also commissioned a gas market review which established the need for a national reservation scheme, and now we have moved to implement that scheme, moving us beyond short-term ad hoc interventions to an enduring solution in a structural manner to make sure there is an enduring means of managing the national gas market. This reservation scheme will ensure that more Australian gas is made available to Australian households, manufacturers and industries at fair prices.

Australia needs gas to keep our manufacturing sector strong. We need it to back up the uptake of renewables as they continue to come online. We need gas to heat our homes. We need gas to process more critical minerals and rare earths in Australia. Everyone in this House and in the other place has a choice. It is up to every member of this chamber, whether they be from the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens political party, One Nation or the crossbench. It is for each and every one of them to decide if they want to support more affordable gas for Australian households and businesses. That's a choice we all need to make. The Albanese government will be trusted to deliver a national gas reservation scheme. (Time expired)

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement

I'd like to inform the House that present in the special visitors gallery today are guests from Paralympics Australia, including: Ellie Cole AM, board director and Australia's most decorated female Paralympian, winning 17 swimming medals throughout her career, including six gold; Chad Perris, athlete commission member and three-time Paralympian in track and field and Paralympic bronze medallist; and wheelchair basketballer Brooke Joppich, also known as 'the Rebounder', member of the South Australian Sports Institute Para Unit. I'd also like to welcome and acknowledge veterans and their families from the Rifle Company Butterworth, visiting the member for Kennedy, and also representatives from the Brisbane Lions that are here after their third consecutive AFL premiership. Welcome to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Biosecurity

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, fire ants, which are devastating to agriculture, especially the cattle industry, and native fauna, such as koalas, have been discovered at the freight intermodal in the seat of Watson. Minister, the timeline your office has given me does not match the timeline the New South Wales minister has given me in regard to this issue. Minister, how long have the fire ants been at this site? Where did the fire ants come from, which can be determined by their DNA, and how long will it take to trace where they may have got to?

I thank the member for New England for that question. I know as a former minister for agriculture he does understand how serious the red imported fire ants are. I would also say to the member that my office has reached out to him today and offered him a briefing. I look forward to having those discussions with him or my department briefing him. I advise that the detection of the red imported fire ants at the Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre at Strathfield is something that we are taking very seriously. We have acted with the New South Wales government. As he would know as a former minister, under the biosecurity arrangements, the New South Wales government is responsible for managing the on-ground response and also for providing the public with updates, which I understand they did do yesterday.

This logistics centre is a privately run facility and is responsible for upholding strict biosecurity standards in line with Commonwealth requirements. The detection of the suspected fire ants was made on 23 September by biosecurity officers of my department as part of their routine surveillance work. The next day, 24 September, my department notified the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development of this detection. Following testing, the ants were confirmed to be red imported fire ants on 25 September—that is, two days from the first sighting—and all of the treatment works on the one ants nest that was located in between a crack in the concrete and the immediate surrounding area were completed by 28 September.

So we are taking this detection incredibly seriously, as you would expect us to, and working very closely with the New South Wales department. We've also invested more than $296 million in the current national eradication program, a program which I would note under the former government was being cut and had had cuts to it.

The member for New England on a point of order?

It's on relevance. The timeline doesn't match what the New South Wales government has got there. We want to know: How long have the fire ants been at the site? How long have they been there? Because that's how we out how work far they've spread.

Yes, there were many parts to the question. The minister is outlining a timeline. I listened carefully to what she was saying. She is mentioning a timeline and she is addressing directly the question, so I'll listen carefully to make sure. Perhaps she will provide more information in her answer. I'll listen carefully, and, if she goes off, I'll make sure that she's drawn back to the question. But she's being directly relevant now.

I say to the member for New England: he does understand how this works because there were similar detections under the former government, of which he was a member, and he would understand how this works as a private facility. He would understand routine checks are done by my department. He would also perhaps be interested that we've added an additional $2 billion in investments to biosecurity because we will never compromise on biosecurity, unlike the former government that he was a member of.

Energy

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Innovation. How will the Albanese Labor government's landmark national gas reservation scheme support manufacturing jobs and, importantly, a future made in Australia? And how is this different from the previous approaches?

I thank the member for her question and for her passionate commitment to Aussie manufacturing. I'm proud to be part of a government that is introducing a landmark national gas reservation scheme. This is about securing more affordable gas for households, business and industry. For too long, Australia has been in the perverse situation where, despite being one of the biggest gas producers in the world, we've had shortages and price shocks at home. Australians expect us to do better and that's why this policy is so important. This is our gas and it should be used here first for our needs. This is a landmark Labor reform delivering affordable gas for Australians and shielding the economy from global shocks. Our domestic gas reservation will deliver reliable supplies of affordable gas, drive new manufacturing investment and protect existing capacity while giving certainty to LNG exporters.

Aussie resources powering Aussie jobs, Aussie manufacturing and Australia's long-term economic security—this is how you build a future made in Australia. The Albanese government is committed to rebuilding Australia's industrial base and we are delivering. Since coming to office, manufacturing exports have grown by a massive 63 per cent and manufacturing investment is up 40 per cent. All this supports good blue-collar jobs, especially in regional communities.

I'm asked about previous approaches, so let's look at the Liberal's track record. They offshored manufacturing jobs when they were in office and they talk it down all the time. They drove the car industry to leave. They oversaw the closure of three oil refineries, and they shut down two naval shipyards. Thousands of jobs were lost in Adelaide, Melbourne and Hunter due to callous decisions by those opposite in the former Liberal government. Now in opposition, they continue their appalling behaviour. They celebrate when manufacturers close and jobs are lost. They stand in the way of investment in regional Australia. They voted against a $15 billion national reconstruction fund and have vowed to abolish it. Incredibly, they voted against energy price relief for manufacturers. The truth is they have no plan for Aussie manufacturers and no plan for Aussie workers.

What they don't seem to realise is you can't be for manufacturing if you're not for a gas reservation policy. It'll be up to every Liberal and National Party member to decide whether they support reserving Aussie gas for Australians. Because the truth is, those opposite need to join us in backing this landmark reform that will power Aussie jobs, Aussie manufacturing and our long-term economic security.

Treasurer

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today we learnt the Prime Minister was forced to step in and clean up the Treasurer's botched ban on small businesses using credit cards to pay their tax bills, just like he was forced to step in and clean up the Treasurer's botched attempts to tax unrealised capital gains and small businesses. How much more humiliation does the Treasurer have to endure before the Prime Minister puts him out of his misery and sacks him?

Opposition members interjecting —

Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.

I really do thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. The whole premise of it is completely wrong. The Treasurer and I had a discussion last week. We convened the Expenditure Review Committee and we unanimously, right across the leadership of the government, agreed that the decision by the ATO, to have a limited period of pause on the ban that had been imposed, needed to be extended so that there would be proper consultation with small business. That was completely agreed by the Treasurer and me, in a way that was consistent with how we do good government—having a discussion between ministers and then convening appropriate forums, in this case the Expenditure Review Committee last Friday, and then making public the announcement, which the Treasurer did last Friday. I find it absolutely extraordinary that, at a time when there is someone—a former treasurer—stalking this former shadow treasurer as we speak, he asked the question.

The member for Forrest is now warned.

The bloke who is in danger of being sacked is sitting right there. You have the member for Canning working away. You have Josh Frydenberg out there, on the book tour. He's putting aside his shyness, Josh Frydenberg.

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Relevance, Mr Speaker—the question was about when this Prime Minister would sack his hapless Treasurer.

It's a pretty broad political question, so, if you ask those sorts of questions, there'll be a fairly broad answer. And the Prime Minister has a lot to work with here.

This Treasurer is like every member of the Australian Labor Party. Our version of aspiration is health, housing, jobs and opportunity. The Liberal Party version of aspiration is Josh Frydenberg. There he is, a failed treasurer who couldn't even hold his seat, overcoming his innate shyness to be out there. You can't turn on a TV without seeing Josh Frydenberg. He's out there every single day performing—'Josh around the clock' really is what it is, as we go forward. I'm looking forward to seeing more interviews. (Time expired)

Trade

My question is to the Prime Minister. At a time of disruption of global trade and supply chains, how is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Australia's trading relationships? Why is it important for Australian businesses and consumers, and are there any risks to this progress?

I thank the member for Moore for his question and for the work that he's done, including when he was there last night with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, engaging with business about the benefits that can come from free trade—in this case, our free trade agreement delivered after eight years of negotiation with the European Union, the world's second largest economy. It is an agreement that was advanced with the visit of Ursula von der Leyen, who, of course, spoke to this parliament earlier this year. There are 27 new European markets for Australian products. Trade will be 98 per cent tariff free. There are 450 million Europeans who want our Australian goods because they're the very best in the world. Why wouldn't you want Australian products? But, at the same time, it puts downward pressure on inflation because it makes European products cheaper for Australians here at home.

Now, at a time of global uncertainty, one would have thought that this agreement was unquestionably a win—a win for primary producers, a win for jobs and a win for consumers. But, importantly, it is a win as well for Australian businesses, which is why the Australian business community want this agreement to be endorsed. It is in Australia's national interest, and that's why this House and the Senate should simply vote for it. One would've thought that, for a political party that pretends that it is pro business and that it supports markets, it would be an absolute no-brainer for this to go through the Senate. We can perhaps understand political parties like the Greens political party being opposed. They don't really like trade. But it is, quite frankly, extraordinary for those opposite to question whether they will support this free trade agreement.

So the test is very clear: do you support free trade that lifts Australian exports? Do they support Australian jobs? Do they back our primary producers and Australian manufacturing? For every Labor member, the answer is very clear: we support this agreement. We back Australian trade and we engage with the world because it helps us deliver a stronger economy here at home. I invite the whole parliament to back this agreement. If not, it will expose the coalition as frauds when it comes to support for trade.

United Nations Climate Change Conference

on indulgence—Speaker, I know you're a Brisbane Lions supporter and I think you were pretty humble in your introduction today, and I'm sure the Prime Minister will join with me in this. We have one of the AFL greats here today, Leigh Matthews. He and Dusty Martin were great players, but he also was a brilliant coach. Leigh, it is great to have you here.

We might just get to the question.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Can the minister confirm that the pre-COP meeting held at Tuvalu convention centre was powered by diesel generators? And can the minister rule out whether Australian taxpayer dollars were used to deliver this diesel powered event?

I thank the honourable member for the question. I can confirm that the Fiji energy system does primarily run on fossil fuels. Yes, absolutely, that is the case. It is something the Fiji government is very keen to remedy. It is something the government of Palau is very keen to remedy something. It is something that governments around the Pacific are keen to deal with, because some Pacific islands spend 25 per cent of their GDP on fossil fuel imports, and they know that reducing their emissions is good for the climate and good for their economy and good for their sovereignty. So we are working with the Pacific. We are working with the president of Palau, who was here earlier this week, to help them on the transformation of their energy system.

Now, in relation to the cost of pre-COP, of course, it's a matter of public record that the Australian government financed and paid for pre-COP out of the reallocation of the $500 million for international climate discussions that the member for Hume had allocated when he did my job. He had half a billion dollars allocated for international relations as they repaired the damage of the Glasgow COP. We are spending that money better.

The manager, on a point of order?

Yes, it goes to relevance. It was a specific question about Tuvalu.

Honourable members interjecting—

It was. Do you want me to read the question again to you? You weren't listening. It was Tuvalu.

Order! The manager will resume—

Your ego gets in the way of your ears!

No, the manager will resume his seat. The manager is warned. I'm going to deal with this in a reasonable way. Just resume your seat for a moment. I made it clear yesterday that, if abuse of points of order were made in that way, I wouldn't take them. This is an area that I'm going to be very firm on. I don't want extra commentary or any kind of personal or extra commentary. You raise the point of order within the standing orders. This is a slippery slope, and I don't want us to go down that. The manager is now warned because that is an absolute abuse of the standing orders. He's raised his point of order. The minister now will continue with his answer and will be directly relevant to the question he was asked.

Whether it is Fiji or Tuvalu or Palau, they are all powered by diesel, and they're all trying to change that. So that's a great revelation—something you could look up on Wikipedia—that, yes, Pacific islands are powered by diesel, primarily, something they are trying to change. This question from the Manager of Opposition Business and the tenor of the comments from the opposition all week have underlined two things.

Order! The member for Herbert is warned.

The coalition does not support climate action domestically or abroad, and they show utter contempt for the Pacific. They show utter contempt and arrogance for the Pacific. The member for Hume called pre-COP 'boring'. Tell that to Melelusi, a year 8 student at Tuvalu who spoke to the Prime Minister and me and ministers and prime ministers and presidents about what's at stake for her and her future and her country. Tell that to the minister for climate change of Tuvalu, who is in the building today, who has said the visit to Tuvalu was important in showing what is at stake for their country as Australia is working with them to deal with land reclamation. The member for Wannon and the member for Hume have shown utter contempt, as well as the Leader of the National Party, who criticised the Prime Minister and me for going to Fiji and wearing what we were asked to wear by the Fijian government and called them Hawaiian shirts. Fiji is not Hawaii. They are different countries.

We will work with the people of the Pacific. We honour and respect our Pacific family and those from Samoa who we welcome to the chamber. We welcomed the President of Palau earlier this week, and we welcome the minister for climate change of Tuvalu. We don't joke about climate change in the Pacific. We don't crack jokes about rising sea levels. We work with our Pacific family, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. (Time expired)

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement

I'm pleased to inform the House that joining us today is a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Samoa, led by my friend the Speaker, Auapaau Mulipola Aloitafua Mulipola. Welcome, Your Excellency, to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE International Relations: Australia and the European Union

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How important is our relationship with the European Union—in particular, our security and defence partnership, along with securing an EU free trade deal? Are there any risks to securing this deal and the jobs and economic opportunities which would flow from it?

I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his large contribution to both defence and veterans policy. In March of this year, along with the Foreign minister, I signed the Australia-EU security and defence partnership with the EU high representative and vice-president Kaja Kallas. This landmark partnership is a recognition of the growing strategic importance of Europe to Australia. That growing strategic importance is echoed by a growing economic importance which, after literally years of effort, has seen the realisation of a dream: earlier this year, the conclusion of negotiations for an EU-Australia free trade agreement. This will open up for our country one of the largest economies in the world, worth $33 trillion; a market of 450 million people; and access to 27 different countries. This agreement will provide for almost 98 per cent of our exports to Europe being duty free.

That is great news for our farmers, for our manufacturers, for those tech companies and for those in the services economy. It will see an increase of thousands of jobs right around Australia, and it is being wholeheartedly welcomed by Australia's business community.

But what now stands in the way is what we see swirling on the opposition benches, as we watch all of them go through a torturous existential identity crisis: a contest between whether they seek to remain a party of government or whether they all slowly but surely crabwalk over to that part of the chamber to kiss the ring of the member for New England. To be sure, those opposite used to have clear perspectives on these issues. They used to speak with a clear voice. To give just one example, 'Since John Macarthur put his first bail of merino wool on a ship to England, we'—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The member for New England will have to take a point of order and state the point of order. Order! Members on my right. The member for New England, on a point of order?

No, Member for Groom, I'm not going to show anybody anything, mate. I do think you should withdraw that. I think we know it's a double entente. You're being clever. Stop it.

There's no point of order. Withdraw. The minister will continue.

I will continue reading the quote.

Since John Macarthur put his first bale of merino wool on a ship to England, we have depended upon trade, foreign investment, immigration and innovation. More than ever our future prosperity will stand on these four pillars.

These are words with which we agree—words that were spoken by the Leader of the Opposition. So the question is very clear: will he pursue his own beliefs, or will he lead his party down the path of the folly of protectionism? The question is very clear. Where does this man stand? (Time expired)

Antisemitism

My question is to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. In April, the Albanese government handed a $300,000 grant to the OnePath Network, an Islamic media company which compared Israel to Nazi Germany and claimed the firebombing of a Jewish childcare centre in Sydney was staged. Last night, the Minister for Home Affairs told the Daily Telegraph that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs was responsible for the grant. Why on earth did the minister give taxpayer funding to a group spilling hate-filled lies about Jews?

I thank the member opposite for his question. The decision that the member refers to was a decision that was made by the department. The department has now sent OnePath a notice of intention to terminate, and that begins the process of revoking the grant.

The government provided funding in this year's budget for a new technology to scan the public statements of visa applicants. Today, I directed the department to explore how this technology could also be used in the grants application process. The grants process has supported a wide range of community media outlets, and the department has now, as I mentioned, delivered a notice of intention to terminate.

Cybersafety

My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government working to protect Australians from serious harm online, and what has been the response?

I thank the member for Dunkley for her question. She has been an immense advocate for our online safety reform agenda and an unwavering supporter of her constituent Wayne Holdsworth and his organisation, SmackTalk. Of course, this parliament remembers that Wayne lost his son, Mac, to extortion online. Parents like Wayne should be the driving force behind all of our work on online safety to keep Australians safe online.

Australia has one of the most comprehensive online safety frameworks in the world. It protects Australian children from cyberbullying. It protects adults from cyberabuse. It requires online services to report how they are keeping Australians safe. It empowers the eSafety Commissioner to take down seriously harmful material, including image based abuse. As the coalition has been focused on this week, there are 17 industry drafted codes and standards that were designed by big tech, not the parliament, to protect Australians from illegal and restricted content.

This complex framework has helped many Australians, but an independent statutory review has found that it is not able to cope with the growing scale of problems in the online world. Just last week the AFP commissioner, Krissy Barrett, warned that the police cannot be the only safety net when it comes to the radicalisation of young people online. By the time the AFP is knocking on a door, the harm is already done. That is why tomorrow the Albanese government will introduce a digital duty of care to the parliament.

Australia's digital duty of care will set basic safety standards for the online services we all use every day, just like we have in every other industry. It will shift the burden from the shoulders of victims like Wayne and Mac to the companies that are creating the environments where harms occur. It moves the safety net upstream to the people who design the product before it ever reaches the child. The core of the duty is to provide a safe online environment and to put systems in place so all Australians are protected from seriously harmful and illegal content. Harm like tech facilitated, gender based violence, like pro-terror material, like child sexual abuse material, like death threats and rape threats—harm that I think we can all agree parliament needs to protect Australians from.

So imagine my surprise this week when the coalition began criticising the government for trying to do just that and for taking the core requirements of the 17 industry codes and standards and bringing them together under law for parliament to debate. Last week they were criticising our online safety laws for not having enough parliamentary scrutiny. This week they're criticising our online safety laws for having too much parliamentary scrutiny. Put your politics to the side, listen to the AFP commissioner, and help us pass— (Time expired)

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement

I'd like to welcome members of the Bathurst RSL subbranch as guests of the member for Calare.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Thriving Kids

My question is to the Minister for Disability and the NDIS. Minister, the Victorian government is delivering Thriving Kids through its department of education, with allied health and support workers employed by the state and embedded in childcare centres and schools. South Australia tried embedding allied health workers inside schools some years ago, and that model failed. Providers are concerned it's going to fail again. Your government has allotted $2 billion to the states for Thriving Kids. What assurances can you offer that critical early intervention services will be available when Victorians need them?

Thank you to the member for her question and for her role in being the deputy chair of the parliamentary inquiry into Thriving Kids, which really helped to inform the Thriving Kids Advisory Group's recommendations not just to the Commonwealth but to all governments about the design of this important program.

As the member knows, when we had discussions with jurisdictions about the rollout of this program that will provide support to children under the age of nine with more mild to moderate support needs associated with developmental delay and/or autism, all state governments indicated that they wanted to take the lead in service delivery. That's not an exclusive operation. We will be doing things at a Commonwealth level that are appropriate—for example, through primary care settings and the like—but the bulk of service delivery will be undertaken at the state and territory level. What that will mean is that there will be a degree of variation between jurisdictions about the type of service and the location of that service which will largely turn on the history of service delivery that predated the NDIS. The member is as familiar with that history as anyone in this chamber, I think, given her professional background.

We have welcomed that indication of deep interest by state and territory governments to take a lead on that. It means that they can tap into some very longstanding, mature services, ranging from infant and maternal health services to school operations. At the same time, we have been very clear that there are outcomes that we expect to see and performance indicators that we expect to have met by all state and territory jurisdictions. They are incorporated into the Thriving Kids bilateral agreements that all state governments have signed and implementation plans that all state governments—with the exception, unfortunately, of the Queensland state government—have also completed and submitted to the Commonwealth. That is the basis on which they will be receiving additional Commonwealth money. The Commonwealth does not have a particular view about ways in which state governments should not do this. The outcomes are important from a Commonwealth perspective, and obviously we'll be monitoring those outcomes very closely.

Education: Artificial Intelligence

My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to help children and young people learn in the classroom and protect them from harm online? What has been the response?

I thank my friend the magnetic member for Menzies for his question. If you want to get an idea about the impact that artificial intelligence has in our schools, check this out. China has just done a study on artificial intelligence involving 26,000 high school students. What it found is that, when they used AI, homework marks increased by 18 per cent and it reduced exam marks by 20 per cent. So you can see what's happening here in terms of what kids are learning and what they're not. I've spoken here in the parliament and outside the parliament in the last few weeks about why we need a digital detox in our schools, about how the evidence is showing us that the more time children have behind a screen the more likely it is that their results will decline and that they'll fall behind, about the impact it has on concentration and about how it's frying the attention spans of our kids.

There's a reckoning coming here. It's not just about screen time or screen limits in our schools. It's also about what we do with AI. There's a reason why we don't give kids calculators in kindergarten. They've got to learn how to count before we give them the tools to do it at speed. They've also got to learn how to think. Working things out manually is a bit like taking your brain to the gym. You've got to develop those mental muscles and learn critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. There's a fair bit of evidence now that AI can undermine this. It what's called cognitive stunting. That's why a number of jurisdictions across the world, including New York and LA, have just hit the pause button on the use of AI in primary schools. So, when ministers come together in a couple of weeks to talk about a digital detox, we'll look at all of these things, including screen times and AI. This is all about helping to make sure that our kids learn when they're at school.

We've also got to make sure that we protect them when they're online. That's what the digital duty of care bill that is getting introduced tomorrow is all about. It puts the onus on tech companies to take reasonable steps to make sure that our children aren't exposed to pornography, things that glorify crime, things that promote eating disorders or things that teach boys to hate girls. No parent wants their kids exposed to this sort of sick stuff. They expect us to act here. This is not political censorship. This is about protecting our kids.

Goldmining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the billion-dollar McPhillamys goldmine near Blayney was blocked by your government at the eleventh hour. Today, the Federal Court ruled the decision was 'made without authority'. Who will the Prime Minister hold accountable for a decision that put hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars worth of investment into the Central West on hold?

I thank the member for his question. I am aware that the Federal Court has handed down its judgement for this matter. I understand the court found the declaration was not validly made. This is a complex legal case. As it's a legal matter, we will work through the judgement together with the Attorney-General and we'll consider the findings very carefully indeed.

Aged Care

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. How is the Albanese Labor government backing the workforce that cares for older Australians, and what are the risks to that workforce?

I was very, very proud to stand up with the member for Lalor in her community almost a year ago now as our new aged-care act took effect. I thank her for the question, and I thank her for her tireless advocacy for older people across Melbourne's west. Every day, hundreds of thousands of Australian workers turn up to care for some of the most treasured people in our lives: our mums, our dads, our grandparents. They help them shower and dress and to take their daily medications. They keep them company when they might otherwise be alone.

For years, those workers were told they weren't worth a decent wage, and they left the sector in droves. In 2022, when the HSU, the ANMF and the UWU took their case to the Fair Work Commission, those opposite offered them two measly payments of just 400 bucks. Frankly, that's insulting. So, within 24 hours of being sworn into office, we joined their case and backed them in with real money, almost $18 billion into aged-care wages over four years. A registered nurse on the most common classification is now more than $36,000 a year better off than in 2022. Here's the thing: when you pay people a decent wage for an honest day's work, they actually want to do it.

Those opposite in their last four years in government granted just 88 skilled visas to personal care workers—88 personal care workers. There are more members on the government side of the House of Representatives than that. In fact, those opposite have said that under their migration plan some aged-care workers would be told to pack up and go home. How many? Well, of course, they can't tell us that. Imagine that. A young woman comes here, trains here, earns her qualifications here—under those opposite, she'd have to get on a plane, leave the country, rejoin the migration queue and apply for a visa from offshore. All the while, someone's mum or dad is waiting for the care that she could have provided. This is a risk we cannot take.

Under their migration plan, they're not satisfied with just tanking the economy. They also want to take a sledgehammer to Australia's essential care workforce. The opposition wants to gut the visas that allow essential workers to stay in Australia and continue contributing to our economy and our communities. Under their plan, if they go, they won't be replaced. That job becomes a vacancy, which isn't just a line on a spreadsheet; it's an older Australian waiting longer for care that they need and they deserve. That's the difference between us and those opposite.

We have a plan for growing and strengthening Australia's aged-care workforce. We've listened to those workers, and we've delivered for them five times. This side of the House will keep backing those workers every single day.

Cybersafety

My question is to the Minister of Communications. Can you confirm that sections 205H and 205J of the draft digital duty of care bill provide an absolute exemption from all laws and civil proceedings, including the Privacy Act, for the government to use false and fictitious AI powered sock puppet accounts to post information and engage with and surveil conversations with Australians online?

Thank you very much for the question. To the first part of the question, you'll have to wait 20 more hours until I introduce the legislation to the House tomorrow, but the exposure draft has been out for three weeks now in order to give everybody a chance to come prepared for the parliamentary debate.

I discussed sock puppets at this dispatch box in question time yesterday. Sock puppets, I think we're all aware, are used malevolently online by malevolent actors and therefore have a reputation, in some parts, that people are mistrustful of. That's an understandable position to have, but this isn't about that. This is the fact that sock puppets exist and are used by malevolent actors already, and the eSafety commission and accredited researchers from Australian institutions—another word that might be less ominous is 'mystery shopper'—need to mystery shop what is happening on platforms in order to test whether platforms are actually doing what they say that they are doing.

If they say they are asking a 14-year-old for their age, we need to test if they are actually doing that. So the eSafety commission or accredited researchers create an account as a 14-year-old girl and test those hypotheses. They do it for good purpose. Yesterday, the Butterfly Foundation came out and said we would not be where we are without the use of sock-puppet accounts by Australian accredited researchers, because it enabled us to test and demonstrate that, on Pinterest and on Reddit and on Meta and on Instagram, 14-year-old girls are being fed eating disorder content over and over again and, when these platforms are asked to take that material down, the percentages were like four per cent on X, nine per cent on Instagram and 25 per cent on Pinterest. It's absolutely not good enough. They are not doing what they said that they would do. We have put that in the exposure draft and we intend to put that through the legislation because we think that we should be able to mark the tech platforms' homework. They should not get to mark their own homework. That is the purpose of sock puppets. Accredited researchers currently live in Poland or Germany because, if they lived in their own country, they would be sued by the platforms. There are no legal protections for them at the moment. That is why we seek to put that in a digital duty of care.

The onus should be on the platforms to prevent harm online, not on individuals who have harm occur to them—and then for us to do an ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-a-cliff approach, which is what is currently happening. It's really important work. I look forward to any amendments from you that you have to improve the bill when we introduce it tomorrow, but some of the miscommunication flying around online is not at all reflective of the earnest and sincere desire to keep Australian kids online through the very best methods available to us by some of the best Australian researchers who are heralded the world over and who currently face legal threats if they try and do that work on Australian shores.

Energy

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians with their electricity bills and their transport costs? What policies would cut this cost-of-living help?

Order! The member for Lyne is warned. Do not interject before a minister has even begun, to assist the House.

I thank the honourable member for the question. In Australia, 574,400 homes have now installed a cheaper home battery, reducing their bills, in many cases, to zero. And I have good news for the member for Bullwinkel. That great outer suburban and regional electorate that the member for Bullwinkel so ably represents has now joined the club of electorates where more than 10 per cent of the houses have installed a cheaper home battery, joining the members for Hume and Mitchell and Macquarie and Greenway and Chifley and others. It doesn't end there. There is another electorate which has joined the 10 per cent club. It's not an inner city electorate. It's an electorate in the industrial, energy-making heartland of Australia. I congratulate the member for Hunter. They're not short of batteries in the Hunter, and they are not short when it comes to a great local member. Now the people of Hunter have more than 10 per cent of the houses with a cheaper home battery.

The member for Bullwinkel also asked me about transport, and I'm very happy to tell the House that now we have surpassed another milestone. Half a million Australians have bought an electric vehicle. This is possible because of the new vehicle efficiency standard which this government introduced to ensure that Australians have improved choices when it comes to vehicles. When we came to office, there were 60 models of EVs available. Now there are 196. When we came to office, there were no EVs available for under $40,000. Now there are 15, and the cheapest new car on sale in Australia today is an EV. This is about Australians making those choices and saving at the bowser. We know that Australians who bought an EV will save $76 million by petrol that they won't buy this year. That's $76 million saved at the bowser they can spend on other things.

Recently we had—the honourable member asked me what policies could stop this, and there's a number, and they all come from that side of the House because the other side of the House would abolish the Cheaper Home Batteries policy, and they have announced they would abolish the New Vehicle Efficiency Standards. This will see those savings disappear, and we know that. Don't take my word for it, because this was a reheated policy from the last election. When the now leader of the opposition put the costings out, it showed that abolishing the New Vehicle Efficiency Standards would see Australians paying $600 million more in petrol tax by not getting those savings. The then shadow treasurer and the then shadow finance minister, now leader and deputy leader of the Liberal Party, when they put their costings out two days before the election, actually put out a policy which would see Australians pay $600 million more in petrol tax by taking choices away from Australians, such is their opposition to climate action. They would insult the Pacific, vote against free trade and see Australians paying more petrol tax.

Treasurer

My question is to the Treasurer. Reports suggest the Treasurer is hastily negotiating with state treasurers to fix the problem of stamp duty that has arisen from his trainwreck budget. Queensland Treasurer David Janetzki said that he was 'unaware of any negotiations'. Is the Treasurer misleading Australians again, or is this just another example of this treasurer making things up to get himself through a crisis of his own making?

The discussions are happening at the departmental level, as I've made clear on a number of occasions. Treasury's advice is that the election option that we put into the trust arrangements at the suggestion of COSBOA and CPA is not expected to result in state and territory stamp duties, because it only applies for Commonwealth income tax purposes and doesn't require a change to the trust deed or trustee powers. I'm informed by Treasury that they have engaged with all of the states and territories as the implementation details have been developed, with consideration given to relevant laws and arrangements. As stakeholders like CPA have made clear, it's on the states to provide the guidance and certainty to their taxpayers on this key question. All of this has been made clear before. It may be that the shadow treasurer is either deliberately ignoring that or not aware of those important facts, but I appreciate the opportunity to inform him.

When it comes to Treasurer Janetzki in Queensland, despite billions of dollars in extra funding from the Commonwealth and despite a growing GST take being provided to Queensland—despite all of that—he has recently seen a downgrade to his credit rating, and I think that explains more than anything the comments from Treasurer Janetzki, and in this regard, unfortunately, he has no more credibility than the shadow treasurer who asks the question. The difference between the Queensland budget and the Commonwealth budget is that, on Friday night, the third ratings agency rated the Australian budget—the Commonwealth budget, managed by this side of the House—as triple A. It's a triple-A budget from all three major credit ratings agencies. It was actually a Labor government that was the first to secure the triple A stable from all three major credit ratings agencies. It's for the Queensland Treasurer to explain why, despite billions of dollars in extra funding from the Albanese Labor government, they've still just seen a downgrade to their credit rating.

Housing

My question is to the Minister for Housing, Homelessness and Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government cutting red tape and helping builders get more homes underway? What approaches would see fewer homes built?

I want to thank the member for his question. The member for McEwen is such a champion for housing, and I want to report to the parliament that, as of today, he has helped 2,608 of his constituents get the keys to their own homes. How fantastic is that? He is working so deeply with our government to tackle the bigger housing challenges facing our country.

The honourable member knows, as I do, that if we want our country to build more homes then we must make it easier to build them. Right across our country, for a long time, we've had a situation where a builder will have a piece of land. They'll have a homebuyer but they will be stuck in the housing process. They'll be stuck waiting for an approval. They'll be stuck waiting on a road to be delivered, stuck waiting for water to be connected, stuck waiting on the tradie that they need. The simple truth is it is too hard to build a home in this country. It takes too long to get housing built. That is why our government is stepping up and working across the three levels of government to have an impact on this problem.

One of the really critical parts of this that the Commonwealth has a lot of influence over is the National Construction Code. We're working really closely with builders across the country to reform that code. It is too long, it is too complex, and that's why we've paused the code for five years. We're making the code simpler to understand, simpler to use and simpler to comply with. Now we've got the opposition leader, in his customarily rude way, yelling at me, as though the Labor government invented the National Construction Code. I mean, how ridiculous, and what a terrible pattern of behaviour, for those opposite to consistently come into this parliament and pretend that we've only had housing issues facing our country for the last four years. What a joke. We've got 28 million Australians who can see that's not the case. What they've got in charge is a government that takes this problem seriously and is actually stepping up and acting.

We are seeing real progress. Through the EPBC Act changes, we've smashed through 82,000 environmental approvals that were sitting there, and we're seeing the fruits of this. I want to remind the parliament that the latest ABS data tells us that we have almost 250,000 homes under construction right now, right around our country. That is the highest level since records began.

We are taking a comprehensive and massive approach to housing. Those opposite have not a single sensible thing to say about this. One of the biggest problems facing the country, other than the shadow minister for housing's ridiculous suggestion that disadvantaged Australians should live in substandard homes—shame on them—is we need serious reform of this system. We need to do better by Australians, and that's exactly what our government is delivering.

Aged Care

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. In the gallery are concerned aged-care providers. The 2.55 per cent increase on AN-ACC funding is unsustainable, is below inflation and has caused thousands of planned beds to be shelved. We need 10,000 new aged-care beds annually. Last year, just 800 were added. Thousands of our elderly are stuck in hospitals waiting for an aged-care bed around our nation. Minister, this is a disaster on your watch. Will you lift the AN-ACC funding to at least match inflation?

I thank the member for Mayo for her question. As I have done previously, I acknowledge that she engages very constructively around all matters relating to aged care, both in her community and nationally; and plays a role, as she did this morning, with the friendship group that convened this morning. This government said it would rebuild aged care, and that work is very much well underway. Right across the country, we're getting beds built. We're getting older people the care they need at home and we're backing the workforce that makes all of that possible.

The member's question relates to the AN-ACC funding arrangements for residential aged-care providers. Government sets residential aged-care funding based on the advice from the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, IHACPA. IHACPA provides expert advice to me and Minister Butler based on extensive modelling and sectorwide surveys with a view to working out the efficient cost of delivering care. Because the IHACPA process is about identifying current costs, not about indexing existing funding, it's not meaningful to compare the year-on-year increase with wider economic and wage trends, such as the question does. Each year, IHACPA looks at a refreshed set of data based on sector-reported costs and its own costing studies.

For now, the hoteling supplement will remain at its current rate of $22.15 per resident per day, and this reflects advice to government that there is an average surplus of 18c per resident per day in everyday living funding across all homes. The government has asked the Independent Hospital and Aged Care Pricing Authority to review this hoteling supplement to ensure that it supports the delivery of high-quality care that meets future demand. This is, of course, in addition to the AN-ACC funding that the member's question refers to.

There is more work to do to ensure that we can meet that historical demand for aged care right across the aged-care system, but we are starting to see generational reforms translate into better care on the ground. This Labor government will keep listening to older Australians and will keep working with the sector to make sure that every older Australian can access safe, dignified and high-quality aged-care services.

Tertiary Education and Training

My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's free TAFE program delivering the skilled workers Australia needs, including in regional Australia? Are there any risks to this program?

Can I thank my friend the member for Bendigo for her question and for her advocacy for her community on the ground and in this place. Last week, I was absolutely thrilled to join her to see firsthand how the Albanese Labor government's free TAFE program is working on the ground, how it's ensuring that all those Australians who want good, secure jobs in those critical industries that keep our country going can get the skills they want. There have been 850,000 enrolments so far and 275,000 course completions. That's growing every single day. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have directly benefited from free TAFE, including in regional Australia, which makes up a third of free TAFE enrolments. We know that in regional communities there's a need to keep growing the workforce in the healthcare sector, as the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors made clear just a moment ago.

Free TAFE is playing a really big part in making this happen, including for people like Nerissa, Chelsea and Evie, who the member for Bendigo and I met with again last week. They're just three of the 37,000 enrolments in the Diploma of Nursing who've been backed in by free TAFE. It was great to hear that Nerissa is getting very close to graduating. Free TAFE helped her pursue her goal of becoming a nurse, and paid prac helped her through her placements. Chelsea told me that free TAFE enabled her to make a career change in her late 20s, and she gave out some advice to anyone thinking about free TAFE. She said to me, 'Definitely do it.' We've made free TAFE permanent so that every Australian can definitely do it, just like Chelsea, and set themselves up for a great future through free TAFE. Real support for real skills.

But we know this future remains under threat because those opposite, the Liberals, the Nationals and, over there, One Nation too, continue to talk it down. They voted against making free TAFE permanent. They talk it down and, in so doing, talk down those hundreds of thousands of Australians. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is just the latest example of this. When she was asked on the ABC where her coalition cuts would take place, she specifically called out free TAFE, and not for the first time, because she's got form, does Senator Hume. She called it a slogan. She asked, rhetorically, I think, 'Why would you continue it?' Meanwhile, the shadow minister for skills called it a headline and talked about money buying votes. Well, she should say that to Nerissa. She should say that to Chelsea or to Evie. It's clear as day that those opposite, all of them, hate free TAFE. They refuse to see the opportunities that it's opening up for Australians.

On this side of the House, we're backing Australians to get good skills, great qualifications and a career that will set them up for life.

Interest Rates

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the average mortgage holder now paying $30,000 more per year because of the 16 interest rate rises under his government?

What we take responsibility for is making sure that we produced two budget surpluses under this Treasurer. We take responsibility for the $230 billion improvement in the budget, the fact that we've had almost $180 billion of savings and the fact that we produced eight separate budgets or budget updates, every one of which has had a savings measure in it. We take responsibility for the fact that over 260,000 Australians—

Opposition members interjecting—

I've finished, then.

The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.

The Leader of the Opposition, I don't appreciate that language. Neither does the House. Words matter, and I want everyone to be treated with respect in this place.

Taxation

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How is the Albanese Labor government helping working Australians through tax cuts and practical cost-of-living relief, and how does that contrast with other approaches?

I thank the member for Newcastle for her question, and I know that, throughout her career, the member for Newcastle has understood and has shown a commitment to the importance of delivering meaningful change for hardworking Australians, helping them keep more of what they earn.

The Albanese Labor government tax agenda is about fairness, reward for work and putting more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Our changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax mean that we are tilting the property market in favour of first home buyers. First home buyers no longer have to bid against the whole tax system when they attend an auction. We are delivering tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, commencing on 1 July this year. This means that an average Australian worker could be up to $2,116 better off from 2028. As part of this, our $1,000 instant tax deduction will benefit 6.2 million working Australians. This will make tax time simpler and will save taxpayers time and money.

Now compare this with those opposite. The coalition went to the last election pledging to legislate to wind back tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. The then leader of the opposition stated, talking about our tax cuts, 'We absolutely would repeal it.' This is one of the few things he's been clear about. And, when it comes to superannuation, they are ideologically opposed to the superannuation system and to keeping it strong.

We now have former Liberal treasurer and Liberal leader aspirant Josh Frydenberg floating another ideological obsession: the need to raise the GST. And that's a plan backed in by the shadow Treasurer in this very chamber. The current leader of the opposition says he's ruled it out, but don't believe it. Increasing the GST is a part of their DNA. It's the last thing that those in Australia struggling with the cost of living need. This is a measure that would boost inflation and drive down living standards. Do those opposite think that petrol is too cheap? Raising the GST would slug them with extra costs. Do they think that slapping higher GST on construction costs will help with the need for extra housing? Do they think that restaurants and takeaway food are too cheap? Adding to the GST will not help. This House should not forget that even the former prime minister thinks that Josh Frydenberg—

Opposition members interjecting—

They understand. See, they're excited about the GST.

The Assistant Treasurer will pause. We're not having that sort of behaviour. It's not acceptable. Everyone can interject, but we're not having that in the House. The Assistant Treasurer can conclude his answer in 20 seconds.

The one thing that gets them excited is the GST. When it comes to Josh Frydenberg, even the former prime minister Scott Morrison didn't trust him. He appointed himself Treasurer to double-check his work. We are the ones that are committed to lowering taxes and making it easier for hardworking Australians.

On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

DOCUMENTS Presentation

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.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Agriculture Industry, Small Business

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

The impact of the Government's policies on Australia's farmers and small business owners.

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

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

I rise to talk about some of the very bad mistakes that this government has made. I think there's going to be a defining moment, when we look back at the last parliament and this parliament, that's going to be measured in history, and that's the budget that was brought down this year. What happened when the budget was brought down this year was that it was like the straw that broke the camel's back and the complete trust of the Australian public in this government. That happened that night. There were many reasons for it: the changes to the capital gains tax, the changes to trusts and the changes to negative gearing, which this government said they wouldn't do. When they made those changes in this year's budget, that was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the trust of the Australian public in this government was lost that night.

I want to just share one story. We on this side all went back to our communities the week after the budget and heard lots of examples of people in despair about the fact that these changes had been made deceitfully, as we know, because they weren't made as part of their election commitments. I actually got my hair cut the week after the budget—I'm glad I still have to have a haircut—and was talking to my barber; she's been cutting my hair for over 10 years. She was asking me questions about what this would mean for her, because they are the typical family that this side of the parliament wants to support and a typical family that that side of the chamber used to support and now doesn't, because she's a hairdresser. She runs her own business. She doesn't get a salary. She has her own small business that she runs. Her husband is a diesel mechanic. Again, he's not on a salary; he is running his own business as a diesel mechanic. They also have bought a bus run because they want to get ahead. They're aspiring Australians. Again, usually that side of politics would have supported a diesel mechanic. Usually that side of politics would have supported a hairdresser and people who went and bought a small business, but no more. None of her family earn salaries. What they've set up is a trust structure. She was, as you may know, one of 350,000 small businesses in Australia that have set up a trust structure. She was in despair: 'What does this mean for me and what impact will this have for me?'

I've obviously had a number of chats with her since then, and it's not good, because, basically, when the Treasurer talks about tax reform, what he's always talking about on that side of the parliament is tax increases. So her tax bill and the tax bill for her family is going up because of this. They've done it in good faith. A good, aspiring Australian family—a diesel mechanic and a hairdresser. They've bought a small business, as well, to try and get ahead and they work really, really hard. All this government does is want to tax them more and make things even harder. That's the bottom line. She said, 'Why would they do that?' I then explained to her the lack of small business experience on that side of the chamber. I'll stand corrected if anyone ever wants to get up on that side and say: 'Do you know what? I've been a small business operator and had a trust structure.'

It didn't take me long. I said, 'I'll explain to you, and it's a bit disappointing, about the employment history of our Prime Minister and our Treasurer and why they don't understand it.' You see, they don't understand it, because they've never done it. They've never rolled up the doors or put out a shingle, or worked in private enterprise, the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. They've never done that. They've never even worked in private enterprise and never owned their own small business. I explained to her: 'The Prime Minister's first job out of university was to work for a Labor minister, Tom Uren. His second job out of university was to be the assistant general of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. The Prime Minister's third job after university was as a staffer for Bob Carr. Then, of course, his fourth job was actually to be an MP.' And then I said, 'And the Treasurer probably is a little bit worse.' Let's think about the job for a second. The Treasurer, who's just made some radical decisions—again, not tax reform, just tax increases—is responsible for the economy. He calls himself a doctor. He has a PhD—not in economics. He hasn't done economics degree. Never mind, does his work history help?

I explained to her that his first job out of university was to work for Wayne Swan as a political staffer. His second job was to work for another Labor MP, Kim Beazley. His third job was to work for Morris Iemma, another state MP. Again, his fourth job was to be a Labor MP. She then obviously understood. She went: 'Okay, I get it. None of them have worked in small business.' I said, 'Well, they haven't worked in private enterprise, let alone in small business and certainly would never have run a trust structure or had a trust structure for their family or for multiple family businesses that they may run, so they just don't understand it. This is just esoteric stuff on pieces of paper that's given to them by a bureaucrat, and they don't live and breathe it and don't understand in their DNA how this works.'

I also did lament with her, saying, 'The great shame about this is that every member over there should hang their head in shame.' As we say, you should all hang your heads in shame, because, if there's one thing you can say, it is that they decided to do this, but they did it in a first budget after an election in which they promised not to do it. If there's one thing you can say, it is that maybe they changed their minds after the election. They had this idea, this brainstorm. They said, 'We know what a good idea is.' But they were actually asked about the policies during the election campaign and they said they wouldn't do it. There's great shame in that. Besides it being the bad policy that it is, that was a moment when the Australian public lost all their trust and faith in this government, and that is what we're seeing.

Obviously, we have the compliance costs for this. There have been models done. There have been unintended consequences. We're seeing carve-outs. We're seeing charities and a whole lot of other things go to the government and say why this isn't a good idea. But we're talking about policies that are harming farmers and small businesses, and therefore the budget of every family in this country is being harmed by these policies.

I can't talk today without mentioning the net zero 2050 costs and the policies that this government is following, which are destroying Australian families and Australian budgets. The one thing I always want to stress and remind the other side of when we talk about net zero 2050 is that this is about carbon emission reductions. Okay, we understand that. Deputy Speaker Claydon, you would know that the three biggest carbon emitters in the world are the US, China and India. And, Deputy Speaker, I know that you know that none of them have signed up to net zero 2050. Who would have thought? Australia has one per cent of carbon emission reductions. Those three emitters are the vast majority of emitters, but this government is putting on us the cost of adhering to these policies, which is bankrupting Australian families and Australian business. We're seeing bailouts. You were at one, Deputy Speaker, just a month or two ago. It was for Tomago, a company that's very important to the Australian economy. Again, what do they need? What do the Whyalla steel works need? What do the tin smelters need? What does every major manufacturing company in this country at the moment need? They need a bailout. That's because of the folly of this government and its net zero 2050 policies. And, as I say, it's not going to change the temperature one bit.

The minister responsible for all this, by the way—I'm sure you heard this too, Deputy Speaker—just three or four weeks ago said he never believed in the folly of green hydrogen. I agree—neither have I! But, unfortunately, he committed $9 billion of taxpayer money to the folly. I hate to think what he would have committed if he actually believed in it. Again, this just highlights that, when they talk about taxpayer money, this money is like monopoly money for them, not having been in private enterprise and not having run their own small businesses, because they've never had to generate their own money from their own businesses.

The other thing that we need to comment on today is the IMF report. The member for Gippsland just raised an issue today about the government accepting responsibility. I'd like the Prime Minister to stand up and accept responsibility for anything that might not be going well. Sure, international factors have an effect. None of us are denying that over here. But what the report showed this week is that the inflation rate in this country is one of the top five or six among countries in the developed world. Our inflation rates are higher than most other developed countries in the world. Our interest rates are higher because of that, and mortgage costs are higher because of that. But the IMF report is also saying that our unemployment rate is forecast to go up, while in many other countries around the world it's forecast to go down. They can't blame international comparisons where we're worse on international things that are going on in the world. So shame on this government for making life harder for our businesses and life harder for Australian families.

It's always a pleasure to stand up and talk about small businesses and the farming sector—communities that I represent in the great electorate of Eden-Monaro.

Our government is backing small businesses across the country. We're delivering $3.8 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses, including making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. It had become a bit of a thing in the Senate that those opposite would stall the passing of the instant asset write-off each and every year so that small businesses would be left hanging, wondering whether it was going to happen for the next financial year. So we've made that permanent in our budget. Around 300,000 small businesses claimed that instant asset write-off in the 2024-25 financial year. They used it to invest in tools, in technology and in equipment that they need to grow. And we're introducing a permanent two-year loss carry back to support cash flow investment and resilience.

We're also cutting $10.2 billion a year in regulatory costs across the economy, because small-business owners should be able to spend more time building their businesses and less time dealing with the unnecessary red tape. Our government is backing those 2.7 million small businesses with the certainty and the support that they need to invest, to grow and to create more jobs across our country. That's why reducing that regulatory burden is so important. Modernising outdated requirements and delivering a reduction is something that is incredibly important to us—reducing that regulatory burden. Because when small businesses do invest, we know that they create jobs across the whole economy, and the country benefits.

How do I know this? Because I'm a small-business owner. My husband runs a small business. My parents ran a small business.

He's a good man, your husband.

My husband is a terrific man. That's correct, member for Riverina. And there are small-business owners across this side of the House: the member for Bullwinkel, the member for Macquarie, the member for Parramatta, the small-business minister. There is a whole range—

A government member: Sarah Witty.

Exactly right! The member for—

A government member: Hasluck.

The member for Hasluck runs a fantastic small business.

Honourable members interjecting—

Well, I can't name her—runs a fantastic small business. So when those opposite stand up and say just gross mistruths that no-one has run a small business it's absolutely ridiculous. Actually, the member that was just speaking, the member for Page, has never run a small business. I do note though, in his bio that he'd been a bond trader in a big bank. Interesting. But please, lecture us about small businesses because I'm sure bond traders know all about them!

But as I said, we are backing small businesses across this country, and the most important thing we can do is consult with small businesses. That's exactly what this side of the House have said we will do. We know these tax changes will have impacts across the economy, and it's one of the reasons we said we would consult widely on them, and we will continue to do that. Each and every member of this House—the Treasurer, the small-business minister—are all consulting with members of our electorates and members of the small-business community.

As a member of a regional electorate, I want to touch on our farmers. They face a range of challenges, and they are after practical solutions. Throughout fires, floods and global uncertainty, our government has been providing support through a whole range of different policy settings. We know that the conflict in the Middle East creates a whole range of uncertainty and instability, and that has affected market prices at home. It's put pressure on families, farmers and small businesses. We know that the price of fuel has been escalating and the cost of fertiliser has gone up, and our government has responded to those changing conditions and their impact on regional Australians. We put in this budget a $14.8 billion Australian Fuel Security and Resilience Package for the establishment of a permanent government owned Australian Fuel Security reserve of around one billion litres, with a focus on regional stock outs and supply constraints for essential users in the event of another supply crisis.

We've got trade initiatives like the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement, access to concessional loans through the Regional Investment Corporation and the Economic Resilience program, which all are insulating our farmers and regional businesses from the impacts of tariffs and other market disruptions. We'll continue to work with importers to secure more fuel and more fertiliser across our community.

We're also supporting farmers with initiatives such as the On Farm Connectivity Program, which provides rebates of up to 50 per cent of the purchase price for eligible on farm connectivity and connected agricultural equipment. We know how important it is to make sure our farmers have the best technology available to them so that they can yield more from their properties, and this is a really practical investment to help farmers across the country.

As I said, our government has invested in the Regional Investment Corporation. We've got year-round support available, including hardship and concessional loans through an additional $1 billion that we've added to the Regional Investment Corporation. We've committed that additional loan funding because we know how important it is to ensure that farmers and producers can access concessional lending during times of need. We know farmers across the country at this point in time are experiencing challenging drought conditions. Through the RIC, the government has established our Drought Hardship Loan. It opened in March this year, and that provides some short-term financial relief to assist with essential operating costs of our farmers.

It is incredibly important also to support our communities when they face uncertainty every day, balancing a range of risks from weather to market fluctuations to disruptions of supply chains and biosecurity. We're supporting our farmers through investments in biosecurity, including safeguarding the country against the impacts of the H5 bird flu. Our government's total investment in bird flu now is more than $270 million, and we'll always support farmers, producers and small businesses during tough times, particularly in a natural disaster. We know this season we are going to face a particularly difficult, high risk weather season. We know the industry is closely monitoring the El Nino event and what that will mean on the ground. Last season we saw 60 severe weather events impacting more than 190 local government areas, with some communities impacted back to back. And I saw first-hand the immense impact on communities, on homes, on livestock, on businesses and the damage to our infrastructure.

Following the Queensland floods, which saw more than 50,000 head of livestock lost, the Albanese government joined with the Queensland government to deliver funding targeting recovery for primary producers, small businesses, flood clean up and mental health support. We funded the aerial shooting of feral pigs, which we know cause extensive damage to crops, pasture, fencing and waterways. They pose an ongoing risk to animal health and biosecurity. We made sure that primary producers in Queensland were able to access grants of up to $75,000 during that event, because we know primary producers are integral to our economy and to communities to bounce back quickly from events like this. We also work closely with Victorian government to provide Primary Producer Bushfire Recovery Grants of up to $75,000 as well. We know primary producers are the lifeblood of regional communities, and it's important to support them during their time of need. As Minister for Emergency Management, I'm always committed to delivering that vital but more importantly practical support on the ground to help individuals businesses and communities to recover during a devastating disaster.

I want to make it clear that our government is backing farmers. We are backing primary producers. They feed millions, and they generate billions for our economy. Our government has work tirelessly since we came to office to back innovation, to back ingenuity and to back Australian farmers and producers so that they can continue to succeed. Australia's farmgate production exceeded $100 billion last financial year, four years ahead of the National Farmers' Federation's 2030 target. That record result was proudly backed by our government, and I don't want to see anyone talking down our ag sector or running a scare campaign on small businesses. We should be working together to make sure that we are putting small businesses, primary producers and—in my case, regional—economies first. It is really important that we not only back our own but also ask people to be as ingenious and innovative as possible and to take those risks because we will back them and support them. And our government will continue to do that.

The topic of this matter of public importance debate is the impact of the government's policies on Australia's farmers and small business owners. It was moved by the member for Page, who, I might just point out, was also a beef producer. Yes, a bond trader, no doubt, but beef production involves small business. I will put that on the record for and on behalf of my colleague and friend.

I just want to add a couple of dollar amounts. They are eye-watering amounts for the benefit of this debate, but not to the benefit of Australian farmers. The first came in a media release on 11 May 2024. It talked about the federal government announcing it would end Australia's live sheep export trade by 2028. It referred to a $107 million transition package for the industry. So just remember that $107 million.

Recently, we had another statement by the government that it was buying more water back so that it could reach that illusory target of 450 gigalitres of water out of the Murray-Darling Basin. The figure was $430 million to purchase 86 gigalitres of water. Eighty-six gigalitres of water is the equivalent of 34,400 Olympic sized swimming pools.

Now, take those two figures: $107 million and $430 million. That is a lot of money to stop farmers farming, because that is essentially what it is for. The federal government announced in 2024 that it was stopping live sheep exports from 1 May 2028. That's when the industry will be phased out. I've not heard any of the Western Australian Labor members arcing up about that, as they should be while unveiling a $107 million package to help the industry transition. 'Transition' is code for stopping farmers farming. It's code for getting out of the industry and finding something else to do. And the four hundred—

It's expanding abattoirs!

The member for Bullwinkel, don't interject from your seat. It's disorderly, and we're interrupting the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister Watt, who was the federal agriculture minister, announced this from the sanctity and safety of Perth. He should have gone out to the regions—plenty of regions in Western Australia. Last time I looked, it was the biggest state of the six that we have. It's a big, big state. There are big, big regions and big, big sheep-farming stations. But, no, he had to make the announcement from the safety and security of the state capital.

Then, of course, we have $430 million being spent on water buybacks. Again, it's stopping irrigators irrigating, but it's actually helping the nation's largest irrigator to do more irrigating. And who is the nation's largest irrigator, member for Nicholls?

The federal government!

The federal government it is, through the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The fun fact here is that they already have 72 per cent of the water in the Murray-Darling Basin. And there is the great fear that there is about to be yet another purchase so that Labor can again get to that 450-gigalitre target and again stop irrigators irrigating.

When farmers irrigate—when irrigators put water into the channels and across the landscape—they are actually growing food; they are actually producing fibre; they're actually getting on with doing what the nation asks them to do, and those farmers are small-business people. What we're doing with that $107 million in the west and that $430 million in the southern connected system is stopping farmers from doing what we should be getting them to do, and that is farm. We have got the best farmers in all of the world. Why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars stopping them from doing what they do best in all of the world? It's a nonsense; it's a folly; it's a farce. I just don't understand it, and nor do our farmers. They are desperate for good government. They're not getting it from this federal Labor government.

I'm glad to have the opportunity today to speak about what our government has been doing to ease pressures on small business and primary producers, who keep my electorate of Lingiari moving. The remote nature of my electorate means that we rely on small business to make sure that people have enough food to eat, enough petrol to keep driving and places to stay when travelling. Without our small and family businesses, Lingiari would stop and jobs would disappear. Our government knows this and we know how tough it can be for small businesses. We've delivered $3.8 billion in new measures to reduce taxes for small business and made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. In the Territory, businesses are investing in the tools and equipment they need to grow. Recent data has shown that 2,200 instant asset write-off claims worth $47.5 million were made in the 2024-25 financial year in the Territory alone. Farmers are embracing this too. Across the country, agriculture was the largest sector claimed on the instant asset write-off. This is some of the tangible help we're delivering across the country.

The introduction of a permanent two-year loss carry-back arrangement will also help lift some of the pressure off small businesses, who contribute so much to our local and national economies. I notice that the member for Page didn't mention that, when the coalition were in office, they wound back both the instant asset write-off and the loss carry-back introduced when Labor was last in office. I'm glad we've backed in these programs for small business.

We're engaging directly with small businesses, including through the Small Business Consultative Group. We've invested more than $30 million to implement faster payment times. We've changed the procurement rules to ensure government not only buys goods and services from Australian small businesses but also helps them grow. We've boosted the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ensure a more transparent and effective regulatory framework for the franchising sector. We've invested $2.9 million to assist fresh produce suppliers to understand and enforce their rights under the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct.

I note that October is Indigenous Business Month, which also includes so many small businesses, particularly in the Northern Territory but expanding right across Australia, that are First Nations owned and led. I encourage everyone to support Indigenous businesses wherever they are. I recognise and congratulate the innovation and leadership of those First Nations businesses. If we look right across Australia, one of the biggest small businesses and industries that's coming out is the cloth industry. Certainly that is becoming a big enterprise for a lot of those communities.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge our Minister for Small Business and the hard work that she's been doing in this space. She is an outstanding minister, and I, like all my colleagues on this side, was particularly offended by the comments directed towards her yesterday. Whilst the opposition comes in here to criticise and play politics, we're the party backing small businesses and primary producers, our pastoralists, our agriculture industry and our horticulturists. I know that, in parts of Lingiari, we wouldn't survive without all of those industries, and we need to continue to support them.

I also acknowledge the Minister for Emergency Management, who has responded efficiently and effectively with the Northern Territory government. I don't know if everyone has seen it, but small businesses in Alice Springs have been absolutely smashed over the last week. There have been some terrible storms that that've happened. A lot of people have lost their businesses and livelihoods. There've been houses wrecked. I'm looking forward to going home to assist in a lot of the clean-up. My thoughts are with those small businesses. With the community of Alice Springs, we've had three floods in the last year and now the storms that have occurred over the last couple of days. It's been quite an impact on a lot of the community. The small business community in particular has been hard, but the community has come together.

Alice Springs is a resilient, tough community, and our government will work together with the Northern Territory government to make sure that that community can come back.

A lot of people, certainly on this side of the chamber but around Australia, are very confused as to why the government appears to be waging war on small business. They're asking us, and if they're not asking you they will be soon.

I just don't understand it myself, but I've got a hint yesterday when we had the start of question time and we asked the Prime Minister a question about small business. The body language and the words were instructive. It was a motherhood statement about how the Albanese government backs small business. He said it in a very quiet voice. He didn't seem to really believe it. The next question was a question about political events and Josh Frydenberg. All of a sudden, the Prime Minister was animated: 'Oh, Josh Frydenberg!' I wish the Prime Minister would get as animated about the plight of people in private enterprise around Australia as he does about people who are serving, or who have served, in this place. It was instructive.

Small businesses across Australia are having very, very difficult conversations with their financial advisers at the moment. They're coming into my office. If they're not coming into yours, they soon will be. People who don't really get involved in politics much at all are suddenly discovering with horror what some of these changes to trust arrangements and taxation arrangements actually mean for their business. I had a business owner in my office yesterday who has spent 45 years building this business up almost in tears because of what these changes mean. This person followed the rules and set his business up in a way with trusts, as has been legal, and all of a sudden the rug has been pulled out from underneath.

I don't know whether this person voted Labor or who he voted for to be honest, but he said, 'They didn't tell us that this was on the table before the election.' 'That's fundamentally deceitful,' this small business owner said to me, and he's right. Small business is basically putting your own effort, your own labour, your own capital and in many cases your credit on the line and hoping that you can manage input costs of an operation so that the income will be enough to turn a small profit or get a small margin. We should be helping them in that endeavour, not treating them like a cash register for the government coffers. They are suffering energy costs, which are going up despite being them told that they were going to be reduced.

We're talking about farmers. Farmers in my part of the world are also suffering, as the member for Riverina said, from rising temporary water prices. Why is that? It's because the government has taken so much water out of what we call the consumptive pool that the prices are going up, and it's making it very, very difficult for farmers to be able to purchase that water and irrigate fruit trees, dairy pastures and other crops. In many cases, they're getting less for their commodities as well. Those small businesses are under pressure, and the Labor government has put them under more pressure with these policies.

The amount of red tape that businesses report having to go through with state and federal governments—and I'm from Victoria, so I know what a state Labor government looks like. I hope we are in the last 30 or 40 days of this one, I can tell you. People who put their, as I said, labour, capital, credit and effort on the line get very upset when the government wants to clip the ticket on everything they do. The margins are so tight. An example of the government not understanding margins at all is thinking that if you ban a credit card surcharge then somehow the cost goes away, that the bank will say, 'Oh well; there's no charge for that anymore.' They can't pass that on. They have to absorb it or they have to lift their prices.

Here in Canberra, here in the ACT, there is some small business and some capitalism going on—thank goodness—and a restaurant owner told me: 'It's so hard, because what do we do? We have to absorb all we have to lift our prices, but it's a competitive environment.' It's so difficult. I don't understand why the Labor government is making it more difficult for small business, but the juxtaposition between the Prime Minister talking about small business and Josh Frydenberg gave us a hint.

We're here today to talk about farmers and small businesses, and I'm more than happy to talk about that. When you travel across the electorate of Bullwinkel, from the hills right down through the Avon Valley, through Toodyay, York, Beverley and Northam and right across our agricultural heartland, you see the two pillars of the Western Australian economy working side by side: our farmers and our small business owners. The Albanese Labor government knows that real support for our regions means showing up in every portfolio, and I'd like to talk about some of those portfolios: education, health, transport, tax relief and, in opening up markets, telecommunications and regional economy.

But let's talk about education. For a long time, if our young people in regional WA wanted to pursue higher education they faced an impossible choice: to pack up their lives and move to the city or to give up on their ambitions. We're changing that, and I was incredibly proud to join the education minister, Jason Clare, to officially open the new Regional University Study Hub in Northam. This builds on the tremendous success of the study hub that we've already put in York, which has been open longer and has already proven that when you give locals the space, the technology and the support to study locally it means our kids can stay connected to their regional families and communities and keep their talent and that local businesses get the skilled workforce they need to grow. We are applying the same practical commitment to the regional areas in the health department.

We also know the immense pressures on our farmers, primary producers and regional small-business operators—pressures driven by the seasonal markets and the everyday demands of running an enterprise, which a lot of us on this side are fully aware of. Mental health support cannot be something that you can access only by driving two hours away. That's why we opened the Medicare mental health urgent care clinic in Northam to support the regional people. It is 100 per cent bulk-billed. You don't need a referral. You don't need an appointment. If you or a loved one are doing it tough you can simply walk through the door and get free professional, compassionate care when you need it. That sits alongside our historic expansion of Medicare, delivering more bulk-billed GP visits and waiving the HECS debt for doctors and nurses who commit to working in the regions for five years—more doctors and nurses where we need them in the regions.

We're also fixing vital transport arteries that our primary producers rely on every day to get their grain, livestock and goods to freight depots and ports. This includes a major investment in Bullwinkel in Toodyay Road, which is a major road to get from the city to the shire of Toodyay, and I happened to be there on Saturday for the Toodyday Agricultural Show. We are making upgrades to that road, for road safety, worth $112 million from the federal government plus an additional $28 million from the state Labor governments. We are making these freight routes safer and more efficient for heavy vehicles, local families and of course tourists. And across the nation we have backed that up by doubling Roads to Recovery funding to $4.4 billion, with 85 per cent going directly into regional Australia.

We have also, of course, reached a record high with our farmers of over $100 billion worth of farm-gate production, hitting that national milestone four years ahead of schedule. We've had 286 market access achievements, opening 40 brand new overseas markets and tearing down trade barriers so WA grain, livestock and produce can reach the world. And for the 2.7 million small businesses that power our economy—the tradies, the shopfronts, the local service operators—we've delivered practical bottom-line certainty, of which my fellow speakers have already spoken.

Our farmers and small-business owners do not ask for handouts. They ask for fair access, reliable infrastructure, affordable health care and a government that respects the contribution that they make to our nation's prosperity. And that is what the Albanese Labor government is delivering.

As a farmer, I've been bitterly disappointed by the way our farmers have been treated by this hapless Albanese Labor government. South Australian farmers are heading into what is forecast to be the second biggest harvest on record. The next few months are when we earn our income for the whole year. This is when they need every advantage. Instead, this government keeps making it harder.

Take fuel, for example. In November 2021, the now prime minister made a tweet saying:

Do you reckon Scott Morrison has been to a petrol station lately? Petrol prices are surging on his watch.

In that post, the petrol in question was $1.79 per litre. Who wants to guess how much diesel costs in many parts of my electorate today—$1.80, $2.80? Diesel is costing $3.50 in many parts of my electorate on this prime minister's watch. So, Prime Minister, have you been paying attention to petrol prices lately? Those fuel costs hit every farm, every family, every truckie and every small business.

Then there's the Treasurer's tax on unrealised gains in superannuation—Labor's attempt to tax paper gains on farmland that has never been sold. This would have pushed generational farmers off the land. Only after sustained pressure from the coalition and farmers did the Treasurer back down. It was the first of many backflips, and, since then, the Treasurer has become somewhat of a gymnast. Next came a capital gains tax and then a 30 per cent minimum tax on trusts—new taxes which were never brought to the election. Labor says farm income is carved out, but farmland leased to family and income from the farm will still be caught. Families who thought their succession plans were done now have to start again.

Labor's taxes are like a lazy Susan; you turn them around and a new tax pops up. It is so significant, I'm now having to run tax and trust sessions in my electorate, and, I can tell you, farmers are white-hot with anger. A coalition government will scrap Labor's capital gains and trust changes. We will scrap Labor's toxic taxes.

What will One Nation do?

You finished yet?

Are you?

Enough.

Over the last couple of months, Labor has completely botched the Working Holiday Maker program. First they delayed and now they're set to deny. Labor's ballot system for our second- and third-year working holiday-makers is having significant implications for regional Australia. This one has hit my own family farm. We had a European backpacker set to come last week. Disappointingly, we had to tell him not to board his flight—and that was at his expense.

That story is the same right across the sector. GrainGrowers says working holiday-makers make up 31 per cent of the grain industry workforce. Another farming family in my electorate wrote to me. In their words, 'It's been stressful playing the waiting game, not having clear information to work with, and feeling like we've settled for the next best option.' A coalition government will reverse Labor's backpacker cap, reverse their ballot system and start making policy decisions for regional Australia, not against it.

It is not only Canberra. In South Australia, Labor is rezoning more than 7,000 hectares of protected farmland around Adelaide for housing. Across the state, prime agricultural land is going to wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines. According to Labor, only seven per cent of South Australia is considered prime agricultural land—seven per cent! Once farmland is built on, it never comes back. We can always build more houses. We cannot make more farmland. I've had young farmers call me in real distress, some even suicidal, because of this. Farmers do not ask for much. They just want government to get out of the way. They want fuel that they can afford, workers to bring in the crop and a government that backs them, instead of taxing them. Under Labor, they are getting none of it.

Australian farmers and small-business owners do not need slogans. They need practical support, reliable water, strong biosecurity, skilled workers, access to markets and help when the seasons turn against them. That is what the Albanese Labor government is delivering. Farming is a way of life and an economic backbone of regional communities in my electorate of Braddon. When farmers in my electorate succeed, contractors, transport operators, manufacturers, retailers and hospitality businesses succeed too.

We are making practical investments to support farmers—for example, in water security. In my neck of the woods, north-west Tasmania, the government is contributing more than $62 million to expand the Sassafras Wesley Vale irrigation scheme. It will provide up to an additional 9.2 gigalitres of water across communities, from Sassafras to East Devonport, supporting high-value crops, value adding and really important regional jobs. We are building resilience before the drought hits. Yes, we do get droughts in Tasmania, in case anyone was wondering. The Future Drought Fund provides $519.1 million over eight years for climate resilience projects. It has supported Tasmania's Farming Forecaster, helping producers make better decisions about feed and seasonal conditions. Since July 2022, the government has invested more than $1.3 billion in rural support and drought resilience.

Backing farmers also means protecting what they produce. We have provided more than $2 billion in additional biosecurity resourcing, strengthening surveillance and responses to threats, including the H5 bird flu. Government investment in the bird flu response now exceeds $270 million. This protects livestock, crops, native wildlife, regional jobs and Australia's clean, safe reputation. We are helping producers manage global disruption.

More than one million tonnes of imported urea was cleared through strict but streamlined biosecurity processes from February to June, helping maintain supplies of this vital fertiliser. Farmers facing hardship can access an additional $1 billion in concessional finance through the Regional Investment Corporation and rural financial counselling. We have also made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, giving agriculture related small businesses greater certainty to invest.

We're also standing up for farmers in the supermarket supply chain. The mandatory food and grocery code requires major supermarkets and wholesalers to deal with suppliers lawfully and in good faith. It provides stronger protection against retribution, better dispute resolution and anonymous reporting to the ACCC. Serious breaches can attract penalties of at least $10 million. For Tasmanian fruit, vegetable, dairy and fresh food suppliers, that means a stronger voice and a fairer deal.

Under the leadership of trade minister Don Farrell, we are opening more doors to global markets. Since mid-2022, Australia's two-way trade has grown by $301.7 billion, reaching a record $1.37 trillion in 2025-26. Tasmania exported $4.6 billion in goods in 2025, including $95.5 million to the European Union. The Australian-EU free trade agreement will remove or lock in duty-free access for most Tasmanian goods, including seafood, dairy, wood products, vegetables and cherries. Tariffs will be removed on salmon, cherries and cheese, while beef and sheepmeat producers gain preferential access—practical gains for Tasmanian producers, processors and small businesses.

These policies are helping agriculture remain strong. Nearly 10,000 Tasmanians have enrolled in free TAFE, including more than 1,400 in agriculture and more than 900 in construction, helping regional employers find the work they need. No government can control the weather or every global shock, but a responsible government stands beside producers and plans for the future. From Tasmanian irrigation to stronger biosecurity, drought preparation, skills and export opportunities, the Albanese Labor government is delivering practical support to keep farming and regional communities strong.

I will speak about this government's utter disregard for our farmers shortly, but I want to focus now on small businesses because the warning lights are flashing and the sirens are going off. Labor's attacks on small business have reached emergency levels. Over 29,000 companies have entered external administration for the first time in the last two years, and nearly 25 per cent of those companies are in construction. I thought that was important to this government. Accommodation and food service accounted for nearly 15 per cent. This equates to about 39 companies per day going into administration. While the Treasurer wants to tell us and his party what a magnificent job he's doing, the facts do not lie. I want to point out to those opposite that the figures I've just quoted are about people. They're about families. They're about communities. When a business closes its doors, it impacts many, who no longer can have a job and can no longer pay their mortgage or their rent or children's school fees.

New COSBOA research released today paints a sobering picture. The typical small-business revenue has been swallowed up by inflation—revenue, not profit, for those opposite that are business illiterate. Only around one in four owners are paying themselves more than they were a year ago. What are the other three quarters actually paying themselves? Those opposite like to go on about minimum wages. Is there a minimum wage for a small-business owner? No, there isn't. Around two in five small-business owners are working more hours, and one in four worked longer hours for no additional pay. It's little wonder business owners turned to AI after Labor's toxic taxes on trusts to depict their new business partner, the Prime Minister, demanding his cut of the business. All the while, the Albanese Labor government has presided over 16 interest rate rises since taking office, which again undermines business profitability through higher debt costs and makes supplies more expensive.

Those opposite appear to be utterly against business profit altogether, as though even one cent of profit is a bad thing. Of course, none of the Labor cabinet have small-business experience. Talk about a lack of diversity! Small-business owners have rapidly shrinking profits to draw a wage for their own labour in the business and that of their spouse, partner or other family members. Even if they take some wage from the business, can the small-business owner deliver some return on the family's investment and the risk they carry, like putting their savings or home on the line?

And now the Albanese Labor government is forcing small-business owners to absorb more costs. Nobody likes credit card surcharges, but abolishing the surcharge does not abolish the merchant fee. The Reserve Bank says small businesses tend to pay the highest card payment fees. Banning businesses imposing surcharges from 1 October is not immediately matched with the savings intended for small businesses—the quid pro quo, if you like, to reduce interchange fees and similar costs. Over 97 per cent of all Australian businesses are small businesses. There are over 2.6 million of them employing 5.1 million people and generating $600 billion in economic value. Small businesses are left with no choice but to raise prices.

This toxic, untruthful Albanese Labor government is adding insult to injury, at first defending the ATO's credit card payment ban, which would mean more costs brought forward for small businesses. Following the backlash, Labor has reached into taxpayer pockets to postpone that ATO policy bomb until 30 June 2027. They have the power to call it off for six months. That means they have the power to stop it altogether. Where is the Treasurer on this? Labor is starving small business to death.

I grew up, raised my family and live in a beautiful part of our country, the New South Wales South Coast, which is home to thousands of small businesses, food producers and tourism operators. We have longstanding and proud fishing, dairy and timber industries and, more recently, very successful aquaculture and wine producers. Gilmore is home to defence and to a huge defence industry, supporting local small to medium manufacturing businesses and thousands of local jobs. Our region is growing, with new homes popping up in almost every town and village and with community infrastructure such as new hospitals, schools and roads being built to support the growing population.

Our region is thriving, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is supporting local farmers, producers and small businesses in so many ways. I come from a farming family and grew up on a dairy farm, so I understand those very struggles our farmers face every day, whether from drought, fire, flood, disease, transport costs or securing workers. I'm on the Standing Committee on Primary Industries because I want to stay connected with farmers and producers and help safeguard our food security, grow sustainability and prepare for future challenges so they can continue producing world-class products.

Since coming to government, we have been delivering for Australian farmers, fishers and producers. We have stepped up our biosecurity, opened new trade opportunities and improved farm sustainability. We are continuing to support industry and small businesses through the challenges facing our country and the world. We are not resting on our laurels. We are addressing these challenges so our farmers can continue to succeed. The latest forecast shows the value of Australia's agricultural production this financial year is set to be the second highest on record, which is a testament to the hard work and resilience of our farmers. We know people on the land work hard every single day to ensure the success of their businesses, and we're providing a helping hand when they need it. I'm pleased to say that our skilled migration program supports priority processing so our agriculture, aquaculture and fishing industries have the workers they desperately need to harvest crops, milk the cows and catch the fish we put on our dinner tables. The program is helping building companies, health centres, defence businesses and manufacturing businesses get the staff they need, especially in rural and regional areas. My husband's a chippie and runs a small business, so I know just how important it is to have those skilled workers in the construction industry and to train more homegrown tradies so we can keep up with the demand for new homes.

Energy costs are a huge part of running a small business or agricultural operation. That's why we're helping businesses and farmers save on their energy bills by cutting the cost of solar systems by 20 per cent, and small businesses in my region have benefited greatly from Commonwealth energy efficiency grants to put solar on roofs and install energy efficient appliances. This government has acted swiftly to protect our farmers and producers from the worst impacts of the war in the Middle East, including by allocating more than $14 billion towards strengthening Australia's fuel resilience package and, importantly, securing fuel supplies for our farmers and regional organisations. Year-round support is available for farmers, fishers and producers facing hardship, including concessional loans through an additional $1 billion being delivered to the Regional Investment Corporation. We will always stand up for our farmers and regional communities because keeping our farmers safe means keeping food on our tables.

Through the development of Feeding Australia: a national food security strategy, we're investing to help prepare the agricultural community for future challenges by ensuring our farmers have the tools and support they need. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade's trade subcommittee, I'm looking at more ways to strengthen our trade and investment relations with neighbouring countries to expand opportunities for local producers to export our world-class products. We're getting the relationships back on track and opening new opportunities for our farmers.

The time for this discussion has concluded.

BILLS Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026; Report from Federation Chamber Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026

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

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 Nicolette Boele Kate Chaney Helen Haines Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Allegra Spender Zali Steggall Elizabeth Watson-Brown Andrew Wilkie Basem Abdo Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Matt Burnell Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Libby Coker Emma Comer Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Cassandra Fernando Ali France Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Peter Khalil Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost Rob Mitchell David Moncrieff Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Alicia Payne Fiona Phillips Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Tracey Roberts Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Rebekha Sharkie Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Anne Stanley Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Tim Watts Rebecca White Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

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

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Nicolette Boele Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Darren Chester Andrew Gee Helen Haines Garth Hamilton Andrew Hastie Alex George Hawke Kevin Hogan Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Julian Leeser David Littleproud Michael McCormack Melissa McIntosh Zoe McKenzie Ted O'Brien Llew O'Brien Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Melissa Price Leon Rebello Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Angus Taylor Dan Tehan Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Elizabeth Watson-Brown Anne Webster Andrew Wilkie Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Basem Abdo Anthony Norman Albanese Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Libby Coker Julie Maree Collins Emma Comer Pat Conroy Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Cassandra Fernando Ali France Mike Freelander Tom French Carina Garland Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Matt Keogh Peter Khalil Ms Catherine Fiona King Madeleine King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Richard Donald Marles Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost Rob Mitchell David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Clare O'Neil Alicia Payne Fiona Phillips Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Amanda Louise Rishworth Tracey Roberts Michelle Rowland Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Allegra Spender Anne Stanley Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026; Third Reading Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026; Third Reading Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

COMMITTEES Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water Committee; Membership

I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a change of membership to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water.

by leave—I move:

That Mr Boyce be discharged from the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water.

Question agreed to.

Intelligence and Security Joint Committee; Report

() (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present Review of administration and expenditure No. 24: Australian intelligence agencies.

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

BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026; Report from Committee Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026: also reporting on the review of post-sentence terrorism orders: division 105A of the Criminal Code Act 1995.

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

by leave—I rise today to present the two aforementioned reports. Firstly, this annual review is undertaken in accordance with the committee's statutory responsibilities under the Intelligence Services Act of 2001. It examines the administration, expenditure and financial statements of the agencies that make up Australia's National Intelligence Community. The committee's review is part of a strict oversight and accountability framework within which these agencies operate. The public reporting is necessarily limited to protect sensitive information, so this annual parliamentary review is an important mechanism by which the parliament receives assurance on these agencies' governance, resource stewardship and administration.

For each agency, the committee sought evidence on its performance against its objectives, its budget situation and the health and integrity of its financial statements. This included examination of strategic priorities, organisational governance, risk management practices, workforce capability, security arrangements, and major ICT and information-sharing initiatives. Submissions also covered four key areas of focus, which were the 2024 Independent Intelligence Review, joint taskforces, conflicts of interest, and investigations and whistleblowers. The committee received detailed material from these agencies as well as from the Australian National Audit Office and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Classified hearings assisted the committee in discharging its obligations while ensuring national security was maintained.

The report highlights the dynamic environment in which intelligence agencies continue to operate and the importance of ensuring that administrative systems, governance structures and financial management remain robust. Although much of the committee's work understandably occurs in classified settings, the outcomes reflected in this report demonstrate that the parliament, through the committee, continues to exercise strong bipartisan oversight of intelligence administration and expenditure. This oversight is essential to maintaining public trust in agencies whose work, by necessity, is largely unseen. The committee thanks all agencies, officials and oversight bodies for their cooperation throughout the review. Their engagement supports not only the committee's work but the broader accountability framework that underpins the operation of Australia's intelligence community.

The second report I present is the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026: also reporting on the review of post-sentence terrorism orders: division 105A of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Work on this report commenced in the previous parliament, when the committee had commenced a statutory review into the division 105A framework, which provides for postsentence orders in relation to high-risk terrorist offenders. That review lapsed, and, when the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill of 2026 was referred to the committee, it agreed to conduct the two reviews cognately and present a single report to parliament, covering both the lapsed statutory review and the bill inquiry.

The report ultimately recommends the passage of the bill. However, it also makes recommendations to improve the high-risk terrorist offenders framework. There are some extraordinary powers within the framework, but the committee recognises that the terrorism threat continues to evolve and that the passage of the bill is critical to prevent parts of the framework sunsetting in December of this year.

Postsentence orders and control orders are serious and extraordinary mechanisms for dealing with individuals who pose a risk to the community. Oversight of the processes and procedures for obtaining and maintaining post sentence orders and control orders remains critical to ensuring the accountability of the high-risk terrorist offenders regime. Evidence presented in the bill inquiry demonstrated that, if passed, control orders would become the primary mechanism for managing high-risk terrorist offenders.

However, evidence collected in the statutory review in the 47th parliament highlighted to the committee that there are areas of the regime that could be improved on. This includes issues such as the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, the timing of applications, access to legal representation and annual reporting transparency measures. Noting the critical timing of passage of the proposed amendments in the bill prior to the sunset date of 7 December, the committee recommends that the bill be passed by parliament. However, the other recommendations within the report constitute a larger body of work, and the committee would support that a response to these recommendations may necessitate a further bill in the future to enable the adequate consideration of amendments required and timely consultation.

I thank the chair, committee members, all those who contributed through submissions and evidence at the public hearings and, of course, all those hard-working men and women of our national intelligence community and our law enforcement agencies who do great work keeping Australians safe. I commend both reports to the House.

COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee; Report

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report 11 of 2026.

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

by leave—I am pleased to table Human rights scrutiny report 11 of 2026.

In this report, the committee considers 19 new bills and 164 new legislative instruments. It has commented on two bills and five legislative instruments and has concluded its examination of three bills and one instrument.

In particular, the committee concluded its consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. This bill seeks to extend the operation of several counterterrorism and police powers by three years. These powers engage and limit numerous human rights. The committee considers that extending some of the powers may be necessary. However, the committee notes that some of the powers have been specifically identified by international human rights bodies as raising serious human rights concerns. The committee therefore retains significant concerns about the proportionality and extension of certain powers.

This bill also seeks to extend the maximum duration of control orders that may be posed on children from three months to 12 months. This limits the rights of the child. The committee notes that no control orders have ever been requested or made against children and that the court currently has the powers to impose rehabilitative conditions on children across successive control orders. As such, the committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the measure is necessary or rationally connected to the stated objective. The committee further notes that the measures depart from best practice in international human rights law. The measure, therefore, does not appear to be compatible with the rights of the child.

The bill would also permit certain criminal history information to be disclosed and taken into account for the purposes of control orders and post sentence orders. This limits the right to privacy. The committee considers that while some of the information sharing measures appear to represent a proportionate limitation on the right to privacy, the measure authorising state or territory authorities to disclose information to the Australian Federal Police may not be proportionate in all circumstances.

The committee also concluded its consideration on Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. This bill, which has now passed both houses of parliament, expands the eSafety Commissioner's power to obtain information related to assessing compliance with the online safety scheme. Insofar as this involves the collection of personal information, this engages and limits the right to privacy.

While the measure pursues a legitimate objective, the committee notes that the varying accuracy of different age assurance technologies that may be used raises questions as to the effectiveness of the measure to achieve the stated objective. The committee considers that while there are some safeguards, it is unclear whether these would be sufficient in practice. There is also a risk that this measure may not constitute a proportionate limit on the right to privacy. It also remains unclear whether the measure is compatible with the rights of the child or the right to equality and non-discrimination, noting the lack of specific safeguards to protect vulnerable groups.

Additionally, I note the committee received the minister's response to its request for information over four weeks late and following the passage of the bill. The committee's scrutiny work becomes challenging when legislation passes before the committee has completed its scrutiny. The responsiveness of ministers to the committee's requests for information is critical to the effectiveness of the scrutiny policy. I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the Human rights scrutiny report: Report 11 of 2026 to the House.

BILLS Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026; Second Reading Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026

That was a big explanation. I begin on part 3 of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, which is ministerial overreach and method transition declarations. I turn to the executive powers of the bill. Any law that hands the Minister for Climate Change and Energy more power to make decisions on his own must be questioned. It introduces method transition declarations, or MTDs, which would allow the minister to issue a rule declaring a carbon method superseded if he believed it fails integrity standards and poses a material risk. Once a MTD is made, it places automatic bars on new projects under that method. Proponents get six months to two years for emissions avoidance projects or up to five years for tree-planting programs to switch to a new method. If they cannot switch, they lose their ability to earn carbon credits.

Why add new broad powers? Under existing law, the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee already has the power to suspend methods, and the minister can already update or cancel methods. The phrase 'material risk' is not defined in the bill and that means the minister can use his own subjective opinion to shut down carbon projects whenever political priorities change in Canberra. We saw proof of how political these decisions are on 10 September 2026. On that day, parliament voted on coalition motions to protect the native forest management carbon method, which supports forestry jobs in Tasmania and across Australia. Labor only won that vote in the Senate by cutting a political deal with the Australian Greens, resulting in three Greens senators crossing the floor. Right before the vote, the minister issued a press release announcing the new restrictions on carbon credits in the Great National Koala Park in New South Wales just to satisfy the Greens. That shows this government is willing to change carbon rules at a moment's notice for political convenience.

Peak industry groups across Australia have spoken out against these broad powers. First, the National Farmers' Federation insisted that method transition declaration powers must be strictly limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances, accompanied by clear transition support for affected producers. Second, the Carbon Market Institute warned that granting such broad executive powers directly undermines investor confidence and commercial certainty. Third, the energy producers of Australia cautioned that introducing MTDs would add unnecessary costs, uncertainty and regulatory risk to the ACCU scheme without clear evidence that the benefits outweigh the market impacts. The Environmental Defenders Office pointed out that leaving the threshold of material risk undefined leaves the statutory bar open to subjective ministerial interpretation.

The fourth part of this bill that needs examination is the safeguard mechanism tax and regional impacts. We must consider how this bill affects the broader economy and Labor's safeguard mechanism. In the past, the Commonwealth government was the main buyer of carbon credits. Today, industrial companies buy most carbon credits, because Labor turned the safeguard mechanism into an insidious carbon tax. Labor forces heavy factories, mines and processing plants to cut their emissions baselines every year or buy millions of carbon credits just to stay open. We are already seeing the impact of this carbon tax effect on Australian industry. Major regional plants face cutbacks and job losses, such as Liberty Bell Bay in Tasmania and Yancoal's operations in New South Wales. While Labor claims that this tax reduces national emissions, official data shows that Australia's annual emissions reductions have completely flatlined under Labor. And who pays the price for all of these added costs? Hardworking Australian families. These burdens on regional mining, manufacturing and agriculture flow on past the farm gate, rising prices of fuel, fertiliser, freight, electricity and groceries.

In conclusion, the bill delivers neither integrity nor transparency. It delivers red tape, legal confusion, market uncertainty and unnecessary government power. You cannot run a country by spending public money with no productivity attached to it and putting roadblocks in front of our key wealth-producing industries. Farming and resources earn the big dollars for Australia, and roadblocks hurt every Australian family. The coalition will oppose this flawed bill in the House and support Mr Tehan's amendment. We will also support the amendment moved by the member for New England, Mr Joyce, calling on the government to repeal transitional capital gains tax discounts on foreign investors selling off large renewable energy assets. Furthermore, we demand that this bill be referred to a full Senate legislation committee inquiry. A Senate inquiry will let farmers, graziers, miners, traditional owners and legal experts explain the real-world impacts of this proposal. Canberra must stop wasting taxpayer funds on net zero projects and remove damaging roadblocks. We must not support this bill, and, in fact, I don't.

The decisions we make today will shape the Australia that future generations will inherit. They deserve to enjoy the places we love and to look forward in confidence. We have a responsibility to act now to protect that future. Climate change affects the homes we live in and the natural places that we care about. It affects decisions families make about their future. Our response will help shape the lives of children growing up across Griffith and across Australia today.

I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that accepts that responsibility and acts on it. We have legislated stronger emission reduction targets. We are helping Australians install batteries and making cleaner cars more accessible. We're investing in renewable energy and supporting industry to cut pollution. The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 continues this work. This is a bill to help deliver emissions reductions that Australians can trust. It supports people doing valuable work on the land and strengthens the rules that make their contribution count. I support the bill with the same purpose that guides my wider work on climate and the environment: protecting the people and places we love and giving the next generation a safer future.

Across Griffith, people already give their time to that work. I think of the volunteers with the Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee, the Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee and the many environmental groups we have right across Griffith. They care for waterways and restore the habitat that wildlife needs. Their work takes patience. Native plants need care after they go in the ground. Sadly, weeds return. A patch of damaged creek takes time to recover, yet people keep turning up. They bring their knowledge, their energy and willingness to get their hands dirty.

During Landcare Week I spoke about environmental care starting in our own communities. Our local groups show us what that looks like, and I am grateful for the work and for the care that they give to places that belong to all of us. Future generations should be able to see native wildlife close to home and enjoy our creeks and bushland. The care we give these places today will help make that possible. The people working towards that future deserve a government that does its share. Our national responsibility is to reduce the emissions driving climate change alongside the work to protect and restore nature. Local care and national action must support each other.

Australians understand how much extreme weather can take from a family or a community, and certainly all of the residents in my community of Griffith know this. CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology tell us Australia is experiencing more extreme heat, longer fire seasons and more intense and heavy rainfall. Their findings give us clear reason to act. For me, that means listening to the science and getting on with the work. It means making decisions now that give future generations better prospects in the decades ahead. There is hope in that responsibility. We have ways to cut emissions, and Australians are already using them. We can generate electricity from sun and wind. We can store more of that power and use it in our homes, cars and workplaces. Government can and should help make those choices available to more people, and that is the work the Albanese Labor government has undertaken and is work that I am proud to support.

One of our first acts in government was to give Australia clear, legislated climate targets. We legislated a 43 per cent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. We have since set a target to reduce emissions by 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035, accepting the independent advice from the Climate Change Authority. Those commitments give Australians a clear measure of what their government must work to deliver. They help businesses plan investment and give communities a basis for holding us to account. I am proud that Labor has set that direction. I am proud that we are backing it with policies that change how Australia produces and uses energy.

Our task is to turn those commitments into lower emissions year after year. That requires sustained work across our economy. It means supporting new electricity generation and helping households use clean energy. It means working with industries whose equipment and processes take longer to change. Every part of that work needs attention. A national target brings those efforts together and keeps our responsibility in view, and we are seeing results. The national inventory update released in August estimated that Australia's emissions fell by 7.5 million tonnes over the year to March 2026. Renewable generation helped drive a 5.6 million tonne reduction in electricity emissions. There is more to do, but those reductions are real progress. They give us good reason to keep going. Our goal of 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 is central to that effort.

Australia has extraordinary solar and wind resources, and we have the opportunity to put them to work for households and businesses across the country. The Albanese Labor government is supporting investment in new renewable generation and storage through the Capacity Investment Scheme. We are investing in the electricity connections needed to carry that power to the places that use it, and we should celebrate the progress already made. Renewables supplied more than half of the national electricity market's electricity across the final quarter of 2025. Last month, that market recorded its lowest monthly fossil fuel generation on record. Queensland, my home state, recorded its lowest monthly fossil fuel generation in more than 26 years of the market's history. These changes reflect years of work by people building projects, installing systems and making decisions about the energy they use. They reflect the value of a government committed to clean energy and prepared to support its growth. We have come a long way. The next step is to keep building the generation, storage and connections needed for reliable electricity with lower emissions. That work deserves persistence. It deserves a government willing to make the decisions and deliver the investment required.

For many households, the clean-energy story starts on their own roof, and that is very true in my community of Griffith. A family with solar panels can generate power during the day. A home battery lets them save some of it for later, including the evening, as everyone comes home and electricity use rises. Our Cheaper Home Batteries Program helps families meet the upfront costs of their battery. By August, Australians had installed more than half a million batteries under the program. In my community of Griffith, 2,258 solar batteries have been installed, with a combined usable storage capacity of 66,090 kilowatt hours. That gives our community more capacity to save solar power during the day and use it after sunset. It means more households can use their own solar electricity after the sun goes down. They can buy less power from the grid and gain greater control over their energy use.

The savings differ between households, but the purpose is clear: we want more Australians to benefit from cleaner energy and lower running costs. I'm proud that our government is helping make that possible. Families should be able to take part in climate action in ways that work for their household budget. Support with up-front costs can bring a purchase within their reach and help them benefit for years afterwards. We must keep extending those benefits to renters and people without suitable rooftops. Everyone has a stake in affordable electricity and a cleaner energy system.

We are bringing that same practical focus to transport. For a family choosing a car, the cost of running it is part of that decision. People need a vehicle that suits their work, their children and the trips they make each week. Labor wants Australians to have more choice in cleaner, cheaper-to-run vehicles. Our electric car policies and the new vehicle efficiency standards support that choice. They encourage suppliers to bring a cleaner range of vehicles to Australia. By September, cumulative Australian electric vehicle sales had reached more than half a million, and I see that shift on our own streets, in my own community. Since 2022 the number of hybrid electric vehicles in Griffith has increased by 141 per cent. The number of fully electric vehicles has increased by 573 per cent over that same period. More local people are choosing cleaner cars for their everyday trips. For households that are able to charge from rooftop solar, an electric car can help reduce running costs. A suitable home battery can help them use stored solar power at other times. These are practical changes in how Australians power their daily lives.

The bill makes small timing changes to help the vehicle standard operate as intended. Its broader purpose remains to support cleaner vehicles and lower emissions. We will keep helping Australians access choices that suit their needs and reduce the cost of getting around. Cutting emissions requires work beyond our homes and roads. Farmers, landholders and First Nations communities can contribute through projects that reduce pollution or store carbon in the land. The Australian Carbon Credit Units Scheme helps pay for that work. An approved project might grow native vegetation that stores carbon. Another might capture methane from waste. Projects earn credits for verified results, and those credits can be sold to help fund the work. Each credit represents one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions avoided or stored, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent.

Put simply, the scheme gives people a financial reason to undertake additional work that benefits the climate. For a landholder, that can provide another source of income. For a regional community, it can support employment. A well-designed native planting can provide habitat alongside its contribution to storing carbon. Those benefits are worth pursuing. Our largest industrial facilities can use eligible credits to help meet their emissions obligations under the safeguard mechanism that supports reductions elsewhere as industry invests in cleaner operations and develops new technology.

The quality of those credits is important to our climate goals. We need confidence that the work has delivered the reduction claimed. That is where this bill makes its contribution. This bill strengthens scrutiny of carbon projects and gives the regulator better tools to address problems. It improves independent oversight and supports greater public access to emissions information. It allows future government purchasing to consider wider benefits, including benefits for nature and communities. The principle is easy to understand. Australians should be able to trust that a carbon credit represents a real contribution to reducing emissions. People undertaking good projects deserve that confidence, too. They invest time and money in work that often continues for years.

This government commissioned the independent review led by Professor Ian Chubb and is acting on its recommendations to improve the scheme. The reforms draw on extensive consultation. The department received 73 submissions on the exposure draft. Webinars and workshops attracted more than 600 stakeholders, alongside targeted engagement and First Nations consultation. The Carbon Market Institute welcomed the proposed reforms and described implementation of the review's recommendations as critical in strengthening overall integrity in the Australian Carbon Credit Units Unit Scheme.

I particularly welcome the bill's stronger recognition of First Nations rights. Traditional owners must have a proper say in carbon projects on their country. These projects can involve long commitments about how land is managed. This bill strengthens consent requirements for native title holders and registered native title claimants. It puts consent earlier in the process, before project registration, with further consent about project operation before credits can be issued. The Indigenous Carbon Industry Network has advocated for stronger recognition of these rights for years. Its chief executive, Anna Boustead, said the proposed changes 'mark a meaningful shift towards recognising and protecting Indigenous rights and interests within Australia's carbon market'.

Indigenous carbon businesses already support work on country, including through savanna fire management. Project revenue can support jobs, ranger activities and cultural heritage programs. Climate action should respect that knowledge and the authority of traditional owners. It should support fair partnerships and give communities a greater say in decisions affecting their land. I am proud these reforms bring us closer to that goal.

I began with our responsibility to future generations. The decisions before us have a bearing on that future. So does the work we do every day to deliver on our climate commitments. I am proud of the Albanese Labor government's record. We have set stronger targets and backed them with action. Australians are installing batteries, choosing cleaner cars and generating more renewable electricity. This bill strengthens another part of that effort. It helps people contribute through work on the land and supports emissions reductions we can trust.

Our local environmental volunteers keep returning to the places they care about. Their commitment is a reminder of the patience this work requires and of how much people are prepared to give for a better future. We owe them that same commitment here in this place. I want future generations to be able to look back and know we listened to the science and we acted on it. I support this bill, and I look forward to continuing that work on behalf of my community.

I rise to oppose the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. I approach this bill as I always do—to give voice to the people of Mallee. For years now, I have stood alongside farmers and farming communities confronting Labor's reckless renewables rollout. I've met farmers driven to tears, literally, by the way that proponents have treated them—and, I've got to say, by the way the government has treated them. I have stood with farmers protesting in St Arnaud, in Horsham, in Charlton, on Spring Street, in Ballarat and at Parliament House here in Canberra.

I have heard farming families along the route of VNI West, who have asked a pretty basic question: 'What happened to our property rights?'—farmers like James and Emma Burke. Emma summed it up when she said, 'They're not considering agriculture at all.' There are farmers Colin and Mary Fenton, Barry Batters, Gerald Feeny, Ben Duxson, Jason Barratt, Marcia McIntyre and Billie Baldwin, whose properties have been targeted by the Victorian government with VNI West. They are supported by others affected, like Glenden Watts, Tess Healy, Cindy O'Sullivan, Will and Rachel McIntyre, Anthony Guzzardi and Lisa Saunders, and Rob Reading. They have all challenged the way VicGrid, a government agency, has attacked land rights with statutory powers; the way the government has issued farmers with $814 fines for refusing VicGrid access to their own land; and proponents' having lied about landholder support.

These are not theoretical arguments for people in my electorate. They concern farms, homes and businesses built by families over generations, and that experience makes me particularly wary when this parliament considers further changes to the way government created incentives interact with Australian farmland, because today we are talking about carbon credits. The consequence of Labor's bill today may be another productive farm whose greatest financial value is no longer growing food or fibre but, rather, growing carbon credits. The danger in this so-called utopian fantasy land is that the Albanese Labor government is rapidly tilting the economic playing field so that harvesting carbon becomes more attractive than harvesting food or fibre. That should concern every Australian.

Australia's population is growing; the world's population is growing. But we aren't creating more prime agricultural land. Good farming soil doesn't just happen. It is a managed system. Good farmland has been fertilised, irrigated, cultivated, protected from erosion and nurtured by Australian farmers over generations. Once our best agricultural land is lost to farming, we cannot simply click our fingers and create some more. As Leader of the Nationals Matt Canavan has been saying, we are rapidly progressing towards importing more food. Who would've thought that in a nation blessed with so much productive agricultural land? I have said before in this parliament that food security must be a national priority, and government policy should never forget it.

There is a particular reason that this bill worries farmers. Carbon sequestration involves storing carbon in vegetation and soils for a long time. Area based projects generating Australian carbon credit units can carry what the Clean Energy Regulator calls permanence obligations. Those obligations can last 25 years or 100 years. Once the permanence period has been nominated and the project has been registered, the Clean Energy Regulator says that choice cannot simply be changed. Think about that in ordinary farming terms. A farmer can change his crop the next season. A family can change its business plan. A son or daughter may want to take over the farm. The agricultural market can change. The climate can change. Technology can change. But some of the carbon arrangements being entered into today can create obligations measured not in seasons but in generations.

That is why I was interested in a recent analysis of Australia's carbon farming market by Mills Oakley lawyers who advise landholders and carbon businesses in this field. Their advice to farmers considering carbon projects is straightforward: understand what you are signing up to before entering what may be a 25-year to 100-year binding legal relationship. It is similar, and I digress for a moment, to the wind turbine hosting arrangements some farmers have gone into. Farmers need to look at the fine print, as I have encouraged them to do year after year. Future farming family generations may find themselves liable for removing the infrastructure from the land. Queensland's costs for those being decommissioned two years ago were about $1 million for each turbine. Remember that many of the companies putting up these turbines are foreign owned and may well not be around when the turbines reach the end of their operational life.

Back to Mills Oakley, they identify potential consequences including long-run arrangements under this bill: firstly, reducing the value of land depending upon the commercial arrangement; secondly, making a future property sale more complicated because a purchaser may need to accept continuing obligations; and, thirdly, limiting how the landholder manages that land. Even the Climate Change Authority's 2026 review of the ACCU Scheme recommends further examination of whether credits from 25-year permanence projects should remain appropriate for safeguard mechanism compliance, along with further work on reversal risk and permanence discounts. So there are legitimate questions here.

These issues go directly to something I've been fighting for for years. I developed the Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026 because I believe Australia needs to identify its best agricultural country and defend its productive agricultural capacity. My Nationals colleagues Alison Penfold, the member for Lyne, and Matt Canavan, Senator for Queensland, introduced versions of that bill in the House and the Senate. The principle is very simple: the Commonwealth should not undermine our prime agricultural land. Our best farmland should be producing the food and fibre Australians need and to feed a growing world population. My bill proposed a national mapping exercise to identify, as Queensland and New South Wales have already done, prime agricultural land, other productive agricultural land and marginal land, with strong protections against the loss of agricultural productivity.

That principle applies just as much when we talk about carbon sinks as it does when we talk about transmission towers, wind developments or large-scale solar developments. If an Australian farmer makes a voluntary commercial decision about the use of their land, that is one thing. It is quite another for government policy, taxpayer backed finance, compulsory regulatory demand and government purchasing to progressively alter our productive farmland. We should never reach the point where policy designed in Canberra makes locking up highly productive land for carbon more lucrative than producing food.

This is not merely a hypothetical concern. The coalition has already acted on precisely this issue. The shadow minister for energy has introduced the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Protecting Australian Farmland) Bill 2026, aimed at preventing the CEFC financing purchases of farmland primarily to generate carbon credits through land regeneration or forestry. Our broader energy policy will establish a code of conduct for renewable developers, requiring them to earn community support—you know, that little thing called social licence. The lack of social licence is what saw the Prime Minister chased out of Ballarat by tractors after the Bush Summit last year. Regional farms are not vacant space on the government's renewable energy map. Farmers' property rights matter. Their homes matter. Their communities matter. Food security matters.

VNI West, renewable energy zones, wind developments, blanket solar farm developments and transmission infrastructure have created enormous uncertainty. I am pleased to say, after I brought the Leader of the Nationals to St Arnaud in my electorate, where he declared we would not support VNI West, that that is the position now taken by the Victorian Nationals and Liberals in coalition approaching next month's state election. Let me be clear. VNI West will not happen under a coalition government. Indeed, the pressure is biting the Andrews-Allan-Carroll Labor government, as they have put a pause on the Western Renewables Link, the WRL, which connects to VNI West. As yet, silence on VNI West from Labor. Perhaps they have thrown the member for Ripon under the bus, so to speak, but the Ballarat and adjacent state electorates might be higher priorities. Who knows? This is the problem. For Labor, it is always about the politics. It is not about prime agricultural land. It is not about listening to the people.

Property rights require certainty. This bill introduces another form of uncertainty. Whatever side of this issue somebody comes from, surely one principle should be uncontroversial. A farmer should be able to know who has rights over his or her land, what those rights are, how long they last and what process applies. A prospective claim should not leave a farming family trapped in indefinite uncertainty. The more complicated governments make arrangements affecting farmland, the more important certainty becomes. When the coalition rolled out native title following High Court rulings, we provided funding for farmers and landowners to deal with the legal advice and consequences.

On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I notice the member for Grey has got his noise-cancelling headphones in and is watching something. It might be the Senate—who knows? I just want to understand whether that's permitted. I've always thought it's not, but it may be and, in fact, I'd actually be delighted if you made a ruling that it was. Presumably that would enable me to wear earplugs next time the member for Goldstein speaks and prevent the OH&S injuries which most of us endure. I had 20 minutes of it last night and I left feeling unwell. I've got no problem with it, and I think it would be a good precedent because we could all wear earplugs when the member for Goldstein is on his feet.

Is it against the standing orders?

My understanding, Member for Grey, is that there is no rule on electronic devices, as long as you're not interrupting people. So people can't take a call in the chamber or be loud. Is it appropriate, Member for Grey? Is it the Senate?

Yes, I'm watching Jonno's valedictory speech.

No worries, just as long as it's not anything dodgy!

I'm don't know if noise-cancelling headphones would deal with the other problem I mentioned, but it may mitigate the damage. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Assistant Minister. The member for Mallee may continue.

Even small rural councils, such as the nine out of the 12 in my electorate that have banded together in their Resource Ready strategy, go cap in hand to the Victorian government for funding just to deal with the cost of participating in the myriad of consultations and reviews due to the rollout of mineral sands and energy projects proposed in my electorate. This is not a level playing field. It is almost vertical in favour of Labor's fantasy land of energy transition, which costs regional communities the most. Community voices are not being heard, and I am here sharing their voices and saying enough is enough.

I rise in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. The Albanese Labor government is the only team with a plausible and practical plan to address climate change and ensure that Australia plays a role in the transition of the global energy system. Our plan supports industry, grows jobs and strengthens our economy. Achieving net zero is not a competition between reducing emissions and having a strong economy. Reducing emissions, embracing renewables and playing a serious leading role in the world's transition is in our best economic interest. Heavy industry, farmers and communities all know this. What they all need is certainty—a government with a clear direction and a clear plan to achieve net zero. Labor is the only party that provides this certainty, with a practical pathway backed by clear policies that support industry, support jobs and support all Australians.

I want to take a brief moment to thank the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for his commendable work developing and delivering this sensible and practical plan—and it's a plan that is working. Last year, Australia's emissions fell by 9.7 million tonnes. These reductions have been driven by record renewable energy generation, a direct result of our government's investment in and backing of more than 150 renewable energy projects. It's been driven by lower petrol consumption, a direct result of our government's policies encouraging electric vehicle take-up and new-vehicle efficiency standards, and it's been driven by a reduction in venting and an increase in carbon capture and storage in oil and gas projects.

That brings me to the legislation that is before us today. Australia's carbon market is one of the largest and most effective schemes of its kind in the world. The Australian Carbon Credit Units scheme is a proud legacy of the Gillard Labor government, another Labor government that introduced some of the most consequential climate policies in Australia's history. Since 2011, the scheme has delivered 190 million tonnes of abatement across more than 2,600 projects, with a market valued at more than $4 billion. The scheme is delivering a significant economic benefit to regional, rural and remote communities across Australia. It is helping farmers to diversify and deliver new agricultural and vegetation activities. The scheme supports projects that reduce emissions or store carbon through new technology, improved equipment and better land management, delivering economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits.

Importantly, the scheme is creating employment opportunities for First Nations communities, with ancient First Nations cultural fire practices included in two new savanna fire management projects in the Northern Territory. This combines traditional Indigenous knowledge with modern technology, in recognition of the emissions reduction of early dry-season burning.

There have been several reviews of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, including the independent Chubb review in 2022, the Climate Change Authority's statutory reviews in 2023 and 2026, and the Australian National Audit Office performance audit in 2024. These reviews found the scheme to be well designed, highlighting its contribution to reducing Australia's emissions and identifying the need to strengthen its administration, transparency and integrity. Our government has been working to continuously improve and reform the scheme, and we've already delivered a number of reforms to address the recommendations of these reviews. This bill contributes to that work and follows wide engagement with stakeholders and experts to ensure that the scheme continues to make the greatest contribution to Australia's emissions reduction targets. These reforms will provide greater certainty for this significant carbon market, protect the jobs and economic benefits it creates and ensure that it can continue delivering good outcomes for our climate. Importantly, the changes are supported by a wide range of stakeholders including the National Farmers' Federation, the Carbon Market Institute and the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, along with a range of others.

The bill also makes amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act. In order to meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets, we need to have a robust framework for reporting and tracking emissions, and that's what the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme achieves—a single national framework for companies to report greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy production and consumption. This bill will improve the transparency of the information submitted under the scheme, improving access to the data submitted and ensuring that the scheme remains effective and efficient.

There is no denying that the new vehicle efficiency standard is working. Electric vehicle sales overtook petrol vehicles for the first time in Australia, doubling the number of EVs sold in a year. That's a direct result of the policies of this government—incentivising car manufacturers to bring more low-emissions cars to Australia and backing the Australians who know that owning an EV is a cheaper and cleaner choice. And if you combine an EV with solar and cheaper home batteries, like the more than 4,000 people in my electorate of Cunningham, charging your car at home can significantly reduce running costs. This bill fixes an unintended consequence of the standard, addressing a timing misalignment for vehicle supplier compliance with emissions targets, and ensures that the standard operates as intended.

We know that action on climate cannot wait. We are already seeing the impacts scientists have warned about for decades, from devastating floods in Nepal to record heat and bushfires across Europe. This year, Australia is also facing a super El Nino that is breaking records and putting us at risk of extreme heat, bushfires and floods. We know that it is all being driven by our changing climate. Just last week, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy were in Tuvalu hosting a delegation from around the world to see how climate change is impacting one of the most climate impacted countries in the world—because, for them, climate change isn't a tomorrow problem; it's happening right now.

Our government is the only party taking this problem seriously and the only one doing the hard work to make a difference, not just here in Australia but on the world stage too. The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation aren't taking it seriously. They don't think we should be helping our Pacific neighbours to address this issue. They don't think we should be talking to those making decisions across the world about the need to take action fast. They don't want Australian businesses, Australian innovators and Australian workers seizing the huge economic opportunities of net zero and leading the world on advanced clean-tech manufacturing. The question shouldn't be, 'How much does net zero cost?' It should be, 'How much does doing nothing cost?'—not just for future generations but for Australians right now.

I truly believe it is a fallacy to say that industry does not want to transition to a cleaner economy, because the reality is that they're already doing it. As I said earlier, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme is worth $4 billion. Electric vehicle sales are surging, while cheaper home batteries and renewables are cutting emissions, lowering power bills, creating jobs and driving billions of dollars of investment. We've now approved 150 renewable energy projects, enough to power every home in Australia and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by over 84 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. For the first time ever, on 20 September, 80 per cent of our national electricity came from renewables. Australia is leading the world in battery installation to make sure that the cheapest form of energy can also be accessed during the night. We've proven that with the right government settings we can incentivise big business to invest in a cleaner economy.

I am so proud that the Illawarra is leading the way when it comes to advanced manufacturing of clean tech. Our region has the unique advantage of a well-established industrial and commercial base, a highly skilled workforce and a world-class university. Our region is building the advanced manufacturing that Australia needs—technology developed locally, backed by local workers and expertise and capable of decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors like steel and heavy transport. Recently, I announced $49 million in funding from ARENA for local company Hysata, which has developed a world-first hydrogen electrolyser that will redefine how renewable hydrogen can be produced. This investment comes on top of more than $35 million that our government had already invested and is helping Hysata to scale up production, create a sovereign supply chain and turn Australian research into Australian made technology. Hysata has also attracted more than $220 million in investment on its own, proving the international interest and confidence in this technology.

Batteries are also hugely important for our renewables future, and Sicona Battery Technologies in my electorate are pioneering the next generation of battery materials, cutting charging times by 40 per cent. Our government has invested $45 million to help Sicona expand production capacity by up to 300 times and take the technology from pilot scale towards commercial production. Green Gravity is another incredible local innovator working to repurpose disused mine shafts for long-duration energy storage. This world-first technology uses gravity to store and release renewable energy and is generating interest all over the world. Even major steelmaker BlueScope sees the opportunities of cleaner manufacturing, actively working on ways to reduce its emissions. Our government has provided $136.8 million towards the reline and upgrade of its No. 6 blast furnace, a $1 billion project. It includes more than $100 million in environmental improvement upgrades, and it supports more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. Steel has a major role to play as we transition our economy, and the reline will improve the efficiency and environmental performance of BlueScope steelmaking, securing local jobs and Australian steelmaking in the Illawarra.

The Australian government, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, is positioning Australia as a global climate leader. In September, the Prime Minister gave the keynote address at Climate Week at the United Nations in New York. Just last week, we hosted pre-COP in the Pacific and led a delegation of decision-makers. We are taking this issue seriously. We're not quibbling about whether climate change is real, like the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation are doing. We are working incredibly hard to bring the world's nations together to address this problem. Australia is the president of negotiations for COP31, a really significant role and a powerful recognition of our growing international standing and leadership on climate action.

At the same time, I'm doing what I can locally to help bring the Illawarra's clean tech manufacturing capabilities to the world's attention. Local companies are developing technologies that will shape the next generation of energy, transport and heavy industry, creating sovereign supply chains and revolutionising clean energy globally. Earlier this year, with the University of Wollongong, we held our second Made in the Illawarra: Innovation, Energy and Manufacturing Expo at Parliament House to bring innovative local companies, researchers and community leaders together to show the parliament and our world what this region can do. We had strong interest from some of the ambassadors, high commissioners and their staff who we invited along, who could see the incredible work that was happening across our region. That interest was so strong that I hosted a follow-up delegation of embassy representatives for a tour of our local industry, and the feedback was outstanding. The delegation visited the University of Wollongong, Sicona, Hysata, Green Gravity and Port Kembla Harbour as well as BlueScope. For the tour of Port Kembla they were hosted by the Port Authority of New South Wales.

So we're making the case on the global stage for action—not in five years, not tomorrow but right now. As the Prime Minister said in his keynote address to Climate Week, there's no avoiding the scale of our responsibility or the cost of inaction. We strongly believe that Australia has a critical role to play as we transition our global energy system. We believe in the benefits for all Australians, for jobs and for the economy. We know that the stakes are too high, and we're the only ones working every single day here to make real change. I'm proud to be doing what I can to support our region to transition and to seize the economic opportunities that our clear path to net zero provides. The choice is clear: retreat from action and surrender the industries and jobs of the future, or move forward with a practical plan that cuts emissions, strengthens our economy and backs Australian workers.

Climate action has dropped off the political agenda. It's no longer the top issue for voters. The government barely talks about it, even while Australia is co-hosting COP, which is an opportunity to drive coordinated international climate action. I understand why. Australians are facing more immediate pressures. Mortgage repayments are increasing as the RBA continues to raise the cash rate. Rents are increasing, and groceries, petrol and insurance are more expensive. With the cost-of-living squeeze it's difficult to think about the long-term state of our climate. But the threat hasn't changed; it hasn't gone away because we've stopped talking about it.

The climate crisis continues to escalate. We're now unable to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming. We've failed to meet the goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement; 1.8 degrees is now the best we can hope for, and even that requires dramatic action. Every year there are more floods that wash away towns, more fires ravaging rural communities, more heatwaves that kill the old and the sick, more droughts that break farming families, more households that are displaced, more climate refugees and more irreversible environmental degradation. Species that have been here for millennia are becoming extinct on our watch.

The physics of climate change does not care about the news cycle and about what's politically palatable. The true test of political leadership is not in doing what's politically popular. Anyone can do that. The test is in doing what must be done, even when it isn't popular. It's in spending political capital and spending it well. The climate crisis requires that kind of leadership. I accept that there's no appetite or political pathway for big, bold reform like a carbon price. But this is where our political leaders must pursue a different type of ambition: ambitious incrementalism—lots of small meaningful changes that make a difference, trying new things, fixing what's broken, doubling down on what works. That's how you continue to make change when you feel there's no appetite for bold reform.

What does that mean in the context of the Australian climate policy landscape? It means strengthening the safeguard mechanism by tightening the rules around the use of offsets and new entrants. It means ensuring the new vehicle efficiency standards are aligned with our emissions targets. It means amending the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme so that we're accurately measuring methane emissions. It means reforming the fuel tax credit system that continues to subsidise the use of diesel by Australia's largest and most profitable mining companies. And it means improving the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, ACCU, and that is what this bill tries to do.

The ACCU scheme lets projects that cut emissions or store carbon, earn tradable credits. For every tonne of carbon dioxide removed or avoided, a project receives one ACCU. The methods that receive the most credits are human-induced regeneration—largely, planting trees—landfill gas and avoided deforestation. These credits are then sold, mostly to larger matters who need to reduce emissions to meet their Safeguard Mechanism obligations.

Carbon credits have an important role in the Safeguard Mechanism. Some industries don't yet have the technology to cut emissions at scale. Others work on long capital cycles, so their emissions come down in steps as plant is replaced. A well-designed credit gives those facilities flexibility when they invest. But the whole system rests on one thing: integrity. A carbon credit is a licence; it lets someone else keep emitting. If the credit represents a real tonne then that's a fair trade. If it doesn't then it has not just failed to help; it has actively made things worse. It's actively contributed to further warming, worsening climate change.

The ACCU scheme has been full of integrity concerns. First, the integrity of ACCUs remains contested. Independent research has raised ongoing concerns about several ACCU methods, including human-induced regeneration. While the Chubb review concluded that the ACCU scheme is fundamentally sound, subsequent academic analysis has questioned whether credited areas are regenerating as claimed. Second, ACCUs are not a like-for-like substitute for fossil fuel emissions. Land sector carbon removal projects only store carbon temporarily and therefore cannot genuinely offset carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, a significant proportion of which remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Similarly, the ACCU framework treats carbon dioxide and methane as interchangeable, despite methane's significantly higher global warming potential over a 20-year timeframe.

Despite the lack of equivalence between fossil fuel emissions and both avoidance and land based removal credits, the Safeguard Mechanism allows facilities to use these credits to meet their emissions obligations. So it's not perfect. We can improve it. It's better than nothing, but it can be better. Against that backdrop, what does this bill do? Well, it's a large package. Here are a few things it does. It replaces the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with a new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee with prescribed expertise, a requirement for at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander member, tighter conflict of interest rules and a duty to publish its advice. It moves the purchasing of credits from the Clean Energy Regulator to the department, and replaces 'least cost' with 'value for money'. It creates a method transition declaration allowing the minister to stop crediting under a method that fails the offsets integrity standards. It recognises registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders and requires consent in two stages. It extends the fit-and-proper person test to carbon service providers. It gives the regulator new relinquishment powers where credits turn out to be over issued plus infringement notices and the ability to reverse decisions made on false or misleading information. It changes the newness test to allow genuine research and development. And it makes changes to the NGER Act to allow more data to be published, and to the vehicle efficiency standard dates.

Now, much of this is sensible, and I'm not going to spend time on it. Many of these changes implement recommendations of the Chubb review, which I generally support for improving the integrity of this system. I do have some concerns about one measure, and that's the method transition declaration. At the moment, if a method is found to be flawed, projects already registered under it keep earning credits under the old rules. Now, that certainty is valuable for investment, but it also means a serious integrity problem can run on for years. The bill tries to fix that by allowing the minister to declare a method to be a superseded method where it fails the integrity standards and poses a material risk to the whole scheme. Industry says this creates sovereign risk. The Carbon Market Institute told the department it signals to investors that approved methods might later be challenged.

The final bill has more safeguards in it than the exposure draft, including advice from the committee, consultation and a delayed start. I acknowledge that. On the other side, the Environmental Defenders Office and others say the threshold is so high now that it may never be used. The minister must be satisfied that the method fails the standards, that it poses a material risk to the whole scheme and that there is a suitable alternative method for every affected project. That last condition is concerning. If the worst methods are the ones with nowhere to send the projects, then the worst methods are the ones that will escape this provision.

There's also a more specific concern. Human induced regeneration, which is largely planting trees, is roughly a third of all credits ever issued. Projects under that method face a reconciliation test later in their life where the forest cover that was modelled is checked against what's actually on the ground and the credits are returned if it hasn't materialised. With this power, the minister could move these projects onto a new method with no reconciliation test, effectively taking away the safeguard just when it's required. I understand that the minister has said this power is not intended to move those projects onto a different method without that test, and I welcome that, but a statement of intent is not a legal safeguard.

I will be asking the government for two things in relation to the method transition declaration: first, clarity on when this power will be used, because at the moment no-one really understands what it's for, and, second, a guarantee in the bill that moving a project to a new method cannot reduce the standard that it's held to, including the verification that applies to it. The government should closely consider amendments moved by the member for Mackellar to do just this. If the government is committed to not using this power to avoid reconciliation of all of the human induced regeneration projects, then it should have no issue confirming this in the legislation.

There are significant problems with our ACCU scheme and how it interacts with the safeguard mechanism that this bill does not address. There's no meaningful limit on the quantity of offsets that can be used to comply with the safeguard mechanism. While many carbon pricing schemes internationally permit some use of offsets, they typically include quantitative restrictions to ensure that regulated entities undertake genuine emissions reductions. In contrast, the safeguard mechanism's only guardrail is to require facilities that surrender ACCUs equivalent to 30 per cent or more of their baseline to submit a statement explaining why. Demonstrating the weakness of this guardrail, 23 facilities exceeded the 30 per cent threshold in the 2024-25 reporting year alone. This does not address the unlimited use of offsets in the safeguard mechanism. The government is about to review the safeguard mechanism, and when it's doing so it must address this issue. Access to credits cannot stay unlimited. We should be looking at a cap on the share of a facility's obligation that can be met with offsets that declines over time, with proper treatment of industries where emissions are a feature of the process itself, like cement. If we don't do this, we're asking the land sector to carry the weight of industry's choices, and the evidence suggests industry will keep choosing the cheapest credit over cutting its own emissions.

The second unaddressed significant problem is that the ACCU price is too low to drive the level of onsite decarbonisation required. Estimates of the marginal cost of achieving Australia's climate targets, including the values used by the Australian Energy Regulator, Infrastructure Australia and the New South Wales government, currently range from about $70 to $130 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, substantially higher than the price that facilities pay for ACCUs to meet their obligations under the safeguard mechanism, which are around $38 per tonne. The availability of relatively cheap offsets has contributed to their increasing use under the scheme. Even in industries where onsite abatement is cheaper than purchasing ACCUs, like underground coal mining, companies tend to prefer to purchase offsets rather than deal with the high capex and risk of a new decarbonisation technology.

Finally, this bill does not support the growth of the carbon removal industry independent of providing a licence for continued emissions. I support the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The government's Net Zero Plan assumes about 167 million tonnes of gross emissions in 2050, which is fully counterbalanced by removals. The only way to reach our national and international net zero emissions target is through carbon removal, and the only way to return to a stable climate is to remove emissions after we've reached net zero and go net negative. The first way through this is through land based methods: capturing carbon in trees, plants and soils. But we also need to invest early in novel and engineered removal methods because those will take years to develop and are the ones we don't yet have methods for—direct air capture, carbon mineralisation and beyond—and this remains a challenge that the government has not yet solved.

To conclude, this bill makes a range of small technical changes to the carbon credit scheme. They're mostly non-controversial measures, and many of them are small improvements to the scheme. There are also some elements of uncertainty which need to be resolved. But, ultimately, it doesn't deal with the big issues around the scheme. It doesn't address some of the key integrity concerns of the scheme, particularly the fact that one ACCU does not actually offset one tonne of fossil fuel emissions, and it doesn't do enough to incentivise onsite abatement at our largest emitters. Instead it continues to provide an easy way out. I will keep pressing for a high-integrity carbon credit scheme that provides industry with flexibility and certainty while also driving onsite decarbonisation as the priority. This is the only way Australia can meet its emissions targets, meet its international agreements and meet its moral obligations to restore a stable climate and a prosperous economy for future generations. Thank you.

For generations, the Hunter has powered this nation. Coal dug out of our region has kept the lights on, powered industry and helped build Australia. Hunter workers have done the heavy lifting. Our miners, power station workers, tradies, engineers, rail workers and local businesses have all played their part. I'm proud of that history and I'll never talk it down. It's a contribution our country should remember and our parliament should also respect. But the Hunter has never stood still. We've always adapted, built new industries and taken on the next job. That's exactly how we need to approach Australia's energy transition.

We should be practical, back our workers and make sure regional communities get more good local opportunities. That's why the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 matters to communities just like mine. It strengthens the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, which is known as the ACCU Scheme. It also improves the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and makes practical changes to the new vehicle efficiency standards. That might sound technical, but the basic idea is pretty simple. If a carbon credit is bought and sold, people need to know it represents real emissions reduction. Farmers, businesses, investors and the community need confidence that the system is fair, transparent and properly regulated. That is what this bill delivers.

The ACCU Scheme supports projects that avoid emissions or remove and store carbon from the atmosphere. That can include new technology, upgraded equipment, better energy use, changed land management, soil carbon, tree planting and capturing methane from landfill. Since 2011, the scheme has delivered 190 million tonnes of abatement through more than 2,600 projects. The market is now worth more than $4 billion. For communities like the Hunter, confidence matters. We have major industries that are hard to abate. They employ thousands of people directly and support many more thousands of jobs through local supply chains. They need workable ways to cut emissions while continuing to produce the materials, energy and products Australia relies on.

High-integrity carbon credits are one part of that job. They're not a licence to do nothing. They're practical tool for emissions that can't yet be completely removed through available technologies. If credits aren't genuine, the whole system falls over and businesses lose confidence. Investors walk away. Regional projects miss out. Australia's emission targets become harder and more expensive to meet. So integrity isn't just an academic argument. It affects jobs, investment and whether the system actually works.

The Hunter knows what happens when policy is written without regional communities in mind. Workers are left wondering whether anyone in Canberra understands what they do or what their families rely on. I do understand it. I worked in our coal industry. I was a tradie. I was a fitter. I know the pride people take in doing a hard day's work, and I know they want straight answers about what the next generation of jobs will be and where they will come from. They don't want slogans. They want a plan that backs existing workers, attracts new investment and keeps reliable energy at the heart of our economy.

The ACCU Scheme helps create that bridge. It supports hard-to-abate industries while encouraging investment in new ways to reduce emissions. It gives farmers and landholders another income stream. It supports research, technology and skilled jobs. It can also improve soil, water retention, biodiversity and resilience against drought. Take the Bonnie Doone property west of Monto in Queensland. The Burnham family has raised livestock there for five generations. Their soil carbon project covers 5,275 hectares of an 8,000-hectare cattle property. They're using better grazing systems, new fencing, upgraded water infrastructure and longer rest periods for soil and pasture. The project creates ACCUs as a secondary income stream while improving soil health and water retention. That is not locking up productive farmland. That's helping a working farm become more productive and more resilient. Another example is the Strathdene planting project in South Australia. Holly and Luke Crawford farm 750 hectares of wheat, barley and legumes. Their carbon project covers 32 hectares with native plantings that will store carbon and create habitat for local species. The farm keeps producing food. The farm gets an additional opportunity. The environment improves. That is practical action.

The scheme is also delivering important economic and cultural benefits for First Nations communities. Savanna fire management combines traditional knowledge with modern technology. Early dry season burning creates firebreaks, reduces destructive late-season fires and cuts emissions. Almost three-quarters of credits produced through the savanna fire emissions avoidance method are generated by Indigenous carbon businesses. The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project covers 28,000 square kilometres. Revenue from credits support ranger jobs, education, women's ranger programs, cultural site maintenance and ecological monitoring. It also gives traditional owners opportunities to pass on knowledge to younger generations while caring for our beautiful country. That's real work, real income and real community benefits.

This bill strengthens First Nations consent requirements too. Registered native title claimants will be recognised as eligible interest holders. Consent will be needed before relative projects on native title or claimed native title land can be registered, and consent about how the project will operate will be required before credits are issued. People with rights and interests in the land should be involved early and able to negotiate how projects will proceed and how benefits will be shared.

This bill also strengthens the independent integrity body. The Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee will become the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. At least one member must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. The committee will have clear functions, broad expertise and strong transparency requirements. This matters because methods need to keep pace with evidence. If a method creates a serious integrity risk, the government needs a careful way to deal with it. This bill creates a method transition declaration process. Before a declaration can be made, the minister must receive expert advice, consult publicly and consider the environmental, economic and social effects. A declaration can only proceed if affected projects could reasonably move to another available method. That protects the scheme without pulling the rug out from underneath those projects.

The bill also improves how incorrect crediting is handled. A project proponent will be able to voluntarily give back credits issued because of unintentionally incorrect information. The regulator will have clear powers when updated measurements show less abatement occurs than first estimated. At the same time, proponents won't be penalised simply because the government updates one of its own modelling tools or calculators. Again, it's a practical balance that fixes genuine errors, acts against wrongdoing and treats honest operators fairly.

The regulator will also get a better compliance toolkit. It will be able to review discussions based on false or misleading information and issue infringement notices for lower level breaches, instead of taking every matter to court. The fit-and-proper-person test will cover designated agents involved in these projects. The bill separates government purchasing from regulation by moving responsibility for buying ACCUs from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Department. That reduces actual and perceived conflicts and makes responsibility clearer.

Value for money will replace the narrow focus on least cost abatements. Price will remain important, but government will also be able to consider benefits like regional jobs, biodiversity and support for First Nations communities. For the Hunter, that's an important point. A policy decision shouldn't be judged only on the cheapest number on a spreadsheet. We need to look at what it means for local workers, local supply chains, industry capabilities and long-term strength for our communities.

The bill makes it easier for genuine research and development projects to participate. At the moment, the newest test can't stop a proponent beginning work while an application is being assessed. The reforms move the assessment point to the time of application and create a pathway for genuine R&D. That means people developing new emissions reduction technology can get moving sooner without losing eligibility. That's exactly the kind of work the Hunter should be competing for. We have industrial based skilled workers, researchers and energy know-how. We've powered Australia for generations and we should be at the forefront of the industries that will power it in the future. That includes renewable energy, storage, hydrogen, carbon management, advanced manufacturing and the ongoing work of making traditional industries cleaner and more competitive. The transition mustn't mean closing one gate and hoping another job appears somewhere else. It means building new investment alongside existing industries, training local people and using the skills we've already got.

This bill also gives landholders more flexibility. It will allow different sequestration and emissions avoidance activities to be credited within the same project. It will support framework style methods, including the proposed integrated farm and land management method. Project operators will be able to change crediting start dates more than once, receive extra time for some reports and more easily transition savanna fire projects between methods. Landholders will have the option to adjust parts of the sequestration project if relevant credits are relinquished. These changes respond to more than a decade of experience running this scheme. They are about moving pointless barriers while keeping the rules strong.

The bill also improves the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. This is Australia's national framework for company reporting on greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy use. Reliable public information matters. Communities deserve to know what major businesses are reporting, and government needs solid data to design policy to measure these programs. The reforms streamline publication, allow more detailed information to be required through regulations, close possible reporting gaps and let the regulator remove companies in liquidation from the register.

The final part of this bill makes timing changes to the new vehicle efficiency standards. The standards have encouraged manufacturers to send Australia a better range of more fuel efficient vehicles. More people now have access to hybrids and EVs, along with lower running costs and greater choice. In August 2026 more than 27,000 battery EVs were sold, making up 24.9 per cent of new vehicle sales in this country. EVs outsold petrol cars that month for the first time. The amendments don't change the headline emission limits or vehicles covered. They fix the sequence of key dates so suppliers get the intended two years to manage and extinguishing units. Industry asked for certainty, and this bill provides it.

Regional communities have heard plenty of noise in the energy debate. Too often people come to places like the Hunter with a lecture already written and no interest in listening. That's not how I operate, and it's not how I expect any government to operate. The people I represent are practical. They know that energy is changing. They also know Australia still needs reliable power, strong industry and secure jobs. They expect government to manage change, not simply just announce it. This bill is practical. It improves integrity without killing investment. It protects First Nations rights. It gives farmers more options. It strengthens transparency. It supports research and makes three important national schemes work better together. It also helps build confidence in regional Australia. When the rules are clear and credits are genuine, businesses can invest, landholders can participate and communities can share in the benefits.

The Hunter has carried this nation on its back for generations. The coal from our mines and the power from our stations have built cities, supported manufacturing and kept homes running right across the country. Our contribution deserves respect. It also deserves a serious plan for the next decades ahead. I want the Hunter to keep powering the nation. I want workers building, operating and maintaining the next generation of energy and industry. I want our kids to have a choice to stay in our region, get a trade, build a career and raise a family close to home. This bill helps do that by making Australia's carbon market stronger, clearer and more trustworthy. I commend the bill to the House.

I just feel so sad that a member representing the coalmining area of Australia can get up and give the speech that he gave. It is a reflection upon the party system in this nation and in this place. A representative from the coalmining heartland of Australia is standing up and applauding this bill that closes down his industries. I just can't believe what I'm hearing. It is the party system that reduces a good person to a party apparatchik—you hold up your hand when you're told to.

You've got to understand what is happening here. The price of electricity in Queensland went from $900 to $3,200—$1,200 of that was for carbon credits, which is an imposition upon the people of Queensland, and another $1,000 was because of the inefficiencies that are in the system now, because 54 per cent of the daytime electricity in Queensland is coming from solar panels. Where do we get solar panels from? China. Where do we get ethanol from? Australia—or we should be getting ethanol from Australia. So, instead of going to ethanol and fuelling our cars with ethanol produced from one of the four biggest grain and sugarcane exporting countries in the world, we've chosen to buy our fuel—solar panels—from China. That's in keeping with the fact that 52 per cent of our motor cars sold this year have also come from China.

Once upon a time, in the 1980s, in my lifetime, 62 per cent of our cars were built here in Australia, and, if I may be excused for using a crude term, they were bloody good cars. Thanks to the stupidity of the ALP and the LNP, we now have no car manufacturing in this country. Now we have a bloke who comes from the coalmining capital of Australia getting up here and advocating that we have no coalmining. Just how hypocritical is this place?

Now, they referred to the first Australians. Well, shame upon you. Shame upon you, because in every speech that becomes available, I'm going to remind this place that the life expectancy of first Australians living in their homeland has fallen from 54 to 49. Now, these people are not only friends of mine but they're relatives of mine as well, so there's a personal basis for my rage on this issue. You say, 'Oh yes, you know, they did it really good.' They firestick farmed. Read the great Australian historian's Triumph of the Nomads. They firestick farmed this country. I mean, the hypocrisy of you.

I met a young lady and I asked her: 'What do you do?' She said, 'Oh, I'm in economic development.' So because I don't notice any economic development taking place in the northern half of Australia, I asked, 'What economic development?' And like extracting teeth, I found out that she sells carbon credits. Now, that means that those people there can never, ever make a quid. They can't ever make a quid. You're condemning them to nothing for the rest of their lives. And is it any surprise that the suicide rate is absolutely heartbreaking in the community areas of Australia?

Now, in sharp contrast, what people are doing is ignoring your whitefella laws because we've had a gutful of your whitefella laws, right? And a great hero called Jason Ned had mustered more cattle than any other person in human history. He was getting a good Australian award from the Prime Minister, but he died two weeks before. But he just went out and said, 'I'm not worried about your whitefella laws. I'm just taking up this block of land here, which my family lived on for 40,000 years, and I'm going to call it my cattle station,' and everyone in Doomadgee applauded him. In fact, four other families have gone out and done the same thing now there is a precedent for that. New South Wales was taken up under squatter's rights. They said, 'We don't care what your British government's saying. I'm just going to go out there and take up this land.' All of New South Wales was taken up under squatter's rights. So God bless my fellow Australians, because they're telling you to take your laws and telling you what you can do with your laws, right?

The hypocrisy of this gentleman before representing the coal mining industry and telling us this is good for us. I mean, this is good for us? The Queensland economy is based upon coal. If you close it down, the state is bankrupt. There are 50,000 jobs in the coal mining industry and this place is constantly and continuously advocating the closure of the coal industry. Now, if you had any brains or any energy to do proper work on the issue, you would know that the modern power station will be built where there is a lot of water and where they will have algae, which will grow on the CO2 in the ponded areas. Now, no less a person than Tanya Plibersek knew the names of all the algae and has actually done some very good research on it. It's very sad that she's been removed from those portfolios.

There are10 power stations which account for almost all the electricity in Australia and three of them have announced closure dates. I've asked again and again in this place: how are you going to stop the lights from going out? I mean, the sun? If you're talking about solar panels, the sun doesn't shine overnight. You've got a bit of a problem there, and there are no storage facilities in Australia. There's one pumped hydroelectricity station in the Snowy and that's it.

So when we come here today and talk about giving carbon credits to first Australians, remember this young lady who said she was in economic development and who I eventually found out was selling carbon credits, which means that the people of Doomadgee, the people of Pormpuraaw, will never, ever, ever be able to make a living. If you want to make a living then you have to go to the bank to borrow some money. If you don't own property, the banks won't give you any money.

One of the more important works of recent times was by Hernando de Soto, an economist with the World Bank. His cousin was head of the third-biggest mining company in the world, Rio. Hernando de Soto, in his book The Mystery of Capital, said the three poorest countries on Earth are Peru, the Philippines and Egypt. Why are they the three poorest countries on Earth? Because you can't get a title deed. You can't own property. If you can't own property, the banks won't loan you money. If the banks won't loan your money, you can't build a house, you can't open a business, you can't do anything. With no property rights, there is no money. If there is no money, there is no home, no farm and no economy. That is the fate of Peru, the Philippines and Egypt—and that is the fate that you have imposed upon the First Australians of this nation. Their life expectancy has fallen from 54 to 49. Whose fault is that? If there are high alcohol rates and other things, whose fault is that? The tooth fairy's or penguins from Antarctica's? It's your fault. You passed the laws that made it impossible for these people. So I come here and praise the people of Doomadgee—and, if you dare interfere, God help you. They're just doing what Australians did when they first came to Australia. They're taking up squatters' rights—'It's a big empty land and we're going to run cattle on it, and, if you don't like it, well, too bloody bad for you.'

The last speaker in this debate represents the coal industry, and he came in here justifying the closure of the coal industry in Australia. He's talking about motor cars that are electric. They come from China. The electricity comes from China through Chinese solar panels. Don't you like your own country? Do you want it to be an economic colony of China? That is what, of course, it is rapidly becoming—an economic colony of China.

Build a 3,000-megawatt power station, which is almost twice as big as the 10 biggest power stations in Australia. Build it at the headwaters of the Burdekin River, the third biggest river in Australia. We have got flat land going on forever and it's called the Desert Uplands. There's nothing growing there; it's a rain shadow. Just put it there and then have these algae ponds. I praise Minister Plibersek for her great work in this area, and it's very sad that she was removed from the portfolio. If you do that then you will have the cheapest electricity in the world. People have had $1,000 a year dumped on them in electricity charges. They've had an extra $1,000 a year dumped on them because we export all of our oil and import all of our petrol. What sorts of lunatic governments do we have in Australia? We export our oil for $8,000 million and we import our petrol for $62,000 million. Are we mad or something? Brazil is on 60 per cent ethanol and they were filling up for $1.70, the last time I looked. Ethanol was introduced in every country in the world because they needed oxygen to replace the lead that was taken out. It got a very poor burn, so there was a serious problem with particles getting into your lungs. The Premier of New South Wales, Morris Iemma, introduced ethanol because it's got oxygen, you get a much better burn and you don't have 9,000 people dying in the Greater Sydney area every year from lung disease that comes from motor vehicle emissions.

I plead with people in this place, particularly younger people: do your research; do your homework; know what you're talking about. You don't follow the latest pop ideology that's out there. It was overpopulation; now we're a dying race. Most of the European sorts of countries are all dying races. We're vanishing. When 20 Australians die, on present trends they'll only be replaced by 15 people.

Similarly, on the issue of energy, I don't hesitate to say I'm an expert in this field. I was the energy minister in Queensland. We had the cheapest electricity in the world. And I put in the first standalone solar system, not because I'm some pop ideology follower but because it was cheaper. In an isolated, remote situation like the Torres Strait, it was cheaper, and we didn't have the maintenance problems. So I know a hell of a lot about it. To put solar panels on your roof to get electricity in a city is absolute madness and a criminal irresponsibility. In a remote area, it is magic, but not in the cities. So where do you get your power from? The next power station should be built on the upper Burdekin River, the third-biggest river in Australia, on the Desert Uplands. There will be ponds that will absorb the CO2 and grow algae, which produces diesel fuel for you—renewable diesel fuel! Or it can produce pig feed, cattle feed—whatever feed that you want.

For those people that come in here and start preaching about ideology and saving and rescuing the nation, 30,000 square kilometres of my homeland has been taken over by prickly tree, and that's because there's no-one living there anymore. You destroyed the wool industry, and the cattle industry has never picked up, so it's just empty land. There's no-one looking after it. The blackfellas firestick farmed, but now there are no blackfellas there firestick farming, so you changed the ecology. The cassowary is doomed because you've banned shooters from going into the national parks. The pig numbers are exploding, and it'll be on my watch—I predict that within 16 years there'll be no cassowaries. So you've got 30,000 square kilometres of prickly trees destroying everything over there. You've got the Forty Mile Scrub, the most iconic national park in northern Australia, burnt to a cinder because there was no-one there to look after it. There are three cattle stations around it with not a single leaf burnt because there are people there looking after it. I own a 250,000-acre cattle station. When I and my neighbours had a fire, I had a dozer, my neighbour had a grader, and the other neighbour had a water tank on his truck, and I also had a water tank available. So, if we had a fire, we had a very formidable way of combating it. (Time expired)

Thank God for time limits! I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. Australia is home to one of the largest and most robust carbon markets in the world. The total value of Australia's carbon market is worth over $4 billion as of 2025, spanning over 2,600 projects in our economy.

Okay, I'll just—

You've had your go.

Member for Calwell, I'm presiding over the House, okay?

Sorry, yes.

Member for Kennedy, did you have a point of order?

Yes, I did, and I want to put it on record, thanks.

Well, I didn't hear it, so, if you do want to make a point of order, I request that you do that again so I can hear it.

The point of order is that we are not making any money out of carbon—

Okay, that's not a point of order. Thank you so much. Member for Calwell, you may resume your speech.

Our carbon market plays a significant role in protecting our environment and supporting our economy. This is as much an economic argument as it is an environmental one. Global standards are shifting, and technology and innovation are reshaping industries and supply chains around the world. Australia cannot afford to fall behind. In an increasingly competitive global market, keeping pace with technological progress and innovation is essential to ensuring Australian industry remains competitive and can access emerging markets and opportunities. When we fall behind, we risk closing doors for Australian businesses, not only by limiting their ability to compete in global supply chains but also by restricting their access to new investment, new technologies and new markets. A credible and effective carbon market helps Australia respond to these changes. It creates incentives for businesses to invest in new technologies, improve efficiency and develop innovative approaches to reducing emissions. In doing so, it supports our environmental objectives while helping Australian industry remain competitive, productive and well positioned for the future. The opportunity before us is not simply to reduce emissions; it is also to ensure Australian businesses can adapt, innovate and compete in a global economy where environmental performance and technological capability are becoming increasingly important.

At the heart of this market is the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, which provides the regulatory framework for carbon crediting in Australia. The scheme encourages individuals and businesses to undertake projects that reduce emissions or store carbon. It does this by supporting the adoption of new technologies, the upgrading of equipment, changes to business practices that improve productivity or energy use, and improvements in vegetation management. Carbon credits generated under the scheme also support other key mechanisms that help Australia's largest emitters reduce their emissions. These include compliance with the safeguard mechanism and participation in voluntary carbon markets. The safeguard mechanism is Australia's principal policy tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the country's largest industrial facilities. Like the ACCU scheme, it operates through an incentive based framework, encouraging facilities to keep their net emissions below legislated baselines. The safeguard mechanism applies to entities with operational control of facilities that emit greenhouse gases.

The scheme also works alongside voluntary carbon markets, where individuals and businesses choose to take action beyond their legal obligations. This can include purchasing and cancelling ACCUs and other eligible offset units as well as surrendering large-scale generation certificates and renewable electricity guarantee-of-origin certificates when they are not legally required to do so. Individuals and businesses may choose to take these actions for a range of reasons, including their commitment to environmental sustainability, the desire to distinguish themselves in the market and the pursuit of internal organisational targets.

Taken together, Australia's carbon market reflects both voluntary and compliance-driven demand. The bill before the House today recognises the importance of this market to our environment and, importantly, to our economy. It builds on existing regulatory frameworks and voluntary action by strengthening Australia's carbon credit scheme, implementing recommendations from independent reviews and responding to stakeholder engagement undertaken over many years. At its core, the bill strengthens the integrity and transparency of the scheme, improves its administration, enhances emissions reporting and makes technical adjustments to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. The bill implements findings from independent reviews and introduces administrative improvements, informed by more than a decade of experience operating the scheme.

The changes provide greater flexibility and ensure an appropriate separation between purchasing decisions and the regulation of the scheme. The bill also replaces the purchasing principle of least-cost abatement with value for money. This will allow the government, when purchasing ACCUs, to consider a broad range of factors, including non-carbon benefits, where appropriate to its strategic priorities. The bill introduces a new ministerial power to make a method transition declaration in extraordinary circumstances. This power is intended to prevent existing projects from continuing to earn ACCUs under a method where an integrity issue has arisen that is of such seriousness that it poses a risk to the scheme as a whole. Importantly, however, this power is constrained by legislative criteria and conditions. Any decision must be informed by advice from the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, public consultation and consideration of the impacts on existing project proponents.

The bill also strengthens the Clean Energy Regulator's compliance and enforcement powers. These changes include extending the 'fit and proper person' test to agents of project proponents, introducing new ACCU relinquishment provisions to ensure that credited abatement is accurate and conservative, and empowering the regulator to issue infringement notices and injunctions. These measures will help resolve lower-level compliance breaches and support more-efficient enforcement.

The bill further supports investment in emissions abatement research and development by introducing newness requirements tailored to projects that are undertaking research and development that supports the development of new methods. It also enables a single project to include both sequestration and separate emissions-avoidance activities. This will support the development of innovative ACCU methods and allow new activities to be incorporated over time. The bill also streamlines and simplifies scheme administration. This includes making it easier for projects to transition to new methods and extend their permanence or crediting periods, providing greater flexibility to adjust the audit framework in the future and giving the regulator more flexible tools to manage projects with outstanding consents or regulatory approvals. Together, these reforms are designed to strengthen the scheme's integrity while making it more practical and effective to administer.

The bill also introduces more flexible powers to require the publication of information reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme. The scheme provides a single national framework for companies to report information about greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. By enabling more of the information submitted under the scheme to be published, these amendments will improve transparency around emissions and energy data. They will also make the scheme more effective and efficient to administer while allowing more detailed information to be published when needed through a flexible regulation-making power.

The bill also makes technical amendments to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024 to adjust the timing and alignment of key milestone dates, ensuring that the standard operates as originally intended. The Albanese Labor government legislated the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard in 2024. This helps give more Australians more choice when it comes to buying their next vehicle, with a greater and better range of cars, including more hybrid and electric vehicles. And we can see these new standards at work, with Australians increasingly choosing to buy electrical vehicles. In the last month alone, electric vehicle sales overtook petrol car sales in Australia. More Australian drivers are choosing lower running costs and greater choice. More than 27,000 battery electric vehicles were sold, accounting for nearly one in four new vehicle sales. These figures reflect the broader trend across the year, with electric vehicle sales increasing significantly.

The amendment in this bill addresses a timing issue affecting how vehicle suppliers meet their emissions targets under the standard. It will ensure that the scheme continues to operate as intended. Australia's path to net zero depends on credible action and on institutions that people can trust. Our carbon market is an important part of that effort. It supports emissions reduction, encourages investment and provides a framework for businesses and individuals to contribute to our environmental and economic objectives. This bill builds on that foundation. It strengthens the integrity and transparency of carbon crediting, improves emissions reporting and makes practical adjustments to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. These are important steps towards ensuring that our policies remain credible, effective and fit for purpose.

These reforms in the bill before the House are just one part of the Albanese Labor government's achievements when it comes to the environment and the transition of our energy sector. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has taken real action to protect our environment and secure our future energy supplies whilst investing in the workforce and industries of the future in the clean energy sector. And we haven't wasted a moment. The Albanese Labor government has approved a record number of renewable energy projects, enough to power more than 11 million homes. While the coalition spent years during its wasted decade waging climate wars and lobbying against renewables, we on this side the House are getting on with preparing Australia for its future energy needs, harnessing the economic opportunities of the transition and ensuring that Australian industry and workers remain central to this process.

To achieve this, the Albanese Labor government has ensured that renewable projects are considered as quickly as possible. This includes investments through our Future Made in Australia plan. This investment will develop and maintain a national priority list of renewable energy projects and accelerate environmental assessments for some projects on that priority list. The National Renewable Energy Priority List supports critical renewable energy projects across Australia. The list specifically focuses on projects that are important to help Australia meet its renewable energy targets and supports the facilitation of faster approvals through a 'faster to yes or faster to no' approach when it comes to environmental decisions. As of March last year, the priority list had identified 56 priority projects, including 24 transmission projects and 32 generation and storage projects. Faster approvals and timely rejections allow the sector to get on with the job of supporting the projects needed for the energy transition and create the jobs that come with it.

We're also giving households more agency over their energy consumption through our Cheaper Home Batteries program. Over 500,000 cheaper home batteries have now been installed across Australia under this government's program, helping households and businesses store cheap solar, cut power bills and take pressure off the grid. This is a game changer for energy bills, with many able to save a thousand dollars or more on their energy bills each year. And, with those savings on bills, people will be able to pay down the cost of their battery faster. In my electorate, 2,396 cheaper home batteries have been taken up across our community to date, with Mickleham and Craigieburn leading the way. This demonstrates that families in our outer suburbs, right across this country, including in my electorate, are centre stage of this government's efforts for more, cheaper and cleaner energy. That's local households and businesses investing in energy upgrades that help lower their bills and give them back control of their energy costs, helping families save both now and into the future.

These reforms are not just about strengthening environmental integrity. They're also about maintaining a credible and effective framework that gives businesses the confidence to invest, innovate and participate in Australia's transition to a more competitive, lower emissions economy. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026

I rise to speak on the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026, and I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

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

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

(1) more than 230,000 parents across Australia owe a record $2 billion in outstanding child support;

(2) the average child support debt is $8,699;

(3) the highest single debt owed is more than $2 million, with another ten parents owing over $1 million and 190 parents owing more than $150,000 in outstanding child support;

(4) the Government is failing to use all debt collection methods available to collect outstanding child support debts;

(5) the changes in this bill do nothing to improve the collection of the $2 billion of child support owed; and

(6) unpaid child support is leaving children and their parents without the financial support needed, especially during this cost-of-living crisis".

The bill addresses some of the known systems abuse which occurs in the Child Support Scheme, to make not just the system but families safer. The Child Support Scheme was first established in 1988 to address the growing concerns of child poverty in single-parent families. With our family court system under immense pressure, the scheme provides a way to ensure appropriate financial support is provided for children following family separations.

The Child Support Scheme is complex, taking into account both parents' income, care percentages, living costs and the costs of raising a child—which, under this Albanese Labor government, have gone through the roof. The child support agency effectively acts as a broker between the parties, determining the minimum amount to be paid and being the financial conduit for those payments. When there are disputes over costs or income, the child support agency is there to help parents broker the divide, which should relieve that burden on families, allowing them to focus on what truly matters: raising and caring for their children.

Over the last few decades, weaknesses in the system have been exposed. Parents seeking to evade their moral and legal obligation to financially support their children have used the administrative bureaucracy of the child support agency not just to evade their obligation but to continue to inflict financial abuse on their former partners and, consequently, the children. In June 2025, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation into the child support program found the system is being weaponised by some parents, who are deliberately not making payments, not lodging tax returns, lying to reduce their income, lying about care arrangements and being abusive or violent to stop the other parent from asking for help. This can never be tolerated, and this legislation takes important steps to reduce some of those harms.

Schedule 1 of the bill addresses evidence that some parents use administrative processes in the Child Support Scheme to harass the other parent, particularly by lodging vexatious applications or objections. The legislation will provide discretionary power for the child support agency to refuse to accept some applications, particularly vexatious change-of-assessment applications that are being used to cause harm to the other parent, or if they are satisfied the objection has little to no prospect of success.

Right now, if one parent lodges a change-of-assessment application to reassess their child support, both parents need to provide reams of personal information, like payslips, bank account statements and other documents that include details like their current address or workplace. Currently, there is a legal requirement that mandates entire copies of all those documents be exchanged with the other parent with no redactions. For a parent who may have experienced domestic violence, this presents an extreme and unacceptable risk to their safety. The changes in the bill will allow the agency to redact personal or sensitive information or only provide a written or verbal summary. Protecting people's safety is paramount, and changing the law to ensure a person's personal details are not released where there is a risk of domestic violence is essential.

Schedule 2 of the bill focuses on the linkage between child support and family tax benefits. This change has been long advocated for by many in this space, including the Council of Single Mothers and their Children, Economic Justice Australia, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. They've done a lot of advocacy in this space. For those who don't know, there is a link between child support payments and family tax payments which ensures that, when a parent can receive child support from the other parent, they do so and any government income support is adjusted accordingly.

However, when the paying parent fails to submit their tax returns, their child support liability is based on their income estimates, not their final income amount. If that parent then submits a tax return, the child support liability is recalculated, which can result in the receiving parent's family tax benefit entitlement being reassessed and a debt created. In these circumstances, parents in a collection arrangement through the child support agency are protected, and the debt is only raised when any additional child support owed is actually paid by the other parent. But this is not the case for parents who have a private collect arrangement, which more than half a million parents do. The changes in the bill will pause the collection of these family tax benefit debts for parents in private collect arrangements for a period of up to three months after the debt is raised, giving parents time to take appropriate action—to pursue the outstanding child support from the other parent directly, move to an agency collect arrangement and ask the government to collect the outstanding child support, or apply for a special circumstance waiver.

Schedule 3 the bill will allow claims to be made by parents in overseas jurisdictions to access the Australian child support system.

The changes in this bill are sensible, evidence based and, importantly, provide some protection to parents from increased risk to continuing domestic and family violence. Creating a pathway for family tax benefit debts to be paused has been long called for and will be a welcome relief to many parents who, each year after tax time, wait to see if they will get a debt letter from Services Australia. But we need to be honest that this will not fix the child support system, and it does nothing to address the more than $2 billion owed in outstanding child support. Outstanding debt owed to parents has skyrocketed under this Labor government. Parents are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table to feed their children. The last thing any parent has time for is to sit on the phone waiting to get through to the child support agency to yet again chase up money they are owed by their previous partner.

Time and time again, we hear stories about parents doing the wrong thing—going on overseas holidays, buying new cars and boats, and failing to lodge their tax returns to avoid paying their child support. It's a disgrace. Right now, around 230,000 parents owe a child support debt, and, as I said, the average debt is over $8,500. It's almost $8,700. Astoundingly, the highest debt owed is $2 million. Ten parents have these huge debts in the millions. The child support agency has avenues to collect this debt, but one has to question if they are using all the tools at their disposal to do so. For parents who owe a large or persistent debt, the child support agency can put in place a departure prohibition order to stop them travelling overseas until that debt is paid. Currently, there are only 4,000 departure prohibition orders in place—just two per cent of parents with a debt.

These orders can be effective, and parents do have to pay their debt if they want to leave the country, but there is concern they are not being used effectively. Recently I was contacted by a parent who was owed more than $200,000 in outstanding child support. When her ex-partner tried to leave the country, rather than ensuring that the debt was paid in full before he could, the child support agency accepted a small lump sum and a meagre payment plan. How is this reasonable? With a debt of more than $200,000, the child support agency just waved it through. And do you know who continues to struggle? This mum. This mum has sold every asset she has just to get by and to keep a roof over her head and her children's heads. It's not on—it's absolutely not on.

We have the ability to stop these parents, and the Albanese Labor government needs to start taking that responsibility seriously. In this year's budget, the government announced they would increase the use of departure prohibition orders and apply them to debts of more than $10,000. We haven't seen that legislation yet, but, when the average debt is $8,675, too many parents will be left holding their breath, waiting for a miracle or for their debt to reach the magic $10,000 threshold. The government can also use wage garnishing powers, where the employer deducts the amount directly from a person's pay and sends it straight to the child support agency. But, again, this is a power that is underused. Only 42,000 active debt cases have a wage garnishing order in place. A person's tax return can be intercepted; this isn't used either.

Parents around the country right now are struggling like they've never struggled before, and the $2 billion owed in child support debt would go a long way to helping many families. The coalition's message is clear: child support payments are not optional. Parents have a moral and legal obligation to support their children. We want to see stronger enforcement action taken on those who owe a child support debt. We cannot tolerate people not lodging their tax returns, hiding money and enjoying lavish jaunts overseas while their children go without. The changes in this bill are a start, but they are just a start. The debt levels for child support are out of control, and parents around the country expect more.

Is the amendment seconded?

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

The greatest privilege in our country is to be elected to this place to be a voice for our people, and today the greatest privilege of that privilege is to be able to be a voice for a constituent. Deb Robinson, who is in the gallery today, has come down, so I am reading her words exactly. Today I get an opportunity to be an exact voice for somebody who has been abused by this system. Deb says:

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment, Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme

I am here as a voice for the estimated 150,000 men and women in Australia who are owed approximately 1.9 billion dollars in unpaid child support. 1.9 billion dollars is symbolic of the systemic failure in preventing the weaponization of child support to commit financial abuse. 1.9 billion dollars is most likely a gross under representation of the true financial cost, for example the amount owed to my 2 sons and I is around $75000 dollars—I say around as most of the assessments over the last 18 years have been based on a provisional taxable income amount due to non-lodgement of tax returns.

What is more devastating and distressing is that these 1.9 billion dollars cannot even begin to symbolise the psychological, emotional and social costs endured by none paying parents whose ex-partners have been enabled by, an archaic Child Support Scheme and legislation that sits behind it, to commit financial abuse over many years, and in my case close to 2 decades.

Throughout this time, I have constantly been told what "I need to…do!" by a system that should have made my sons' and my journey a little lighter, instead the onus was on me to advocate for what's just and this pressure only compounded the anxiety I already felt. I am here to tell you what I have done and then to explain what the system needs to do to prevent further injustice.

Whilst my boys and I are owed an estimated $75000 you can't put a dollar figure on the emotional trauma that the lack of considered and timely reforms to this scheme has caused us and thousands like us—my story began when I was four months pregnant with my second child, my eldest not yet 2, there was DV against me at the time of the separation and my ex husband had possession of the family car which was being paid for through for through a joint loan.

My credit score was destroyed because of the defaults that he made, and I periodically paid for some repayments because of this. As the sole carer for both sons, early on, I lost income and super contributions to work part time so I could be somewhat present during their formative years while my ex made skeletal periodic child support payments. My first taste of the dysfunction of the system to ensure paying parents were held accountable was when the CSA started to garnish my ex's wages, he simply quit his job .....and so began our journey with the flawed Child Support scheme which has resulted in almost 2 decades of financial abuse!

Over the next 18 years, I worked full time and raised 2 amazing boys, now men, on my own and the periodic low-ball payments that the CSA collected over the years ceased altogether.

Almost every assessment was a provisional one due to non-lodgement of tax returns. I would call the CSA begging for justice, and the reply was always it's with a specialised team, there's nothing more we can do, but by the way you need to......

I needed to initiate a change of assessment for anything further to be done, time after time I explained that this was not something I felt safe or comfortable with and I would constantly ask why the CSA just couldn't activate these powers as part of their core business—the response remained the same, it is with our specialist team and you need to......

I was the one who provided as many details about my ex as I could. I was the one who pleaded for the prohibition order to be put in place. I was the one who spoke to my former local member twice and lodged countless complaints to the CSA. I was the one who was directed by the CSA to complain to the ombudsman, whom of which redirected me to the Dept of Social Services. I was the one who spoke to members of the DSS in Canberra to once again plead for change—during that phone call I was again directed to do a Change of Assessment as this would allow the CSA to do more, my response once again was why is this not just part of their core business. I explained how violating a COA feels, I needed to share my financial information with my ex and yet he was not obligated to do the same. I told the DSS that I was worried about my privacy and the response to this was there is nothing that can be done as this is the legislation and reform is coming (Mr Speaker don't you think my boys and I have waited long enough!)—again it was abundantly clear how this legislation fails to protect and actually provides loopholes for paying parents to hide their true income and assets and therefore almost encouraging them to commit financial abuse.

I was the one who was advised that I needed to let the CSA know if I was to take the debt collection to court as they weren't because there was not enough evidence of capacity to pay. I was the one who has recently twice returned to meet with my current local member, Rowan Holzberger to champion change and … hence I am here today.

Ironically our case will be finalised next month and after all these years of me fighting for fairness and accountability, this is the year that the CSA let me know that our case was eligible to undergo the Capacity to Pay process, however, as the decision to activate this was made too close to our case ending there was no guarantee it would have time to be completed. Luckily my son would still be at school after his 18th birthday so I needed to apply for an extension which in turn enabled the process to be completed...... Not once in the almost 2 decades prior had I been told about this and it is my understanding that this capability has been available since at least 2010.

Why has it taken until now for this to be initiated? Through this process the CSA can only back date any further debt to 18 months and if I would like to extend their assessment beyond this period then I need to take the matter to court, so even when action is taken it doesn't match the gravity of the circumstances and I am the one who is once more burdened with a continued fight for what's right whilst simultaneously raising 2 beautiful men and working full time.

What's more disturbing is that the outcome of this process indicates that my ex, up until June 2026 had 3 businesses, 2 as partnerships and the one recently closed was his own—the cynic in me can't help but think he closed this to avoid the Capacity to Pay investigation. The total amount in his bank accounts, is almost equal to the debt he owes, but it's distributed across shared accounts which can't be touched—and yet the bank was happy to take my money to pay off our joint debt for the family car that he possessed! Why can't the system do the same as the bank but in reverse?

BAS statements and tax returns on all 3-businesses are not up to date, in one instance, last done some 6 years ago and for his own business, established in 2022 non-existent. The advice provided when I called to ask about this outcome was that I needed to contact the ATO to report this. Most of the information within this COA special circumstances came from the ATO and yet the responsibility to report this was placed on me.

What's more is I called the CSA back later that day, 1 hour and 28 minutes, to check if they were pursing our debt through the courts given this updated information and this step had not even been considered. I was once again responsible tor asking for action despite the content of this COA letter being incomprehensible and retraumatising.

I am fortunate that I am here today to ask for justice; so many others in my position do not have the energy, resilience or finances to fight for what's right, they can ill afford to have their cries for support to be rejected over and Over again because the system and legislation is structured in such a way that the just, deserved outcomes, are too often not achievable.

Mr speaker I want you to see, hear and feel the injustice that my sons and I have suffered over these years. I have worked in state education for 26 years across 2 states so have positively contributed to our society, I pay significant amounts of tax to the government each year so that they can provide services and yet here we are highlighting the lack of service provision offered to thousands of parents like me, whose ex-partners can deliberately hide their assets and income so they don't have to meet their financial obligations of raising their children.

What will cause my boys and I further anger and frustration is that my fight for what's right and fair has exposed details that will most likely alert the ATO to force my ex to lodge these overdue BAS statements and tax returns and any money owed from this will go into the pockets of the very same system that has not only failed to serve the parents and children I represent, but has caused further despair due to the injustices it allows.

I am urging you Mr Speaker to deeply listen to those impacted by this negligence and to expedite any legislative, practice and or policy changes to the Child Support Scheme so that this suffering can be eased or hopefully ended altogether. The system needs to strengthen inter-agency collaboration to uncover the true deceit of some paying parents.

The system needs to automatically initiate action proportionate to the severity of the situation—it shouldn't put the burden onto already struggling parents to expend energy asking for what they and their children deserve. The system needs to change the legislation to be able to assess an individual's percentage share of assets and income within a partnership business so that collection can be enforced.

The government needs to commit to addressing this $1.9 billion debt. When the scheme finally becomes fit for purpose, fair, transparent and accountable, and parents who have avoided their financial responsibilities are made to lodge outstanding tax returns, that any funds collected because of this, are in part or in full, redirected towards paying off this debt as after all the incompetencies of the scheme have caused this debt to be so significant. This would be a positive gesture of commitment from the government to try and repair any damage that's already been inflicted.

Mr Speaker, I want my presence here today to bring attention to the profound moral failings of the current Child Support Scheme and to expose how its very structure creates the conditions for financial abuse to flourish, remain unchallenged and go unpunished.

It has failed to truly comprehend the devastating costs that this 1.9-billion-dollar debt represents—financial, psychological, emotional and social.

Just yesterday, I was informed that my Freedom of Information request to Services Australia, which was due on 7 October, after I granted an extension, has been deemed as refused because the agency had failed to make a decision within the required timeframe.

Once again, I am left to fight for something that should never have required a fight in the first place. I must now apply to the Information Commissioner for a review, navigating yet another bureaucratic process simply to access information I have every right to.

To me, this is yet another example of a system that appears more concerned with protecting itself from scrutiny than acknowledging its failings and accepting accountability. A system so unnecessarily complex and difficult to navigate that the very people it is supposed to serve are left exhausted, frustrated and defeated in their attempts to seek answers and justice.

For many, many, years now those responsible for designing, administering and reforming this scheme have ignored and in fact buried the devastating human costs of the scheme's repeated failings. For almost two decades, I have fought for a system that recognises, protects and upholds the true worth of my boys. And after all these years, we are still waiting … And for that, Mr Speaker, those responsible should be deeply ashamed.

It is the greatest privilege to be able to actually speak for a constituent, and a constituent who represents the 150,000—more than 150,000, actually—who have been let down by a system. What I would say to Deb is that in the Japanese language they have the best possible way to apologise. It literally translates as, 'There are no excuses.' Deb, there are no excuses, but we'll promise to do our best to fix it. I commend this bill to the House.

The member for Forde has just outlined a harrowing story and used his constituent Deb's heartfelt words. Deb, thank you for coming all the way to Canberra to share, through the member for Forde, your story. I spoke across the table with the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health and Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, the member for Dobell. She made the very accurate comment that we could fill the whole galleries with people just like you, Deb. It's not good enough and the parliament needs to be better, but that was a good contribution from the member for Forde. I don't always agree with the member for Forde, as he knows. The chamber is not full—that's just the way sometimes the parliament is; we can't all be in the chamber at the one time, apart from during question time—but, Deb, your words will not fall on empty ears. They mean something. So thank you for coming and thank you for sharing your harrowing story. It was Deb today. It could have been anybody any day of the week because, sadly, there are all too many stories in this space similar to yours.

I acknowledge the amendment to the second reading motion on the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026 moved by the member for Lindsay, the shadow minister for families and social services, and I note her remarks at the beginning of her contribution. She emphasised that more than 230,000 parents across Australia owe a record $2 billion in outstanding child support. That money's not going to the Australian Taxation Office. If it were, it'd probably be collected in double-quick time. It should be going to other parents and, moreover, to children who need the assistance, the help, the financial support that has not been given. It's simply not good enough. And as the member for Lindsay noted, the average child support debt is $8,699. That pays for a lot of school shoes. That pays for a lot of clothing, a lot of sporting equipment, a lot of travel to dancing and sport, and a lot of food to put on the table. And we all know we are in a cost-of-living crisis. The highest single debt owed is more than $2 million. That is a staggering figure. But it doesn't matter whether it's $2 million or $200; it's money owed, it's money needed and it's money that should be paid. As the member for Lindsay indicated, the changes in this bill don't improve the collection of the $2 billion of child support owed, and we therefore have to amend the bill to improve it, to make it better, and we come here in good faith to do just that.

My predecessor, Kay Hull AO, who is very highly respected in this place—certainly during her time in parliament, and that has only grown since—for the work she does, not just in the Wagga Wagga community but elsewhere as well. She was a champion for better outcomes in family law for mothers, for fathers and for children. And I would recommend that Deb read the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report Every picture tells a story. That report led to good outcomes for family law. It has been a long time, more than 20 years, since that report was handed down, but its ramifications were profound and still ring true today.

We need to be honest, though. I know the member for Forde was, and I know he's a genuine fellow; I do. I've had a little bit to do with him, and I know that he comes to this place with a good heart and good intentions, and I acknowledge that—not just on this legislation but in other things, too. I'm being really serious about that. But we have to do all we can, as a parliament and as legislators, to fix the child support system. Sadly—tragically—we will probably never get it completely right, because there will always be toing and froing, and there will always, unfortunately, be people who dodge paying their dues.

Outstanding debt owed to parents has skyrocketed in recent years. There may be any number of factors and reasons for that, but it doesn't make it right; it's simply not good enough. The last thing any parent has time for is to sit on the phone waiting to get through to the child support agency to again chase up money that they are owed. It must get them so down. It's such a mental and physical strain on them—and a time constraint, of course—that they have to sit on the phone telling their story. And these are harrowing and real stories. Time and again we hear these tales about parents doing the wrong thing—going on long holidays, buying cars and boats, and failing to lodge their tax returns. They do everything they can to avoid paying their child support. They might think this is clever, or cute, or some way of getting back at the partner with whom they've fallen out. But it actually hurts their kids. That's who it hurts the most. There are many rights and wrongs, and there are obviously all sorts of individual cases. No two would be the same. There are, as I say, faults in most instances—perhaps all instances—on both sides of the coin. But, in some instances, obviously the fault is falling on one side much more than the other.

Right now, around 230,000 parents owe a child support debt, as I said before. When you read those figures, you understand that something needs to be done. For parents who owe a large or persistent debt, the child support agency can put in place a departure prohibition order to stop them travelling overseas until that debt is paid. That doesn't stop some. It simply doesn't. Currently there are only 4,000 departure prohibition orders in place. That's just two per cent of parents with a debt. These orders can be effective. Parents do have to pay their debt if they want to leave the country. Some take that option. It shouldn't have to get to that stage.

In the May budget, the government announced that it would increase the use of the departure prohibition orders and apply them to debts of more than $10,000. We haven't seen that legislation yet, but when the average debt is north of $8,500 dollars too many parents will be left holding their breath waiting for that to be realised? What does it take? Does it have to reach the $10,000 threshold? Who would know? The government can also use wage-garnishing powers, where the employer deducts the amount directly from a person's pay and sends it straight to the agency. Again, this is a power that is underused. Only 42,000 active debt cases have that particular order in place. A person's tax return can be intercepted, but this isn't used enough either. Parents around the country right now are struggling like they've never struggled before. We know that that making ends meet is difficult. It absolutely, truly is. But, as I said before, parents have a moral obligation to pay their debts. They had the child. They participated in having that child. Moreover, they have a legal obligation. One could argue both have similar impacts and similar obligations. But it's moral and it's legal to support their kids.

We want to see stronger enforcement action taken on those who owe a child support debt. We cannot tolerate people not lodging their tax returns and hiding money and yet at the same time enjoying lavish trips away while their children go without. I'm not quite sure how anybody can even do that sort of thing, how their conscience can't be pricked to make them pay for their own offspring. The changes in this bill are a start, but debt levels for child support are out of control, and parents around the country expect more.

With the legislation before us, there are three particular schedules. On schedule 1, there is evidence that some parents use processes available within the Child Support Scheme to harass the other parent, particularly by lodging vexatious applications or objections which require the other parent's engagement to resolve. We also have a situation where domestic violence is out of control. Coercive control is a form of domestic violence, and the abuse of former intimate partners is very much out of control in this country. We have to be better, and men in particular have to be better. I find it extraordinary that 70 per cent, or thereabouts, of police call-outs in the Riverina are for DV related and family violence related issues. Partners, generally women, are ringing up to seek the support of the men and women in blue because of a DV situation. It's 70 per cent. It's extraordinary. It's absolutely extraordinary. And it is a crime. It is an absolute crime.

I know that the police are instructed to do everything they can to place those DV related calls as a priority when there is pressure within stations. Obviously, there are only so many police in country stations, and sometimes, as generally happens, everything happens at once. But, if there is a DV call that comes in, that is given priority. I do have to acknowledge the work being done and the instructions given, which are filtering down through the police, by, I'll say, the relatively new commissioner, Mal Lanyon. He hasn't been in the job that long. He is doing a good job, and I commend him for the work that he is doing. The emphasis being placed on domestic violence is to his credit and to the credit of the police who have to attend those calls.

To schedule 2, currently, there is a link between child support and FTB to ensure that, when a parent can receive child support from the other parent, they do so and any government income support is adjusted to account for the child support received. However, when a paying parent does not submit their tax returns for an extended period, as I said before, their child support liability must be based on income estimates. There's a whole lot more to that schedule 2, but, essentially, it too needs to be adjusted. The coalition is supportive of this bill with the amendment put in place. I would recommend those opposite read the amendment submitted by the member for Lindsay because it is worthwhile and it strengthens necessary legislation.

Within schedule 3, the bill will also allow claims to be made by parents across international borders by allowing direct applications from parents in overseas jurisdictions to access the Australian child support system. Again, there are other things noted within that schedule 3, but that, essentially, is the remit of that particular schedule.

The bill has got support from Single Mother Families Australia, Dads in Distress, Family and Relationship Services Australia, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, as you would hope. So I say to Labor: that's good engagement—needed, necessary engagement. The bill is being supported, but please support the amendment put forward by the member for Lindsay.

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

() (): The incorporated speech read as follows—

I rise to support the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026. For most Australians, child support is exactly what its name suggests: money paid to help meet the costs of raising a child after their parents separate. It should help put food on the table, keep a roof over a child's head, pay for school expenses and health care, and allow children to participate fully in their communities. But a system established to support children should never provide another avenue through which one former partner can intimidate, control or financially harm another. That is the problem this legislation seeks to address.

In my electorate of Pearce, from Wanneroo through to Two Rocks and across to Burns Beach, I hear from families navigating the realities of separation and child support. Members on all sides of this House receive correspondence about these issues, and the circumstances people describe can be extraordinarily difficult. Those experiences matter. When people come to their elected representatives and explain where a government system has failed them, we should listen and, where necessary, change that system.

That is particularly important when around one million Australian children rely upon child support. Children in single-parent families, the majority of which are headed by women, are also at substantially greater risk of experiencing poverty. Receiving the child support they are entitled to, and receiving it when it is due, can make a significant difference to the financial security of those households. Unfortunately, the present system contains vulnerabilities that can be exploited. There are circumstances in which repeated applications and objections can be used to keep a former partner engaged in an exhausting administrative process. There are cases where sensitive personal information can be exposed through child support proceedings. There are parents who deliberately understate or conceal their income to reduce what they are required to pay. And there is a very significant problem with unpaid child support. The amount currently outstanding exceeds $2 billion. Two hundred individual debts are greater than $150,000, and in one case the amount owed by a parent to their children is more than $2 million. That is not money owed to government. It is support that should have gone towards raising children.

The Albanese Labor government committed at the 2025 election to addressing opportunities for financial abuse within Commonwealth systems, including the child support system. The 2026-27 budget subsequently committed an additional $182.6 million over four years to make child support safer and more effective, strengthen compliance and help ensure more children receive what they are owed.

The bill before the House represents the first legislative stage of that broader reform program and addresses three particular areas. The first is the misuse of administrative processes themselves. At present, Services Australia can be required to continue dealing with an application even where there is evidence suggesting that the process is being used to harass or cause harm to the other parent. Schedule 1 provides greater discretion. Services Australia will be able, in specified circumstances, to refuse applications for a new child support assessment or a change of assessment where continuing with that process could expose the other parent to harm. It will also be able to bring an objection process to an end where the objection has little or no reasonable prospect of succeeding or would make no material difference to the child support case. That is an important distinction. Access to review and proper administrative decision-making must remain available, but those processes should not become an endless mechanism through which a former partner can force another person to repeatedly respond to claims that have no meaningful prospect of changing the outcome.

Schedule 1 also deals with another significant issue: the information parents are currently required to exchange when seeking a change of assessment or lodging an objection. The existing requirements can result in complete documents being provided to the other parent. Those documents may contain much more than is actually necessary to resolve the matter. They can reveal contact information, employment details and financial records, including bank transactions that may disclose where somebody shops or spends their time. For someone who has experienced family or domestic violence, that is not simply a privacy concern. In some circumstances, it can become a safety concern. Each year, approximately 14,000 parents commence the change-of-assessment process, and between 30 and 40 per cent withdraw before that process is completed.

This legislation moves away from automatic disclosure of entire documents. Instead, Services Australia will have greater flexibility to provide the information genuinely required to consider the case. That could involve removing identifying information from documents or conveying the relevant material through written or verbal summaries. Both parties will still need access to the information necessary to respond to the case being made. What they should not automatically receive is unrelated personal information that serves no legitimate purpose and may expose another person to risk.

The second area of reform concerns privately collected child support and its interaction with family tax benefit. This can become particularly complicated where a paying parent has failed to lodge tax returns for several years. During that period, their child support liability may have been calculated using a provisional income. If several outstanding tax returns are later lodged together, Services Australia may retrospectively determine that substantially more child support should have been paid. That retrospective adjustment can then affect the family tax benefit received by the other parent, and the result can be particularly unfair for somebody using private collect. Their former partner may now owe them additional child support, but their family tax benefit can also be reassessed on the basis of the additional child support they were entitled to receive—even where that money has never actually reached them. Services Australia does not have the same visibility over payments made privately as it does when child support is collected through the agency. The practical result can therefore be that one parent has not received the additional child support they are owed while simultaneously finding themselves with a family tax benefit debt.

Schedule 2 creates a series of safeguards to deal with that situation. Parents entering the child support system will be provided with clearer information about the differences between private collect and agency collect and the protections associated with each arrangement. Where certain family tax benefit debts arise for a parent using private collect, recovery of that debt can be paused for three months. That provides time for the parent to consider how they wish to proceed, rather than facing immediate debt recovery. One available option will be moving to agency collect and asking Services Australia to pursue the outstanding child support. Importantly, where that occurs, the existing assumption about whether the additional child support has already been received will change. Rather than starting from the position that the money has been paid, the system will initially recognise that the outstanding amount has not been received. The parent's family tax benefit can then be recalculated on that basis.

The reforms also strengthen Services Australia's ability to pursue child support debts when somebody moves from private collect to agency collect. A parent will be able to request recovery of outstanding amounts raised during the preceding three months or up to nine months in exceptional circumstances. This is particularly important where a newly identified debt relates to underpayments extending back over a much longer period.

There is another important change within this schedule in that either parent will be able to request agency collect. At present, that decision can be made by the receiving parent or by both parents acting together but not independently by the paying parent. Around one-quarter of child support parents who have a family and domestic violence indicator recorded against their case are paying parents. Allowing either party to ask Services Australia to handle the transaction recognises that safety risks are not confined to one side of a child support arrangement. Where direct financial contact between former partners creates an opportunity for coercion, control or unwanted communication, the government should provide a practical alternative.

The third component of this bill concerns children and parents separated by international borders. Parents living in certain countries that have reciprocal child support arrangements with Australia currently generally need to begin their application through the relevant authority in the country where they live. That can create additional bureaucracy, delays and confusion. Schedule 3 will allow eligible parents in those jurisdictions to approach Services Australia directly for an Australian child support assessment where the other parent is in Australia. The legislative reform will be complemented by funding for a non-government organisation to assist some overseas parents whose child's other parent is Australian and has failed to provide financial support. Where an Australian assessment is established, Services Australia will be able to collect the child support here and send those payments overseas for the benefit of the child. A parent's responsibility to their child does not cease simply because that child lives in another country.

These reforms also form part of a much broader effort by the Albanese Labor government to support Australian families. Since 2022, paid parental leave has been expanded to 26 weeks and superannuation has been added to the scheme. A family having a child today can access almost $30,000 through paid parental leave—more than twice the amount available when the government took office. Eligibility for the single-parenting payment has also been extended until a youngest child turns 14, rather than ending when that child turns eight. An eligible sole parent with a dependent child aged between eight and 14 who could have received $651.50 per fortnight through JobSeeker in 2022 can now receive $1,087.20 per fortnight through the single-parenting payment. Around 200,000 sole parents have benefited from that reform since September 2023.

More than one million families have benefited from lower childcare costs, a three-day childcare guarantee has been introduced for families who need it and the government continues to work towards a universal early childhood education and care system. Since 2022, more than $4.4 billion has also been committed to addressing family, domestic and sexual violence, while the most recent budget included a further $171.7 million for frontline community services supporting children and vulnerable families. The legislation before us today is another part of that work. It is also only the beginning of the changes planned for child support.

Further reforms will increase the use of employer withholding in appropriate circumstances, allowing child support to be deducted directly from wages in a similar way to PAYG taxation and superannuation. The government also intends to introduce automatic overseas travel restrictions for paying parents who owe at least $10,000 in child support and have a recent history of international travel.

Ultimately, the focus of these reforms should remain on the children for whom the child support system exists. Children should receive the financial support to which they are entitled. Parents should be expected to meet their responsibilities. Nobody should be able to exploit a Commonwealth system as another means of harassing, controlling or financially harming a former partner. We can have a child support system that enforces those responsibilities while also protecting people's safety, privacy and dignity. That is what these reforms seek to achieve. I support the bill and commend it to the House.

I rise to support the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026. Back home in Melbourne, I spend a lot of time talking with people about Services Australia, and a number of those conversations have focused on how to navigate the child support system. People want to know how the amount they are expected to pay has been calculated, to know why that amount may have changed and sometimes to voice that they think they should be paying something different. People are entitled to ask those questions. Child support can become complicated very quickly. Income assessments, care arrangements, tax returns, private collection, agency collection and the interaction with family tax benefits—these are all areas I have discussed with constituents.

When I have these conversations, I am also very conscious of someone who normally is not sitting in my electoral office: the child. They are the reasons the system exists. Around one million Australian children are supported through the Child Support Scheme. Children do not stop needing things because their parents have separated. They still need food. They still need somewhere safe to live. They still need school shoes and clothes. There are excursions, doctor's appointments, sport, public transport, births and everything else that comes with raising a child. Anyone raising kids knows those costs appear pretty regularly. As a foster carer, I have seen firsthand how family breakups affect young people the most. While separation changes a family, it does not end a parent's responsibility for their child. So, while the adults involved should have a system they can understand, the system also has to do its basic job—it has to make sure children receive the financial support they are entitled to.

Right now, more than $2 billion in child support remains unpaid in Australia. There are 200 individual child support debts, each worth more than $150,000. While the debt is building, someone else is generally covering the cost: the parent buying the groceries, the parent paying for school, the parent replacing another pair of shoes. Can you believe that I heard of one parent's debt to their child that is more than $2 million? This is not right and speaks volumes as to why our government is acting to change the system to better support and protect children. These reforms are aimed at making sure more of the child support that is assessed actually reaches the families it is meant for. In the 2026-27 budget, we committed another $182.6 million to the child support system. There will be further legislation dealing with payment compliance, stronger debt collection and enforcements, and better information sharing.

But collection is only one part of the problem. We also know that child support schemes can be misused in circumstances of family and domestic violence. More than 100,000 parents and carers in the child support system are recorded as having experienced or being at risk of experiencing family and domestic violence. For those families, there are circumstances where the system's processes can be repeatedly used to keep another parent engaged in a dispute. Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to seek a change to a child support assessment, but there has to be a robust process for doing that. Evidence considered by government has also shown that these processes can be used to harass a former partner, particularly where there is already a history of family violence. Services Australia currently has limited options, even when there is evidence of that happening.

Going forward, thanks to this legislation, where the legal tests are met, Services Australia will be able to refuse certain applications where proceeding would cause harm. It will also be able to dismiss an objective without dragging the other parent through another process when that objective has little or no prospect of success or would have no more than a marginal impact on the child support case. People retain the right to raise legitimate issues with their assessment, but there will be a better mechanism for dealing with cases where the process itself is being used to cause harm.

Another part of this bill deals with the information parents are required to provide. This is an area where the existing law has not kept up with what we now understand about family violence and coercive control. When a parent applies for a change of assessment, both parents may need to provide detailed information, but the current rules can require documents provided by one parent be exchanged with the other, leaving a loophole that may allow an abusive former partner access to sensitive information on their victim-survivors. Knowing where somebody works or where they regularly shop can become a safety issue. One constituent came to me explaining that the information provided through a child support change of assessment process was used by her former partner to find out where she worked. He then contacted her workplace pretending to be a customer, used that contact to harass her at work and then tried to have her fired. She had provided information because the system required her to. The issue is that a parent should never have to worry that doing that would help a former partner find another way to reach into their life. Her experience, and the experiences of the parents I have met across Melbourne, is why I support this bill.

Information about someone's workplace can look routine when it's sitting on a government form. In the wrong hands, it can be used to cause real harm. About 14,000 parents seek a change of assessment each year.

Debate interrupted.

ADJOURNMENT Pensions and Benefits

This year, Anti-poverty Week runs from 11 to 17 October and ends on the United Nations day for the eradication of poverty. Yet, for the 3.7 million Australians living in poverty, including one in seven adults and one in six children, that goal remains far too distant. Even more heartbreaking are the human stories which sit behind these lives. Like most of my colleagues here, I receive weekly reports of people struggling to make ends meet on low incomes or income support. I hear about the almost impossible challenge of finding a place to live, navigating a punitive employment services system, raising a family amid mounting costs and accessing and affording even basic health care.

A major driver of poverty in Australia is the continued inadequacy of unemployment payments. Decades of neglect by governments of both persuasions have left JobSeeker well below the poverty line. No wonder recent data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that people receiving JobSeeker are up to 10 times more likely to die than those not receiving welfare support. How can that be acceptable in one of the wealthiest countries in the world? How is it acceptable that at least 3,000 more unemployed Australians die each year than could be the case? Make no mistake: this is purposeful. Yes, the Reserve Bank and governments believe unemployment must sit between 4.5 and five per cent to keep inflation stable, but that equates to almost 700,000 people forced onto a poverty payment that governments have consistently been too heartless to lift.

Nearly 40 years ago, Bob Hawke pledged that no child would live in poverty by 1990. While the government prioritised this, the country made some progress by reducing the child poverty rate by 30 per cent, but focus drifted, and today it's back up to one in six. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. This all comes down to priorities. If we choose to prioritise something, we can afford to make it happen, because Australia is one of the richest countries in the world, with the federal government spending close to a trillion dollars this financial year. Plus, we know what would help reduce poverty in Australia. Organisations such as ACOSS, Economic Justice Australia and the Antipoverty Centre have repeatedly outlined practical solutions. For instance, the government should lift the lowest income support payments to ensure these payments aren't poverty by design. This alone would do much of the heavy lifting on poverty reduction.

The government should also introduce and improve income support supplements for those facing additional costs, including sole parents, people with disability and renters. Moreover, instead of planning for a permanent unemployed class, the government and the RBA should commit to a goal of genuinely full employment and ensure there are enough jobs and paid hours of work for all people who want and need them. The government should also replace the cruel and ineffective employment services system with services that reliably and genuinely help people to find work. Remember the Commonwealth Ombudsman recently found that the mutual obligation system was used to inflict high percentages of incorrect decisions and potentially catastrophic penalties on welfare recipients, with minimal oversight or consequences for those responsible, and the much lauded relaunch of the system appears to be little more than a rebranding exercise on the government's part.

Further action the government could take on poverty reduction would be to set and fund clear social housing targets to provide homes where the market fails to do so and to strengthen rental protections including against excessive rent increases and eviction into homelessness. Adjusting our priorities in this way would remind Australians that their government is there to work in their interests and to provide support and care where for too long there's been a neglect. No wonder there's so much community discontent. Taken together, these measures would substantially reduce poverty, improve quality of life for millions of Australians and deliver broader social benefits through better health, better education and better community outcomes. Please, let's get this done.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament, Medicare

It is my pleasure, as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign, to be able to read the work of a bright young member of the north to parliament. Marco, aged 15, has written this:

When we think about childhood, we imagine happiness, friendship, and fun. But for many children, that isn't reality.

Too many kids are ridiculed—not only by bullies, but by people who don't understand what they're going through. Children deserve to enjoy their lives, not carry the weight of stress, fear, or trauma.

Bullying, cyberbullying, domestic violence, and generational trauma all play a part, and the damage is often ignored.

Here's a fact that should shock us all: according to the American Psychological Association, children today report higher stress levels than patients in psychiatric hospitals did in the 1980s.

That should be a wake-up call. Children shouldn't be living under that kind of pressure.

This issue is personal to me. I've been bullied, teased, and made to feel like my voice didn't matter. I reached out for help, but it didn't always make the pain disappear. No child should ever feel so hopeless that they believe there's no way forward.

I'm speaking today not just for myself, but for every child silently struggling. This is a preventable problem, and it's not too late for us to listen, care, and create real change. Let that message stay with you

Marco's message is something that we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to act on, because no child should have to suffer in silence, and no parent should feel helpless when their child is struggling. In my community of Adelaide's northern suburbs, we know just how important access to mental health support is. For too long, families in the north have faced barriers to getting the help they need, whether that's the cost of treatment, long waiting lists or finding services close to home.

That's why the Albanese government is investing in mental health services that make a real difference in our community. One example is the new Northern Adelaide Medicare Mental Health Kids Hub, which opened in Elizabeth in September. I'm proud to have the minister in the room today, who was at the event that we proudly got to open together. The facility provides free mental health and wellbeing support for children aged zero to 12, helping young people experiencing emotional, behavioural and developmental challenges. Importantly, it also supports parents, carers and families, recognising that, when a child is struggling, the whole family can be affected. With no diagnosis or referral required, we're removing barriers that have prevented families from seeking support, because early interventions matter and getting children the right support early can change the course of their lives.

Our commitment to better health care doesn't stop with children. The Northern Adelaide Medicare Mental Health Centre is also providing free mental health support for people aged 16 and over, without the need for an appointment or referral. This means anyone experiencing mental health challenges can access professional support when they need it most without the added stress of navigating complicated referral processes or worrying about the costs. For families across Adelaide's north, it means having access to dedicated mental health services close to home, ensuring no-one must face their struggles alone because of how far their suburb is from Adelaide's CBD.

Through the Elizabeth Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, we're making it easier for families to access urgent medical treatment, without the financial burden of out-of-pocket consultation fees, for Medicare eligible services. Open seven days a week, the clinic provides treatment for urgent, non-life threatening conditions, taking pressure off our hospital emergency departments. While urgent care clinics aren't a substitute for dedicated mental health services, they form part of Labor's broader commitment to ensuring health care is accessible and affordable, because whether it's a child struggling with anxiety, a parent worried about their family or an adult experiencing mental health challenges, everyone deserves access to quality care.

I want to finish by thanking Marco for bringing this important issue before the parliament and for having the courage to share his own experiences. By speaking up, Marco is helping to break down the stigma surrounding mental health and reminding young Australians that their voice matters, their experiences are valid and they are never alone. It's voices like Marco's that remind us why we must continue working towards a future where every child feels safe, supported and heard, and it couldn't have come at a better time given it's mental health month. So thank you so much Marco for your eloquent words, and all the best in your future endeavours.

Monash Electorate

It was an absolute privilege to attend the Bass Coast Aquatic and Leisure Centre's 50th birthday celebration recently. A particularly high note was meeting Amy Hodson, a 14-year-old local swimmer, who is an eloquent and effective advocate for a new Wonthaggi pool. Amy was joined alongside by her mum, Robyn. Amy trains five times a week at the centre with the South Gippsland Bass Swimming Club. They cannot compete at the facility because the pool is not up to competition standard. They can't practice diving starts, because there are no starting blocks.

Bass Coast Shire Mayor Brett Tessari reflected on the centre's history. The original pool shell was poured 50 years ago. There is a sadness about losing a much-loved facility, but a real sense of enthusiasm about all of the community coming together to push for a new modern pool. I've had a number of conversations with Mayor Brett Tessari and the Liberal candidate for Bass, Rochelle Halstead, who is a passionate fighter for a new swimming pool. We love our coastline across the Bass Coast, but it's essential to have a modern, well-resourced local pool where young people can learn vital swimming skills. I also talk with a lot of older people in the community who really appreciate the health and wellbeing benefits of having a local pool and leisure centre to provide that access. It was also great to have a hit of pickleball, which I have not tried before, with Mayor Tessari. It's a great game, and I encourage people in the community to get involved.

The General Sir John Monash Commemoration Service was held last week in Brighton at Brighton Cemetery. It was a commemoration service to honour the memory and legacy of General Sir John Monash, who, in my view, was Australia's greatest-ever citizen. He died 95 years ago last week in 1931. I want to commend the Victorian Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women for hosting that event, and the serving military and police and government representatives who also attended.

Mr Speaker, in taking your mark, your lead on promoting civic education and democracy in our schools, it's given me great pleasure to launch the inaugural John Monash Prize for Monash secondary schools. We're getting a great level of interest already, and I look forward to presenting a prize to each secondary school across the Monash electorate soon. I can commend the lead that you've shown in promoting civics education and an understanding about why democracy is so important across schools. I encourage other members, who, I'm sure, are doing similar activities as well.

It was a privilege to attend the Erica Memorial Hall over the weekend for the launch of a new book called The Tucker Truck Came on Tuesdays, a new history of the timber industry at Erica, its sawmills, tramways and people. Gippsland historian Mike McCarthy has drawn on more than 60 years of research to write this new book. I want to particularly thank the Erica and District Historical Society, especially Jenny McNally, for organising such a great turnout. My friend and the former member for Narracan, Gary Blackwood, a long-time champion of our local timber towns, launched the book. It was also great to have my state parliamentary colleagues, the member for Narracan, Wayne Farnham, and the member for Eastern Victoria Region, Melina Bath MP, along. They are champions of our timber communities, they are champions of timber jobs, and it was very much a team effort there. I bought a copy of Mike's book, which he's kindly signed. I said I'll display it with great pride in my Parliament House office to represent all of those timber workers and timber towns across the Monash electorate.

I want to thank Australia's 18th Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Michael McCormack, for visiting my electorate last week. We had a number of events, including visiting the Vietnam veterans and the National Vietnam Veterans Museum at Phillip Island. I am passionately advocating for further funding so that they can redevelop and enliven their plans, which the board have meticulously put together. The National Vietnam Veterans Museum at Phillip Island is not just of great national significance; it is of great international significance as well. I thank all of the veterans who attended our roundtables across the Monash electorate.

Bonner Future Leaders Advisory Group, Diwali, Breast Cancer Awareness Month

If anyone thinks that young people aren't interested in politics, then they haven't met my Bonner Future Leaders Advisory Group. I recently hosted our final meeting for 2026, and once again I was reminded just how much our young people have to say and how important it is that we listen. We spoke about things like housing affordability, the cost of living and the pressures that young people are already feeling as they study, work and begin to build their independence. And we spoke about what young people expect from their governments, not just promises or political pointscoring but genuine action on the issues that matter to them. Of course, some of the most powerful conversations were about things like domestic and family violence as well as misogyny and the harms that young people are experiencing online. These are the issues that directly affect their lives, their friendships, their safety and the kind of society they are growing up in. What struck me was not just how much they understood these challenges but how determined they were to make sure that things change.

Young people are too often spoken about in politics rather than spoken to. We debate their education, their housing, their safety and their futures without always giving them a seat at the table. That is exactly why I established the Bonner Future Leaders Advisory Group. I want to personally thank Sofia, Reilly, Hattie, Amos, Danya and Emeleise for their honesty, their passion and their willingness to challenge me and share their perspectives throughout the year. We will reopen applications next year for the next round of the advisory group, and I encourage all young people right across my electorate to get involved. We would love to hear what you have to say.

Diwali, the Festival of Lights, is a celebration of light overcoming darkness, good triumphing over evil and the importance of hope, family and community. I was absolutely delighted to join my local BAPS community, who recently hosted their Kids Diwali event at the Mount Gravatt Showgrounds. It was an awesome night full of colour and celebration and, most importantly, it was led by the young people in my local community. One of those young people was in fact my Bonner National Youth Parliament representative, Yogini, who helped support BAPS on the night and helped assist with all of the planning for the event. What an incredible young woman she is. I am so proud that she got the opportunity to join us here in Canberra to learn more about our parliament and what we do. And, Speaker, congratulations to you for really championing that program right across our country. What a joy it was to see all of those young people come and join us here in parliament. My electorate is home to people from so many cultures, faiths and backgrounds, and celebrations like Diwali remind us that diversity is one of our greatest strengths. To everyone celebrating with family and friends over the coming month, I wish you happiness, peace and, of course, prosperity.

Every single day around 56 Australians receive a breast cancer diagnosis. This Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we stand with those undergoing treatment, celebrate our survivors and remember those that we have lost. But awareness alone is not enough. We need action that saves lives and makes treatment more affordable. That's why, from 1 October, the Albanese Labor government expanded the PBS listing of Diferelin, a medicine used to treat breast cancer. Without the subsidy, eligible patients could face costs of more than $1,300 per script. Now they'll pay no more than $25. That's more than $1,300 back in people's pockets at a time when they need it most.

While better treatments are, of course, saving lives, early detection remains one of our strongest defences. Through BreastScreen Australia, women aged 40 and over can access free mammograms, with women aged 50 to 74 encouraged to screen every two years. Today, the five-year survival rate for breast cancer is around 93 per cent. That's extraordinary progress. But we cannot become complacent, so this October I'm encouraging women across my electorate of Bonner and, of course, across the country to book their breast screen, know the signs and have those important conversations, because early detection can save lives.

Parkes Electorate: Health Care, Climate Change, Mining Industry

Regional Australians are known for being battlers and for their quiet strength and their dignity in dealing with the challenges that life in regional Australia can and does bring. But this shouldn't mean that regional Australians are forced to tackle their health problems alone. It shouldn't mean that, while people in the cities have the convenience of nearby hospitals and specialists, people in regional areas do not have access to life-saving facilities and suffer worse outcomes.

I've just heard of the Albanese government's decision not to fund a prostate cancer specialist nurse in the Far West Local Health District in my electorate in New South Wales. It is a heartbreaking decision for people, including all of those in the Broken Hill community. I'm advised that the decision will put hundreds of men in Broken Hill, Tibooburra, Wilcannia, White Cliffs, Ivanhoe and the entire western part of New South Wales at further risk. They will no longer have access to specialist care. It's likely to mean the end of the very successful cancer community support group and the end of the tailored specialist care that's been provided. This wasn't good enough in the 1800s, and it's certainly not good enough now.

I've also heard recently from Emma from Forbes, an absolutely inspiring young lady who is in the building today. She was diagnosed with an incurable brain tumour in 2020. Emma has had surgery, chemotherapy and 33 rounds of brain radiation and has been part of clinical trials, but her tumour has continued to grow. To quote Emma: 'The federal government needs to invest more into brain tumour research and better access to clinical trials and emerging treatments.' Emma has experienced firsthand the gap in effective treatment and clinical trials and support because of where she lives. She is part of the Head of the Hill 2026 event that was held here in the Great Hall today. It a great event advocating for stronger action for brain cancer.

In the newly developed Gunnedah Hospital, the brand-new birthing suite sits unused while our Gunnedah women are forced to travel one hour and sometimes significantly more than that to Tamworth or to Newcastle. Why? Because the hospital has no obstetrician. The $53 million redevelopment has already downgraded the capacity to 20 fewer beds and from two theatres down to one and has delivered no renal dialysis and no oncology services as originally promised four years ago.

People across the Parkes electorate are being treated as second-class citizens, and no value is being placed on their health and their lives. Regional Australians already live shorter lifespans compared to their city cousins because of where they live. This is a devastating situation that requires more attention, more consultation and, frankly, more funding.

I need to address the Albanese government's appalling and divisive approach to the future of energy in this country. This government has been falling all over itself to invite foreign entities into Australia to reach its impossible goal of net zero by 2050. Families, businesses and farms are all apparently just speed bumps in this exercise. To Labor, they are apparently the Australians who really don't matter. Net zero needs to go.

Hand in hand with this debacle comes the High Court decision on the Mount Pleasant coalmine expansion, which has huge consequences for our resource rich nation. Australia will now face greater regulatory risk because of the emissions generated in other countries, not our own. This will have an impact on investment. It will have an impact on jobs in mining, a sector that has always played a fundamental role in my own electorate of Parkes. We have had hugely mixed messages about this from the Albanese government. But make no mistake; they are not supportive of the critical mining industry, and our country will lose thousands of jobs and our prosperity.

The Nationals, as part of a coalition, will introduce the Protecting Mining Jobs and Export Bill. This bill will prevent Commonwealth, state or territory laws from being used to block, delay, restrict or impose additional conditions on Australian resource projects because of the emissions they generate. Otherwise, not only will we condemn the mining industry and the vital products and prosperity they provide but we will once again deprive our own country and people of critical opportunities. (Time expired)

Tangney Electorate: Community Services

I have been out doorknocking in the Palmyra and Kardinya areas in the last few weeks. I have had some very good conversations with constituents, and I want to thank everyone who opened their door and welcomed me into their home. I spoke with one young couple who told me about the reduction in their HECS debts. Together, they had $12,000 wiped from their loans after our government's action last year. Other families talked to me about the Booragoon Medicare urgent care clinic. This Medicare urgent care clinic has been very popular in Tangney, and there have been more than 10,000 visits since it was first opened in February. Tangney's residents have saved more than $23.3 million on cheaper medications, while the bulk-billing rate in Tangney is now 72.9 per cent. Tangney now has 18 bulk-billing GP clinics, double the number from before our changes. I'm grateful to have been welcomed into so many homes for a cup of coffee and to have important discussions about education, the cost of living and Medicare as well as to speak about concerns in our community about our unity and harmony.

The Bicton-Fremantle RSL recently secured a $50,000 grant as part of our government's Veteran Wellbeing Grants Program. The grant will be used to create an accessible community garden and family wellbeing space to address the needs of veterans in the area who are experiencing social isolation, reduced mobility and mental health challenges. It is also an opportunity to engage with young people and families.

In Kardinya, the Kardinya Bowling Club recently completed its AV upgrades as part of the last round of Tangney's Stronger Communities Programme. I'm very proud to have supported this local bowling club that has been part of the Tangney community since 1988. The new upgrades will provide an opportunity for the club and other sporting clubs in the surrounding area and the wider community to utilise the club's rooms for events and social gatherings to build stronger community connections. The new equipment has already been used for a kids' movie night. The club and community groups are looking at what kinds of events they can host to keep serving the Tangney community. For both clubs, I want to thank all the volunteers who are working so hard to make our Tangney community even better.

Two new supported independent living homes in Riverton were recently completed, with almost $1.6 million in funding from the federal government. These fully accessible homes are a result of a partnership between the federal government and the WA state government, with Uniting WA constructing these three-bedroom homes with capacity for up to six residents. Each home has three bedrooms, three bathrooms, communal indoor and outdoor living areas and onsite overnight assistance facilities. These homes exceed the silver level of Livable Housing Australia design standards and achieve a minimum five-star NatHERS energy rating. These homes are important, as they also provide the security, comfort and dignity of housing to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. At the opening celebration, I spoke with Aaron, who is really looking forward to being in his new home. We had a great conversation about how this home includes important modifications, such as an adjustable kitchen sink and kitchen counter that can be accessed from different heights. I am so excited for Aaron to be in his new home, and I wish him and all the new residents all the very best.

House adjourned at 20:00

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Energy, Water

Australia faces a test of governance that has received far too little attention. It's not a test of ambition. Our ambitions are aspirational. It's a test of whether anyone is actually doing the planning. The nation has set itself a series of goals, like stronger GDP growth. We're committed to population growth and all the demands of housing and food production that come with it. We have embraced with considerable enthusiasm the rise of artificial intelligence and the data centres that sustain it—defensible goals. Yet each draws on the same two finite resources: water and electricity. That is the policy problem that has not been confronted.

AEMO forecasts that data centres will rise from about three per cent of grid demand today to 13 per cent by 2036, totalling 34 terawatt hours a year. That is roughly the consumption of every household in New South Wales and Victoria combined. Meeting it will clearly require eight to 10 gigawatts of new generation and storage at a cost of $20 billion to $30 billion before the substantial investment in transmission lines estimated at circa $150 billion of total capital requirement. Sydney Water warns that under evaporative cooling data centres' demands could reach 90 billion litres a year by 2035, between 15 and 20 per cent of Sydney's drinking supply.

These figures raise three questions that go to the heart of national policy. First, who is forecasting, designing and costing this demand and who will finance the supply? Second, who are the customers that will service that capital? Investment of this scale is always repaid by someone. Third and more importantly, who will be displaced? Food producing irrigators, manufacturers and households all face the prospect of higher costs or exclusion as new demand bids for the same resources. Markets are efficient at price discovery. They are not designed to weigh fairness, regional consequence or national cohesion. That is the proper role of government. Either government asserts a planning framework with the foresight, investment and pricing policy to preserve a level playing field for food production, food processing, homes and business, or it allows the market to allocate our water and power by price alone and accepts the casualties that follow.

A nation is more than a balance sheet; it's a compact between its people, its elected government and its enterprise. So I ask the question: who is the architect of Australia's supply and demand? It's obviously not the government continually caught on the back step, chasing the future instead of making it.

Dunn, Mr Matthew, Braddon Electorate: Teej

Last Friday, 16-year-old Matthew Dunn from Burnie, who is known as Matty, brought his brand new car along to my office for me to see. For many young Australians, getting a driver's licence and a first car is an exciting milestone. But for Matty it represents something much more. It means independence. It means being able to travel to medical appointments, connect with his community and pursue a dream that many of us take for granted. His dream is driving to Hobart on his own.

Matty was diagnosed at just three months of age with Fanconi anaemia, a rare inherited disorder that brings significant health challenges and requires ongoing specialist care. Despite those challenges, Matty approaches life with determination, optimism and a remarkable spirit. Matty's grandmother Cheryl saved up $10,000 and then reached out to the Rotary Club of Burnie West, who hold ferret races each year to raise money for community support. Together with Mazda Burnie, they have helped make the dream of a modified vehicle a reality. I was very pleased to sponsor a ferret in the races, although it was a slow one that didn't win.

Thank you, Matty, for coming to see me. Your resilience is inspiring. To everyone who has helped make this possible, thank you for demonstrating the very best of our north-west Tasmanian community. I look forward to hearing about Matty's first drive to Hobart when he gets off his L-plates.

I was pleased to attend the Burnie Nepalese community's Teej festival a couple of weeks ago. The event brought together more than 50 women from a wide range of cultural backgrounds to celebrate one of Nepal's most significant cultural festivals. It was wonderful to see so many community members gathered to celebrate culture, family and community. One of the highlights of the evening was the beautiful traditional dress worn by attendees. The vibrant colours and rich cultural traditions on display were a powerful reflection of Nepalese heritage and added to the warmth and joy of the celebration. The festival showcased the multicultural strength of our north-west Tasmania and demonstrated the important role that cultural celebrations play in bringing people together, fostering understanding and also building an inclusive community.

The RSL was packed, and I congratulate the Burnie Nepalese community on hosting such a successful event and thank them for the significant contribution that they make to our region. They made this during a very difficult time, after the tragedies that happened in Nepal. Their culture, their traditions and their community spirit continue to enrich our community and help make north-west Tasmania a welcoming place for all.

Fowler Electorate: Community Services

My team and I recently doorknocked in Chipping Norton. We also visited Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections and the Community Cafe outreach service in Miller. We went to listen to families doing it tough. In Chipping Norton I met a mother of three who said she's chosen to stay home to look after her three children. One of them has got a disability. Her husband works full time. She said, for her, child care would cost more than it's worth. 'Food, petrol, power bills,' she said, 'are going through the roof.' Then she said something that I have not stopped thinking about. She said, 'We are the working poor.' She does not believe the government can fix that.

At Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections, the pantry is open Monday to Friday, and it's still not enough. Families are paying rent, power bills and school costs first. Food comes last if there is anything left. CEO Carole-Anne Priest told me they're now looking at opening on Saturdays to keep up. Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections serve between 22,000 and 26,000 people annually, and each year they have seen their food programs double in numbers.

In Miller, Kirsty Parkes set up the Community Cafe outreach service during COVID. Today, she sees more families lining up for a loaf of bread and free groceries. They come from Fairfield, Liverpool and beyond. People are living in desperate times, she told me.

A few years ago, Kevin came to that cafe for food and clothes for his two boys. Without it, he said, he would not have known where to turn. Today, Kevin volunteers there; he is giving back. Then there's Sam, who catches a train and then a bus to get to the community cafe. Some weeks she is away from home for more than five hours at a time. She doesn't make a trip for a coffee; she makes it because, without the help she gets there, the rent is late and the bills go unpaid. Sam and Kevin aren't alone. Across our community, families are going further and waiting longer just to get by. That is the choice families in Fowler face regularly. Our community does not wait to be rescued. Neighbours are feeding neighbours, but charities cannot carry the whole region on goodwill alone.

This House spends much of its time on big national and global ambitions. Those matter. But, in our own backyard, families and small businesses are falling behind. Piecemeal, one-off relief is not keeping pace. The result is a growing group of Australians who work hard and still cannot make ends meet. I'm not asking for another handout. I'm asking the government to check who its relief is actually reaching. Single-income families, carers, workers in south-west Sydney—find out who is falling through the gaps and target help to them. The families of Fowler do not want pity. They want a fair go and a government that has not forgotten them.

Monsignor Paul Mingana, Hanson Medical Centre

I rise in this House to mark the silver jubilee of the priestly ordination of Monsignor Paul Mingana. Celebrating 25 years of priestly ministry, Monsignor Paul has devoted his life to the service of his church and community through dedication, compassion and sacrifice. Following the first Gulf War, he sought refuge in Turkiye before emigrating to Australia in 1992. His journey resonates with me, as my family and I share a similar story in the same period and context.

When I asked Monsignor Paul what this milestone meant to him, his response was telling. It wasn't about him but about others. He reflected on 25 years defined by sacrifice, service and dedication. He has stood beside people in moments of both joy and sorrow and offered comfort through both happiness and hardship. If you sit with Monsignor Paul, you cannot help but listen. He speaks in a way that reflects his priestly vocation. Monsignor Paul, thank you for your years of service, your generosity and the care and support you have given to so many. On behalf of our community, I extend my heartfelt congratulations and thank you for your service, generosity of spirit and example you set for your faith and humanity. May the years ahead bring you the same hope, comfort and joy you have so generously given to others. Mabrouk, Abouna.

Last week I had the pleasure of attending a breast cancer awareness fundraiser organised in support of the National Breast Cancer Foundation, hosted by Hanson Medical Centre in Craigieburn in my electorate. Thank you to Doctor Vajna Rafeek and her team of doctors, allied health professionals and staff for bringing the community together for this important cause and to Kaur and Suzanne for sharing their personal journeys. Awareness, education, screening and early detection are vital to improving patient outcomes for those impacted by breast cancer. In thanking Doctor Vajna Rafeek, I want to congratulate her on being awarded not one but two outstanding awards by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners: Victorian GP of the Year, and the clinic Dr Rafeek established, Hanson Medical Centre, was named Practice of the Year. With more than 30 years of service, Dr Rafeek continues to champion accessible, patient centred care, community health and the training of future GPs.

Hanson Medical Centre delivers comprehensive medical care while championing community health promotion, young people's access to health care through the Doctors in Secondary Schools program and the training of future GPS through support for AGPT registrars and international medical graduates. Thank you, Doctor, for your outstanding contributions to our community and congratulations on these well-deserved achievements.

Indi Electorate: Infrastructure

In August, I stood in this chamber and spoke about bureaucracy getting in the way of communities building back better after the January bushfires. Today I want to return to that story, because every good story deserves its ending. Across Murrindindi Shire, nine wooden bridges were damaged in the fires. These are communities that have already weathered terrible floods in 2022, fires in January and everything that comes after such disasters—the fencing, the repairs and the slow and exhausting work of putting a life back together. All the while, their bridges sat broken. These bridges connect people to work, to farms, to schools, to essential services and to one another. When a bridge is out, the whole community feels it.

In Fawcett, a tiny place, winter flooding cut access to the temporary causeway, effectively cutting this community in two. In Acheron, people have been waiting years for a replacement for their single-lane timber bridge damaged in the 2022 floods. The government estimated repairing the Fawcett bridge at $350,000 but, to rebuild the bridge to a standard that would better withstand future disasters, would cost $800,000, a difference of $450,000. Let's put that in perspective. The average cost of removing a single-level crossing in Melbourne is more than $100 million. That hasn't stopped the Victorian government from removing 95 of them, yet regional communities have had to fight and fight hard to secure a fraction of that to rebuild essential infrastructure properly.

That's the story I told in August. Disaster recovery should help communities rebuild for the long haul, not add yet another obstacle to an already exhausting journey. With the community, we kept at it, working alongside the people of Fawcett and Murrindindi Shire, taking their concerns directly to the Victorian and federal governments, pushing for practical action and refusing to let the tale end there. Now, I'm pleased to say this chapter has a conclusion that's worth celebrating. Funding has been secured to build back both those bridges and build them back better. This did not happen by accepting the status quo. It took a council led by a fabulous mayor, Damien Gallagher, that kept making the case. It took locals who refused to give up, and it took sustained advocacy to deliver action. I'm proud to have played my part, but make no mistake that this is a community victory. It belongs to the people of the Shire of Murrindindi. I want to acknowledge the tenacity of Sam Hicks and all the locals who attended my community briefing at the Fawcett Hall, and I want to thank Minister Paul Edbrooke and Minister Kristy McBain for working with me to achieve this outcome. There's a lesson here for governments. Funding must be practical to access, and governments must work together so councils stop having to go cap in hand, disaster after disaster. Regional communities should not have to fight this hard to get their bridges back.

Reid Electorate: Soccer

Across Australia, the Matildas and Socceroos have inspired a new generation to love football. But, before the stadium lights come on, that love begins on local pitches with the help of volunteers. They arrive early to unlock gates and stay late to pack away cones. They organise teams, wash jerseys, answer messages and ensure every child has someone cheering them on. They do it quietly week after week, not for recognition but because they believe every person deserves a place to belong. That spirit lives at Concord Junior Soccer Club, a part of our community for more than 100 years and now home to more than a thousand members. For a young person pulling on a Concord Juniors jersey, the club offers far more than a game. It is where confidence grows, friendships begin and children learn resilience and teamwork.

None of this happens by accident. For 10 years, president Mick Horseman has helped hold the club together. Through COVID and the pressures facing community sport, he kept people connected and kept them playing the great game. Through the Game Leader program, he is now helping young people become referees and leaders themselves. Vicki Rhodes has been the club's heart and soul for eight years. Her care is felt in the countless small acts that turn a sporting club into a community. Concord Juniors would not be the wonderful community club it is today without your leadership. You have both poured thousands of hours into that club—supported throughout it all by Danny Coral, Michael Stavrou, Mark Byrne, Gary, Rocco, Dom, Bobby, Marisa, Ross and Craig, who give their time and skills so others can take to the field.

Volunteers generously support Russell Lea Women's Soccer Club. It's an inclusive place where girls and women of every ability are welcomed and empowered. It is a place where every player is welcomed, where a shy, young girl can discover her strength and know that she belongs. President Mariam Fabia has built that culture through leadership grounded in care. She says that every community club has someone everyone can turn to. At Russell Lea that person is Ben Laws, a tireless advocate ensuring women and girls receive the opportunities and support they deserve. Alongside Vanessa Miller, Paul Mumford and Jae Hwang, they have built a fantastic community club. I say thank you to them.

Grey Electorate: Health Care

I rise to speak about the decision that is putting families, doctors and whole communities in the Mid North at risk. Last week, the Labor government's six-month maternity trial began at Jamestown and Crystal Brook. How did the people of the Mid North find out about this change? They read about it in the paper. Let me say that again: mothers, fathers, grandparents and the doctors who deliver these services found out about this change to their own birthing units from the newspaper.

That is not consultation; that is contempt. Even the doctors had only two days notice before these changes were implemented. Now a doctor in Orroroo can't serve his community because he is on call for births through this new trial. They are going to have to redo their whole business model because of these changes to which there was no consultation. There's been no thought about how this will actually work on the ground. If the government has done the work—then, sure. But they need to actually work with the community and the doctors before implementing these drastic changes. When doctors were—rightfully so—concerned about how this would work in practice, they reached out to those making the decisions. They were simply told that this is how it's going to work and you need to cooperate.

These are significant operational changes imposed on an already functioning model. Looking at the bigger picture, there are 60 patients a year across Jamestown and Crystal Brook who need maternity services, yet these changes are removing our regional GPs from primary care, putting them at risk. The community is rightly worried. They are frightened about what this means for their access to health care.

Labor's answer to a shortage of midwives is to share the shortage and call it a service while risking ED and primary care. The government cannot call the service sustainable simply because it takes turns being available. Regional mums need certainty about where they can give birth, not a calendar telling them where they cannot. You wouldn't expect a regional emergency department to operate on a rotating monthly roster. Why should maternity care be treated any differently? The impact is already being felt. In Labor's infinite wisdom trying to address birthing services, these changes are now putting emergency services, ED and primary care at risk.

Right now, a doctor in Orroroo who would normally be on call this weekend cannot be, because he is on the birthing roster, so a locum has to travel from Maitland to fill his spot at enormous expense to the LHN. This isn't appalling funding from Adelaide. This is your money in your LHN, and it needs to be changed.

Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence

Continuing the tradition of me reading the speeches provided to me by the work experience kids, we've got our Raise Our Voice campaign, and this speech was written by Ava and she is 11 years old. She wrote:

My fellow Australians,

We can't call ourselves a fair society when most of the country lives under fear of discrimination, and a lot of disadvantages.

Women face domestic violence, transforming their own homes and public spaces into areas of danger. From young ages, girls are the target of online harassment and objectification. At work, people make sure women are paid less, and not chosen for promotions. When they retire, women face higher rates of poverty and homelessness due to a lifetime of financial discrimination.

First, they must make violence against women a national emergency and massively increase funding for crisis services, and emergency housing. Second, the government must enforce strict legal penalties for gender discrimination and cyber-harassment. They must reform the legal system to ensure survivors of assault receive justice.

This is not minor; it is a human rights crisis. The government needs to stop ignoring the statistics and use its full power to protect its people.

Ava's 11. When I was 11, I'm pretty sure I wanted to be Batman. I certainly wasn't writing to politicians and I certainly wasn't putting words that powerful onto a sheet of paper to be read out in this place.

This is what we talk about in here a lot—the scourge of domestic violence, the hurt and fear that a lot of women fear and feel in our society. The fact that a child not out of primary school has felt so compelled to write this, to send this to me to have it read out here, tells us everything that we need to know, tells us that the work that we're doing still needs more and more until young girls like Ava don't have to write like this, feel safe in their own home and feel safe in public places and until she can decide that she wants to be Wonder Woman rather than writing to me.

I hope that Ava sees the bipartisan approach that we're taking to women and family violence. I hope that she sees men in this place standing up to try to make a difference. I hope that she understands that we hear her and that we're all working together to stop this, because, Ava, you don't deserve to have to write these letters to me. Ava, you deserve to have a childhood in which you don't have to think about this. Every day, I know that there are people in this place committed, absolutely committed, to providing the role models and to showing the way to make sure that young girls in Australia will grow up with hope and safety.

Health Care

I rise today to call on the Albanese government to reverse the decision to defund Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia's specialist nursing services. This ill-considered flick of a red pen is putting the health and wellbeing of Australian men at risk, particularly those living in regional communities, like mine. In Cowper, prostate cancer accounts for one in three cancer diagnoses in men. That's almost 500 men a year just in my electorate. In Coffs Harbour and Bellingen, prostate cancer rates are a staggering 50 per cent higher than the national average. These aren't just statistics; these are our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons.

Last year alone, PCFA specialist nurses across the Mid North Coast delivered almost 3,500 consultations and supported 373 newly diagnosed men. That's 3,500 occasions when somebody facing one of life's most frightening diagnoses had a specialist nurse in their corner—someone who truly understood what they were going through and was able to instantly provide the support required for the best possible outcome for each patient. These are patients like my constituent Dean. Dean was diagnosed with prostate cancer in November 2022 and underwent surgery in July 2024. What followed was a difficult recovery both physically and mentally. Dean suffered chronic pelvic floor and abdominal pain amongst other debilitating side effects and an intense sense of isolation and depression. But Dean was lucky; he wasn't abandoned. PCFA specialist nurses checked on him, guided him through his treatment options and, when his recovery stalled, connected him with specialist counselling. These are Dean's own words:

Without them, I would have had nowhere to turn for that level of integrated support. Being able to talk with someone who understands and has hands-on experience is invaluable. I could not have gone through it without their support.

PCFA has spent almost 15 years developing the specialist training, clinical networks and evidence based standards underpinning this service. You cannot simply transfer this type of experience to another agency. So, on behalf of the men in my electorate and right across the country, I ask the Minister for Health and Ageing: please don't replace a proven service with an unproven alternative.

Women in Sport

I'm really proud to get up today to recognise the volunteers in my community who support local footy. Footy is a pretty important part of regional life in Tassie, with country clubs and bigger, more urban centred clubs being a big part and a big feature of many weekends over the winter months. Our local clubs bring people together, but they do rely on the dedication of players, coaches and volunteers, and families and supporters who give their time through the week and on the weekends to make sure we can keep the game going.

I want to particularly recognise the Deloraine Kangaroos and the women's team who, for the very first time, made a grand final appearance. They've been working incredibly hard all season. It was really exciting to see them reach a grand final, which is such a massive moment for any sporting club. From the Deloraine Roos women's team, I want to congratulate all the players who kept turning up to training and who put in such a huge effort on the ground every weekend, the coaches and everyone in their clubs for helping to support those women. Unfortunately it didn't get there this year, but it's really set in place fantastic foundations for the club to continue to build on next year.

I also want to congratulate the Brighton Robins on their first season, fielding a women's team in the SFL Premier League. It's been a massive year for the women's team at the Brighton Robins. When I spoke at the club's ladies day, I heard how the women had been borrowing GPS tracking vests from the men's team so that they could ensure their training was as good as the men's training and that wearing them on game day was a bit challenging. So I chipped in to buy three GPS tracking vests for the women and was really proud to see another sponsor match that so that the women had the same access to the training kit that the blokes get. The women were fantastic. They faced a pretty tough introduction on the competition grounds. Despite that, they kept turning up week after week and motivating one another. In the final game of the season, they kicked their very first goal in the SFLW, which was a very fitting way for them to finish off that season. I wish them all the very best for next year.

As club president Phil Dodge has said, the scoreboard doesn't tell the whole story. They'd already won by being there. They're building new opportunities for others to follow, and they are showing young girls that they can play any sport anywhere and especially at the Premier League level. So I want to congratulate that fantastic team. I'm really proud when I see clubs backing women's footy. It's certainly something we've seen develop enormously across the country in recent decades, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what both of those teams achieve next season. I'll just finish by thanking all of the volunteers.

Cost of Living, Insurance Industry

Conditions across Australia have changed dramatically across the past 4½ years. We see that two-thirds of Australians think that we're heading in the wrong direction. An intense wave of pessimism about our future has swept across the country. You can see it across every demographic. Right across my electorate I can see it. I talk to small businesses, which are closing at record rates—30 a day—across the country. You can talk to anyone in the street about the standard-of-living drop that they've seen off the back of a five per cent reduction in productivity in this country. We're getting paid more, but everything costs more than our pay rises have been and so we're going backwards. We're feeling poorer. Young people are losing hope.

We're seeing first home approvals in my region going down. Young people are having less and less hope of buying a home. They're seeing that Australian dream get dragged away from them. Everywhere I go when I doorknock I hear a different version of this. There's the shop owner who talks about the rising energy costs even after they've installed new LED lights or new energy-efficient fridges. Even after they've made significant investments in new technology, they're still seeing their energy bills go up and up, with no sign that that's going to reduce.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:01 to 10:12

Given the interruption, I'll make a slight departure and speak on a topic of shared love—not motorsport, or the Bathurst 1000 on the weekend, but insurance. I thought it'd be good to take a moment to speak of the good work that the ICA has been doing on behalf of not just the insurance industry but also people who are covered with insurance and giving them opportunity to put questions to the insurers. Doing that through the parliamentary process, I think, has been an incredibly valuable experience.

I was very fortunate to complete a second study tour with the ICA. What I think is important for people to know about insurance in Australia is that there are multiple issues facing the industry across the world, as we've heard, and there are some areas in Australia that are very different. The approach of insurers in Australia to project-manage the rebuild of their customers' houses is very different to what we see across the rest of the world. That requires a different approach—and it's a good thing. It's a good thing I'm saying that we should support, but it does put different challenges on how reinsurers price policies in Australia. That's something that we as politicians are going to have to address to help the Australian people to get insurance at a level that they can afford. I would say the biggest lesson I've learned, across a couple of years, is that if we intervene too much in insurance we can crowd it out. I thank the ICA for their efforts.

Fremantle Electorate: Firefighters, Fremantle Electorate: Environment

We've now entered what we term the higher risk weather season: the period over summer that has always been characterised by disaster events in the forms of cyclones and floods and bushfires. We recognise that climate change has already exacerbated the intensity and range of those events, putting additional pressure on our environment and our communities.

For that reason, I want to take this opportunity as a local member, and in my role as the Assistant Minister for Emergency Management, to acknowledge the work of volunteer fire brigades in my electorate and around the country. Volunteer firies make a vital contribution to our safety and wellbeing, and they do so by giving their time and effort in fraught and often dangerous circumstances.

I've been really glad to support both the Jandakot and the South Coogee Volunteer Bushfire brigades, including with funding on multiple occasions through the Volunteer Grants program and the Stronger Community Grants program. I reckon there will be lots of members who have done the same. It's only right that government and members of parliament should back in the effort of community volunteers, especially in this area.

As we enter another summer that will inevitably involve serious fire risks, I encourage everyone to consider how we can support our bushfire brigade volunteers, especially by avoiding fire risks and by taking risk reduction activities guided by the information, in Western Australia, at emergency.wa.gov.au, but also perhaps by making a donation to the Association of Volunteer Bushfire Brigades WA or even by getting involved as a volunteer yourself.

One of the best ways to make our communities more resilient is through nature based restoration work—work that does so much to improve environmental conditions and protect our distinctive Australian biodiversity. There's no question that we need more and more of that work to occur across the Australian landscape through efforts large and small. A few weeks ago, I was glad to join with the valiant Friends of Cantonment Hill for one of their regular weeding sessions as part of their longstanding commitment to supporting the environmental significance of this beautiful limestone hill. I want to acknowledge, in particular, the decades long dedication of Paula Amaral to that task.

More recently, I was glad to help launch the new Cockitrough at Clontarf Hill, which was funded with $35,000 from within the broader $125,000 allocation to a network of seven cockatoo watering stations across my electorate that stretch from Banjup to Beaconsfield. Again, Clontarf Hill is an environmental treasure, a significant Bush Forever site that benefits from the wholehearted care provided by the Friends of Clontarf Hill. I want to pay particular tribute to Christine Duckham, who's been an indefatigable leader of local environmental efforts, especially at Clontarf Hill. Through Christine and Paula's example, there's now a big, vibrant crew of people at each of Clontarf and Cantonment hills, benefiting from the joys that caring for nature brings with it—the sense of connection to country and to one another as we share the labour of love that is environmental stewardship that benefits our landscape.

Defence Properties

I rise today to condemn the federal government's decisions to totally sell and divest Timor Barracks in Dundas, New South Wales. It's in the electorate of Parramatta but very significant to north-west Sydney as part of its Defence estate audit property. Timor Barracks is the secure, purpose built home to the major national command elements of the Australian Army Reserve and 200 youth cadets, dismantling a regional brigade headquarters—Timor Barracks is the official national headquarters—for this vital formation. When we think about Australia's military history, all the modern military history that we lionise is conduct from the citizen soldier, the reservists. From World War I and World War II, people who volunteered stepped up and fought wars to protect their country. Today, we have a standing force, but Australia will never have the capacity to have such a large force that we can win wars with that force alone. We will require our citizens to volunteer, step up and get involved—to want to defend this country, and it's as vital a part of our defence as our standing and regular armies.

When you hear that the 322 Squadron, the Air Force Cadets there, recently turned away 256 local youth applicants due to space constraints already—they've already got hundreds of youth cadets on the site—how could Defence propose to divest this vital youth endeavour? We want our young people invested in cadets. We want our young people invested in Defence. We want them to value our society, want to protect it, and be able to step up and have the capacity to train, do their employment, make their contribution in the economy but be ready to defend this country when they have to. These plans are retrograde. To sell off these bases is not simply to get a financial sugar hit to the bottom line for the Commonwealth. These units function so effectively because they integrate local communities into Defence seamlessly. It's young people going into cadets, and young people going into Defence.

That's why I joined the petition, as 400 signatories have so far. I grew up in Parramatta, North Parramatta and Dundas Valley. I say to the member for Parramatta, who's not from the region, that Dundas, the valley, relies on these units. They've always been there. This is one of the oldest headquarters of the oldest formations. It has hundreds and hundreds of young people parading there, getting invested in the defence of Australia. That's exactly the spirit we want to encourage. This sale of Timor Barracks is retrograde. It's bad for Defence, it's bad for our youth, and it's bad for our society, just to get a little bit of cash on the bottom line. I ask the Defence minister and say to the member for Parramatta: join your petitioners, get involved with your community here, understand the history, the passion and the relevance to modernity. Young people are being turned away from defending their country because we don't have enough space. The solution is not to sell Timor Barracks.

Carrington Park

I rise today to speak about an important investment in the Knoxfield community and about delivering on a commitment we made to local residents. Carrington Park is a much-loved community sporting precinct, and I am very pleased to see the redevelopment of its pavilion now well underway. Ahead of the 2025 federal election, I announced that a re-elected Albanese Labor government would provide $1.8 million towards the redevelopment of the Carrington Park pavilion. That commitment is now being delivered. The existing pavilion dates back to 1975. After more than 50 years of use, it no longer met the needs of the sporting clubs and the growing community that rely on Carrington Park. This redevelopment will change that.

Carrington Park is home to a number of local sporting clubs, including the Knoxfield Knights Cricket Club, the Knox United Soccer Club and the Scoresby junior football club, the Scoresby Magpies. These clubs bring hundreds of local children, young people and families together through sport. They provide opportunities for people to be active, to make friends, to develop confidence and teamwork and to feel connected to their community, and the facilities they use should reflect the important role they play. One of the most significant aspects of this redevelopment is it will provide proper inclusive changerooms and amenities for women and girls. It will also include improved disability access facilities for away teams and officials, public toilets, meeting and social spaces, a first aid room, kitchen and kiosk facilities, and additional storage. These are practical improvements but they will have a significant impact on the experience of everyone who uses Carrington Park.

A sporting pavilion is about much more than the building itself; it is where young players get ready for the game, where parents meet other families, where volunteers selflessly give up their weekends, where coaches encourage the next generation and where clubs build the sense of belonging that keeps communities strong. I acknowledge Knox City Council, the local sporting clubs and the many volunteers who have advocated for these improvements and helped bring this project forward. This is an example of what can be achieved when different levels of government work together to deliver the infrastructure communities need.

Most importantly, this is an election commitment being delivered. Works commenced earlier this year and are expected to be completed in early 2027. I look forward to returning to Carrington Park when the project is complete and seeing the sports clubs and all the local families who use this reserve enjoying the new facilities. For the girls who will walk into a dedicated changeroom and know that these facilities were designed for them too, this redevelopment will send an important message: you belong here and your participation matters. This is what a $1.8 million Labor government investment is helping deliver for Knoxfield.

Northern Rivers Young Volunteer of the Year, Coraki Golf Club: 100th Anniversary, Grafton Country Women's Association: 100th Anniversary

I congratulate Lawrence local Holly Nehls, who has been named the 2026 Northern Rivers Young Volunteer of the Year. Holly is an outstanding apprentice diesel mechanic and a dedicated volunteer with the Lawrence brigade of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. She gives her time to support our community both on the fire line helping protect lives and property and behind the scenes providing important operational support. Holly received the award at the Northern Rivers Volunteer of the Year Awards in Tweed Heads. The awards recognise the enormous contribution volunteers make to our communities across the region. Holly will now be invited to represent the Northern Rivers at the New South Wales Volunteer of the Year state gala in Sydney later this year. Congratulations, Holly, on this well-deserved award, and thank you for everything you do for our community.

I give a happy birthday shout-out to the Coraki Golf Club. It was 100 years old this year. The club was established in 1926 and began a course carved out around the Coraki showground. The first clubhouse was a tent. The first club championships were held in 1928 and won by Reg Davis. Over the decades, many locals have shaped the club. Earl Scurr, Graham Smith and Alf Leeson established the cadet golf club in 1970, and Jim Ormond established the veterans club in 1983. I also recognise Lola Clarke, who was the first woman to receive life membership of the club. Coraki Golf Club has endured floods, droughts and enormous change over the past 100 years. Volunteers today continue to maintain the course and keep the club running. In acknowledging the President, Greg Scurr, and Secretary, Steve Toms, I acknowledge all the committee members of this great club over the last 100 years.

Happy 100th birthday to the Grafton CWA. The branch held its first meeting on 5 October 1926 and, since then, generations of country women have dedicated their time to supporting the Grafton community. Their contribution is fantastic, from fundraising for the Westpac Rescue Helicopter, the Salvation Army and local women's refuges to supporting communities through natural disasters and contributing to regional medical research. Congratulations to life member, Marie Mackenzie; branch patron, Ruth Melouney; and the Centenary Committee: Sharron Davison, Janice Wilkinson, Narelle Saunders, Wendy Prowd, Loretta Lancaster, Carmon McFawn, Anne Hindley, Annette Douglas, Anne McLellan and Lyn Harris. The branch has marked its centenary with a wonderful cookbook featuring members' favourite recipes. I unfortunately couldn't get there, but Karen got there and said it was a wonderful celebration and acknowledgement for the wonderful work they've been doing for 100 years.

Makin Electorate: Community Organisations

I rise to speak about two wonderful community organisations within the Makin electorate. I refer to the Tea Tree Players Theatre and the Wynn Vale Community Garden. Both of these community groups provide an invaluable service whilst responding to what some might describe as a niche community area of interest. The Wynn Vale Community Garden celebrated its 30th anniversary last Saturday, with hundreds of visitors coming through to look, learn and buy the wide array of gardening products on display. Since its establishment, the community garden has been an extraordinary success story, growing in size and with its membership and gardens bursting at the seams. Currently led by Phil Meadows and an extensive team of dedicated volunteers, the garden's success can be attributed to the passionate gardening enthusiasts and volunteers who, over the past 30 years, have done an extraordinary job in growing quality fruit and vegetables, meticulously maintaining the centre, educating others about plant growth and providing fresh fruit and vegetables to local charities.

Today, with backyards disappearing, the value of community gardens has never been greater. They cater for people who don't have any land to grow fresh produce but who enjoy doing so and can be educational for children who want to know about food production. They can also be a place where friendships are made and surplus produce is used to feed people in need. We could do with more community gardens—in a similar way that men's sheds are now everywhere—because of their social value, for relatively little cost, in an ever-changing society. I congratulate everyone involved in the Wynn Vale Community Garden over the past 30 years and thank them for their contribution to our community.

Likewise with the Tea Tree Players Theatre, the best little theatre in Adelaide, which has been bringing so much joy to patrons and live stage performance opportunities to budding and experienced performers for some 50 years. Again, in a changing world where technology is widely used to enhance performance, it is refreshing to watch live stage performers. Over the years, Tea Tree Players Theatre has entertained audiences with brilliant performances across a diverse range of comedy, drama and pantomime productions for young and old, mostly written and directed by local identities. The 120-seat theatre simultaneously gives aspiring local actors an opportunity to perform on live stage and develop their skills and confidence. Again, my compliments to all involved over the years, and, to the current crew, led by Theresa Dolman, I say thank you for keeping live theatre going, and thank you for the enjoyment I get every time I come to one of your shows.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Cook Electorate: Community Services

For almost 14 years, Ashleigh Osmond, a lovely, young, vibrant mum in the Sutherland Shire, has lived with multiple sclerosis—14 years of knowing that a disease could change the course of your life and even end it prematurely. But, for most of that time, Ashleigh has been in remission. The treatment she takes has allowed her to live a healthy independent life without MS affecting every day or every decision or her being a great mum, wife, friend, family member, employee and a very productive member of society. But, earlier this year, that certainty was thrown into doubt when two very important MS treatments faced the prospect of losing support through the PBS.

I want to celebrate a partial win. We created a petition to make sure the PBS continued to fund these treatments. I'm very happy to say to Ashleigh and to all the people suffering with MS that the government has now confirmed that these treatments will remain on the PBS and that a rapid review of MS medicines is still underway.

However, while this has brought relief, people like Ashleigh deserve long-term certainty. This treatment that her neurologist has recommended would cost tens of thousands of dollars a year out of pocket if they didn't have long-term certainty. Ashleigh put it simply:

Access to these treatments has allowed me to spend much of the past 14 years in remission. People living with MS should have confidence that the treatment recommended by their neurologist will remain affordable and accessible.

So I am now advocating that we give long-term certainty and long-term commitments as part of this rapid review—that these medicines will never be taken off the PBS unless better medicines become available.

I also would like to congratulate the Parish of St Stylianos Gymea on its 30th anniversary. I congratulate Father Constantine Varipatis and Deacon Chris Baghos, the parish leadership volunteers and every family that has helped build this wonderful community. From humble beginnings gathering at the Sutherland Entertainment Centre and Gymea Technology High School, St Stylianos has become a place of faith and belonging now for generations of shire families. Volunteers teach Orthodox scripture to hundreds of local children, support older Australians, preserve Greek language and culture, and prepare meals for organisations for people in need, which I've personally handed out to housing commissions right across our electorate. They do a wonderful job. We recognise you. We recognise that you make our community stronger and your huge contribution to the Sutherland Shire.

South Melbourne Football Club

():

We find ourselves standing on the shoulders of migrants who set up this club 70 years ago, who never lost faith in unity, prosperity and equity.

It's a club built on multiculturalism, on giving joy to its spectators and its fans.

The win by Hellas is a win for all football and importantly our Hellenic community. These are the words by Bill Papastergiadis, who is the co-president of the South Melbourne Football Club with Andrew Mesourouni. The two of them and their entire team—just like the whole of South Melbourne—were in absolute elation after the win by the South Melbourne Hellas over Melbourne Victory in the Australia Cup on the weekend. The thing that makes this extraordinary is that the South Melbourne Football Club, the Hellas, are not an A-League club. They are not in the top tier of competition in this country, yet they defeated the Melbourne Victory on the weekend in penalties to win this tournament.

It is a reflection of the grassroots nature of this club that has been around since 1959. If anyone has been to the southern parts of Melbourne and walked through the streets, the Greek community is part of the furniture. It is a cornerstone of this incredible part of Melbourne. I love walking through Albert Park and South Melbourne and speaking to my constituents, who are proud Greek Australians who never lost their culture or their language but brought it and shared it with our amazing Melbourne community. It is—

Honourable members interjecting—

I won't take the interjections. What I will say is that we are so proud of this club for what it stands for and the multicultural way in which it has helped found Melbourne, one of the great Greek cities of the world. More than that, South Melbourne has a proud history as a football club as well. Ange Postecoglou was a player for South Melbourne and then was a manager for four years, leading them to back-to-back NSL titles. So many people have used and grown through this club to go on and do great things in football.

South Melbourne is a club where it is all about the community. It is all about bringing the fans and the community—to be proud of who they are, to hold on to their Greek heritage and their Greek past. But they are also ambitious. They want to be a part of the A-League. I know that it has been a difficult journey, but wins like the weekend, where a club that isn't even in the top-tier competition believed in itself and overcame extraordinary odds to defeat one of the premier clubs in the country, show anything is possible. If it's possible, the Hellas can make it possible.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

Today I have the privilege of sharing the words of 17-year-old Zoe from my electorate of Capricornia whose contribution was selected as a winning entry in the Raise Our Voice competition. This initiative gives young Australians the opportunity to have their voices heard in federal parliament and speak about issues that matter to their generation. It reminds us that young people are not simply the leaders of tomorrow; their ideas and perspectives will shape the future. Raise Our Voice encourages young Australians to engage with democracy and recognise that they can help shape our nation's future. Zoe has chosen to address an issue of national importance, domestic and family violence. I'd now like to share her speech with the House:

On Wednesday, 8th July 2026, police braced themselves for a 40% increase in domestic violence in a single night. The classic feud between the Blues and Maroons, the State of Origin. Whilst millions of fans watched, hoping for a win, women and children watched hoping for something entirely different. They hoped to feel safe in their own homes.

My name is Zoe, and I am 17 years old. Every day, I am grateful to live in a home where I am loved and supported by my family. Nevertheless, not all girls like me are so fortunate. Sports-related domestic violence is a serious issue in Australia, creating devastating outcomes for thousands nationwide.

The issue shaping my future isn't sport, it's how gender-based violence continues to shape our futures. Australia cannot achieve true equality while violence remains widespread. Sport has enormous cultural influence, Parliament should use that influence to deliver respectful relationships education, healthy masculinity programs, specialist partnerships and consistent nationwide data collection. By embedding prevention into Australia's greatest cultural institution, we can work together to prevent violence before it begins.

The future of Australia will be measured not by how well we respond to violence, but by how effectively we prevent it.

Zoe's words demonstrate why listening to young Australians is important. At just 17, she has shown the courage to tackle a difficult issue and put forward thoughtful ideas about building a safer Australia.

Initiatives like Raise Our Voice encourage young people to think critically, participate in public debate and recognise their ability to influence change. Zoe joins young winners from electorates across Australia, each bringing their own perspectives and ideas to the federal parliament through the Raise Our Voice competition. I congratulate Zoe on her winning entry and thank the organisers of Raise Our Voice for giving young Australians this platform. I hope her achievement inspires young people across Capricornia to become involved in politics and make their voices heard. After all, the future of our nation belongs to them, and their voices deserve a place in shaping it.

I too rise here today to read a speech from 18-year-old Nevan, who also participated in the Raise Our Voice in parliament campaign. I will read this speech from Nevan. I hope, Nevan, that I do this justice:

The biggest issue shaping my future is not simply the rising cost of living, or the increasing difficulty of accessing education and housing.

It is that young Australians are expected to live with these challenges while too often being excluded from the decisions that shape them.

Long before I understood leadership, I was surrounded by people practising it every day. I learnt it from a grandmother whose kindness held generations of our family together.

From a mother whose strength knows no bounds. From a father who sacrificed his dreams so I could wake up each morning with opportunities he didn't get.

They taught me that leadership isn't defined by age or title. It is choosing to leave something better than you found it.

Young Australians live that lesson every day, yet our voices are too often an afterthought.

I ask this Parliament to establish a Youth Right to Be Heard, guaranteeing young Australians a meaningful opportunity to give our opinions before decisions are made about our future.

We aren't clueless. We have hope.

Believe in us. Trust us.

Give us the chance to be more, to do more.

To leave Australia better than we found it.

Don't make us wait.

We are not the future.

We are the now.

Well, Nevan, I can't agree with you more. Indeed, leadership is not defined by age or years on this earth. It is defined by the wisdom that I often find when I go out and speak to young people, and that wisdom is here in the words that Nevan wrote and the words that I speak on behalf of Nevan.

Thank you, Nevan, for these words. Thank you for reminding us that young people have a voice and a voice that deserves to be heard right here in this place. Thank you for reminding us that, too often, we tell young people that they are the leaders of the future, but we need to recognise that they are the leaders of the now. Thank you also to the Raise Our Voice program for their consistent advocacy for young people to be heard and to have a say in the halls of parliament, where their voice, I will say, does matter.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

CONDOLENCES Baird, Hon. Bruce George, AM

With the passing of Bruce Baird last week, Australia lost a real gentleman, a true parliamentarian and just a thoroughly decent human being. Tellingly, the respect and admiration for Bruce knew no political boundaries. That much was demonstrated in bittersweet fashion by the mix of the crowd who turned out to farewell him at St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney on Monday.

Bruce was a man perpetually on the move. As his daughter Julia noted in her eulogy, he 'loved to be in motion through water, through air, through life, through the endless throng of fascinating humans he had not yet met'. In his 84 years, he met so many. Bruce had the uncommon distinction of serving his nation as a Liberal Party member at both the state and federal level, including as transport minister in the Greiner NSW government. It was a portfolio that he handled with such aplomb that I was pleased to appoint him years later as the inaugural chair of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator board. I also engaged with Bruce regularly with the tourism portfolio that I held in opposition for a number of years and as transport minister, of course, in government.

Bruce should also be remembered for his success as the minister in charge of Sydney's bid for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. What an extraordinary gift that was to my home city and to our nation. In whatever role he served, whether it was in parliament or leading bodies, including the Tourism & Transport Forum and the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council, he served with distinction, principle and humanity, all underpinned by the luminous power of his faith.

Bruce Baird lived his values. He went to the detention camps and he listened to the asylum seekers tell their stories. To Bruce, they weren't some shadowy, abstract other; they were fellow human beings who dreamed of something better for their families. He stood strong for them and he changed lives. A perfect summary was offered at Bruce's funeral by Joseph Marigold, who escaped persecution in Iran and ended up in detention at Villawood. He said: 'Bruce listened to us. He helped save us. We owe him. And now I am an Australian citizen. I want to do everything I can to help save others.'

There was no denying Bruce's personal magnetism. His son Mike, who, of course, became the Premier of New South Wales, at his first press conference spotted the large media pack clustered around someone else there in Macquarie Street. When he asked one of his staff who on earth the person could possibly be, Mike was gently informed, 'It's your dad.' Our hearts go out to Mike, Julia and Steve. May Bruce Baird rest in a peace as beautiful as the peace that he felt every time he stepped into that surf at Manly Beach. May he rest in peace.

Bruce Baird was far more than just a Liberal Party politician. He was a giant of a man, a man with a compassionate heart. I want to start by reading a text message I got from a constituent, which I think tells a lot about the measure of the man. Here it is: 'I'd only just arrived in Australia, and everything felt new and uncertain. Bruce had never met me. He didn't know me at all, yet he made the time to sit down with me over coffee. He asked me questions about my life, just to get to know this stranger. What touched me the most was the full attention and genuine love with which he listened. My English wasn't what it is today, French and Kirundi as my background, but he never made me feel that mattered. I will never forget what he said when I finished speaking. He looked at me and said, "You are welcome here." Those four words lifted a weight from my heart. For the first time, I felt truly welcomed. After that, we would often meet on Sundays after the service at our local church. He would always come over to me with a warm smile and ask how things went and offer his encouragement. He even opened his home to me at Christmas, inviting me to sing carols with his friends and neighbours. He also asked me to sing the national anthem at a local surf club, an honour I will carry with me always.'

I think that's the measure of the man in how he treated people who weren't dignitaries, weren't important—how he treated people who had no voice and how he treated the least fortunate. What a upstanding man of morals who really dedicated himself to other people. He spent a lifetime in public service, dedicating himself to the people of New South Wales and then of Australia, as the member for Cook. There were many he helped. At his funeral, you saw people from all walks of life and all areas of the Liberal Party. It reminded us what a broad church it was with John Howard and with Julie Bishop there and people from all walks of life. There was Afghani and Iraqi refugees there. It was full, and it represented the fullness of Bruce's life. There were people he helped and the family he loved.

On 2 October we lost the Hon. Bruce Baird AM. I feel that loss particularly deeply, because I hear stories from constituents like the one I just read out—many who swam round Shark Island with him every morning as he would get out there. He was a fantastic swimmer. I still meet people who remember swimming with Bruce and remember the stories he would tell or him holding court, having coffee afterwards, sharing local Shire gossip.

It was funny. He always recounted to me that they had all the Liberal Party members sign an open letter, and they published it on page 1 or 2 of the Daily Telegraph, calling him a 'blow in' to the Shire, something they try and refer to me as, as well. But Bruce had grown up in Cronulla. His dad owned a shoe shop there. He went to school there. He did leave for the Northern Beaches and later retired on the Northern Beaches—he loved the coast and loved the ocean—but he was born and brought up in the Shire. He loved the Sutherland Shire, and it was a huge part of his identity with that sandy blonde hair, those blue eyes and being a fantastic swimmer.

And the people of the Sutherland Shire loved Bruce. He gave so much for other people, even the Sutherland Sharks. He gave them their last upgrade, which shows how much they're in need of more. There was a stand there colloquially known as the Bruce Baird stand. That was the last upgrade they received, and it was Bruce who fought for that funding. He fought for our community. He fought for the less privileged and the less established.

When I think about the example Bruce leaves behind, it's of a man who never forgot that public office is all about people. Before parliament, he studied at the universities of Sydney and Melbourne. He worked in international trade. He loved tourism. He was still the chair of Tourism Australia until the time of his passing. It was almost apt that he passed on an international trip, a junket—Bruce loved a good junket—over in Singapore, still fulfilling that role, a man so full of life.

He was elected to the New South Wales parliament in 1984, served as the Minister for Transport, Minister for Tourism and Minister for Roads and as deputy leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party. One of his most memorable moments was actually as the Minister for Sydney's Olympic Bid. We would not have had the Sydney Olympics without Bruce Baird. I still remember, as a primary school child, watching that announcement live on TV, Bruce in the front row, with that sandy blonde hair that I'm very jealous of combed across, jumping for joy, embracing those around him with a big hug when they called out, 'The winner is Sydney!' Without Bruce, we would never have had that moment and never have had those Olympics that shaped our city, that led to all the infrastructure upgrades, that led to the Homebush precinct, that inspired hundreds of thousands of children in sport and that gave us those moments with Cathy Freeman. Bruce was the architect of that, but he never gloated about any of this. He was very humble.

He was a huge family man—the love he had for his three kids; his wife, Judy; and his grandkids. And, at his funeral, you heard his three children and his grandkids speak so affectionately about him. Many people who devote themselves as much as to their work as Bruce did are unable to foster such impressive and close connections with their children. You often say the measure of a man is his children, and you look at Bruce's children and grandchildren, stunning examples of human beings, and the affection with which they talk about their father, talking about how he both metaphorically and physically would put them on his shoulders, growing up. I think each of them talked about memories of that—not only physically, on holidays and in pools, but metaphorically, and what it felt like to be one of Bruce's kids. I think, just like that refugee whose note I read out, his kids felt that same sense of importance as well, as did all his constituents.

Now, Bruce in 1998 became the federal member for Cook and served to 2007. And there's a story not often told where Bruce was one vote short—he was very short of becoming the Premier of New South Wales, and there's a bit of intrigue to that story which I won't tell today. But he came to federal parliament and he didn't rise to where he should have. Bruce was a man of immense capability and could have been a very senior minister, even a leader of the Liberal Party. But he had something that you can't print on a resume. He had warmth. He had humour. He had time for people. He had a love of gossip. He had extraordinary energy. And he had a love of conversation, where he could make any stranger feel like a friend.

He showed conviction even when politically inconvenient. He spoke up for asylum seekers and refugees at a time where it was not popular in Australian society nor in the Liberal Party. He was on a parliamentary committee, and they were about to do a report on detention and it got pointed out that they hadn't actually visited the detention centres. So Bruce as the chair said: 'We should go. We should go and visit those detention centres and meet those people.' And it was after he did that—he met those people and looked them in the eye and heard their stories firsthand. I've heard how he recounted to his family, 'After what I've seen and heard, I cannot support that,' and he went on to continue to do this politically difficult work. After leaving parliament, he chaired the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council.

Bruce's faith was also very central to his life. He was a long-time member of St Matthews Manly. As his son Mike said, they were planning the service at St Matthews when St Andrew's in the city offered, and he said, 'Dad would have wanted us to take this one last upgrade,' because Bruce always liked a good upgrade—which he did. He was very fond of his travel and his travel upgrade! We heard in that church, St Andrew's, on Monday this week about his love of his Christian faith and his love of his wife, Judy. Bruce and Judy met at 21. I think they met on a church cruise, a Christian cruise. They spoke about, at that funeral, his enduring bond with Judy, and his kids said, 'Dad's now finally at home.' It never felt right—the two of them being together, having married at 21, and him living to 84.

So, to Mike, Julia and Steve: I understand he was more than just a minister, more than a larger-than-life figure; he was your dad. I respect the beautiful connection you had with him, and I just hope I can make my kids as proud of me as your dad has done for you.

I, like a number of my colleagues, was very saddened to hear of the sudden passing of Bruce Baird, who died aged 84 in Singapore on his way home from a trip to Europe. I'm very proud of the fact that, just as I would have called Bruce a friend, he called me a friend. Like me, Bruce was from the Sutherland Shire in Sydney's south. Born in 1942, he was a generation ahead of me, but our lives and our experiences weren't that different, and I think part of the reason we shared a world view is because of the place where we grew up together.

Bruce was the son of a local shoe shop owner in Cronulla. He attended Cronulla Public School and the Sutherland Intermediate High School on Eaton Street in Sutherland. He grew up next door to the Whitlam family in Cronulla when Gough was the member for Werriwa; Werriwa took in Cronulla in those days. Apparently he played football in the street and backyard cricket in the Whitlams' backyard with the Whitlam boys. Those early years perhaps did influence him a little, because he voted Labor in 1972, helping sweep the party to power after 23 long years in opposition.

Like my dad, Bruce worked at Qantas. That was where he started his career. He completed a Bachelor of Arts in psychology, was knocked back as an Anglican priest due to medical reasons and went on to complete an MBA. He was the Assistant Trade Commissioner in Bonn, West Germany, and then the Trade Commissioner in New York before working for Esso.

Following this, his career in representative politics took off, and Bruce went on to become a valued member of two parliaments over 20 years. He was first elected as the Liberal member for Northcott in Sydney's north, serving as state MP from 1984 to 1995. By then, obviously, he had left voting Labor behind him, but he described himself as a moderate Liberal and an economic 'dry'. He wasn't a supporter of trade unions or what he saw as union control.

Bruce made his mark in the New South Wales parliament, serving as a shadow minister in the final years of the Wran and Unsworth Labor governments, and then went on to take on ministerial roles in the Greiner and Fahey governments, holding various portfolios. He was probably most well-known for his work in tourism, transport and roads, and, of course, he was instrumental in securing the 2000 Olympics for Sydney, my home city. I think his work in securing the Olympics and the work of the Carr Labor government in running the Olympics is a model for successful Olympic Games around the world. It was probably the achievement that Bruce is best known for and one of his most significant achievements.

When Nick Greiner resigned in 1992, Bruce contested the Liberal Party leadership but very narrowly lost a party-room ballot to John Fahey. He was then elected deputy leader of the New South Wales Liberals in 1992, holding the position until 1994. He left the parliament in 1995.

After leaving the New South Wales parliament, Bruce was the head of the Tourism Council and the chair of the National Rail Corporation. He entered the federal parliament in the same year that I did, 1998, as the member for Cook in Sydney's south, moving from Sydney's north to represent the people that he grew up with in the shire. His move into federal parliament was orchestrated by the New South Wales Liberals to deal with some local issues with their first-term MP Stephen Mutch, but it was opposed by John Howard at the time. Howard tried to talk Bruce out of running, but Bruce persevered because he was passionate about Australia's future and believed he could contribute to public life, which he did. He also, of course, helped the Liberals avoid a nasty preselection that the member for Cook alluded to a moment ago.

Bruce started his federal career on the back foot because the Prime Minister of the day, John Howard, was not a fan. He served in the federal parliament until 2007, when he was replaced by Scott Morrison, who went on to become Australia's 30th prime minister. Bruce was an active, principled, compassionate and committed parliamentarian, valued and respected by all those he worked with across both sides of the aisle. He was great as a parliamentarian, as a local member and as a minister in the state government, but, much as he was successful as a parliamentarian, I would say he was even more successful as a human being.

Bruce described himself as a liberally minded Christian. He was a fundamentally decent human being. Many people have mentioned Bruce visiting detention centres, but not as many people perhaps knew that Bruce and his wife, Judy, were also regular visitors to jails in New South Wales. As well as the humanitarian work that Bruce did both in jails and in detention centres as part of his congregation at his local churches, he used his opportunity in parliament to highlight all of these issues, but he really lived his Christian values by doing the work that didn't achieve any public attention at the same time.

He was a very effective minister, as I said, in New South Wales, and I think it was a shame and a loss to the federal parliament that he wasn't also a minister at the federal level. I mentioned a moment ago that Prime Minister Howard tried to dissuade him from running for federal politics. I certainly think that was a mark against him when it came to becoming a minister in a Howard government. Other people would say that his friendship with Peter Costello was also a mark against him, given the competitive nature of the relationship between John Howard and Peter Costello, but Bruce was pick and stick when it came to his friends. He would never have downplayed or turned his back on the friendship with Peter Costello in order to progress within the Howard government. He talked about his support for reconciliation with Aboriginal Australians in his first speech and supported an apology to the stolen generations, again, despite John Howard's opposition to that. He supported Australia becoming a republic, again, in opposition to John Howard, and he was chair of the Amnesty International parliamentary group from 2000.

In 2005, along with a group of other fellow Liberal MPs like Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent and Judi Moylan, he opposed the mandatory detention of asylum seekers. I would say that Petro Georgiou is another great person overlooked for the ministry because of his firm belief in his values and his living of those values. These four MPs successfully negotiated with John Howard over proposals to change the detention system so that families with children could move into community accommodation and for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review cases of detention exceeding two years. He continued to speak out against mandatory detention and offshore processing even in his valedictory speech, where he talked about one of the 50 asylum seeker cases he personally championed to the immigration minister and the contribution that person made to their new community here in Australia.

Bruce and I also worked together over many years on opposing the death penalty. Throughout his parliamentary career, Bruce always stood for what was right and what was decent, and when he left parliament he continued to champion his passions, advising the Rudd government as the chair of the refugee resettlement advisory council and leading the Tourism & Transport Forum. He was also on the national apology board and a patron of the Asylum Seekers Centre, again displaying his true decency. He was awarded an Order of the Member of Australia for service to Australian parliaments in 2010 and for service to the community of New South Wales through a range of business, tourism and welfare organisations. Many people have spoken about Bruce's love for his family, and that was displayed every time you spoke to him and every time you saw him. He will be much missed, I know, by his family and his many, many friends on both sides of politics.

I rise to honour the life of Bruce George Baird AM. Bruce was a man of service. He served his party, his state and his country wholeheartedly, and he did it with aplomb.

Prior to entering politics, Bruce had a distinguished career furthering Australia's diplomacy, first as an assistant trade commissioner in West Germany and then as a trade commissioner in New York. As the member for Northcott in the New South Wales parliament from 1984 to 1995 and a minister in the Greiner and Fahey governments, he made a significant contribution to the development and prosperity of his state. He was the Minister for Transport, Roads, Tourism and the Environment, and he served as the Deputy Leader of the New South Wales Liberals from 1992 to 1994.

While Bruce's son Mike joked that his father's major accomplishment in state politics was getting the trains to run on time, Bruce's greatest achievement was undoubtedly securing the 2000 Sydney Olympics, and I remember it so well. Without Bruce's tireless bidding, Australia couldn't have given the world the best Olympic Games ever. Without Bruce, we may not have had that 16-gold-medal haul, those nation-inspiring moments from Cathy Freeman, Ian Thorpe, the men's 4 x 100 freestyle relay, the Hockeyroos and many, many more.

Moving from state to federal politics, Bruce held the seat of Cook for nine years during the pivotal period of new national prosperity under the Howard government. In his maiden speech, Bruce declared that his shift to federal politics was driven by a passionate desire to continue contributing to public life and Australia's future. He even had the support of his former neighbour, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. A self-declared economic dry-and-free market champion, Bruce declared, 'Unless a country is economically competitive internationally, it cannot survive.' He said: 'Government is simply not just about taxation reform. It's important for everyone in Australia to lift our overall standard of living.' Hear, hear to that.

Refugee wellbeing was a deep concern for Bruce, as was the issue of youth suicide. To defeat that scourge, Bruce believed parliamentarians had a duty to provide young people with optimism and hope. Bruce's committee work as a backbencher was extensive. There was barely an area of public policy that didn't benefit from his erudite mind and compassionate heart. That mind and that heart saw him continue to serve his country after politics. He led the Tourism and Transport Forum and chaired the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council.

An avid ocean swimmer and member of the bold and beautiful swim squad that exercised off Manly and Shelly beaches, a devout Christian, a resolute Republican and a parliamentarian respected across the political aisle, Bruce will be remembered as a decent and dedicated man highly deserving of his appointment as a member of the Order of Australia. On behalf of the federal Liberal Party, my sincere condolences to Bruce's family—especially to his sons, Mike and Steve, and his daughter, Julia, whose own commendable contributions to public life have been inspired by the example set by their beloved father. Bruce is now reunited with his cherished wife, Judy. May he rest in peace.

I join with colleagues from both sides in mourning the passing of the honourable Bruce Baird AM, who passed on 2 October, aged 84. Bruce dedicated more than four decades to public service, serving in both the New South Wales and federal parliaments. He was a respected Liberal parliamentarian, a former New South Wales minister and a central figure in securing the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. But today I particularly want to remember his compassion, his commitment to reconciliation and his lifelong advocacy for refugees and people seeking asylum.

I had the privilege of meeting Bruce through his work with the National Apology Foundation, and over the years I came to know him better through the conversations we shared at the annual apology breakfast, where we often sat together. Established in 2014, the foundation carries forward the spirit and commitments of the historic 2008 National Apology to the Stolen Generations. We heard earlier from the minister of Bruce Baird's support of the apology even in his maiden speech despite this potentially impacting on his political standing within his own party. We know that it was something that he really firmly believed in.

Bruce agreed to serve as the founding deputy chair of the National Apology Foundation, working alongside former prime minister Kevin Rudd, a demonstration of bipartisanship, support for reconciliation and closing the gap. I deeply respected Bruce Bruce's commitment to this work, as I know so many did. He recognised that the national apology was a profound moment in our history but that its promise required continued action. Through the foundation. Bruce helped keep attention on the unfinished work of reconciliation, particularly addressing the inequalities experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. He believed that party politics should never stand in the way of our shared responsibility to treat people with dignity and with respect.

Bruce was a strong advocate for refugees and asylum seekers. Peter Waters, Chair of the Asylum Seekers Centre, described Bruce beautifully, saying:

Bruce Baird AM was a champion of our shared humanity, a unifier who brought people from all sides of politics together in the service of dignity and compassion.

In 2005, Bruce was among a group of Liberal parliamentarians who advocated for changes to Australia's immigration detention policies, with a particular focus on children and families. Having visited detention centres and spoken directly with people seeking asylum, Bruce brought compassion and a strong sense of fairness to his advocacy. His efforts contributed to changes that year and demonstrated his willingness to work across political divides to improve the lives of vulnerable people.

His commitment to refugees and people seeking asylum continued long after he left parliament. In 2008, just one year after retiring from politics, the Rudd Labor government appointed Bruce as the Chair of the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council. In 2014, Bruce became patron of the Asylum Seekers Centre, a role he approached with great dedication. He was a generous donor, a regular presence at community events and a determined advocate who used his extensive relationships to bring the concerns of people seeking asylum directly to government and government ministers. As Francis Rush, former CEO of the Asylum Seeker Centre, reflected:

Bruce … possessed the rare ability to open doors, bridge divides, and command a genuine hearing from decision-makers for those seeking asylum.

Bruce's commitment to bringing people together was particularly evident following the Cronulla riots in December 2005, which took place in his electorate of Cook. In the aftermath of those terrible events, Bruce worked with community leaders from the Sutherland Shire and the Australian Lebanese community to rebuild trust and understanding. He helped establish a program bringing young Australians from different cultural backgrounds together through surf lifesaving. Reflecting in this place in 2006 on the riots, Bruce said:

The Cronulla riots and the subsequent retaliatory attacks in the lead-up to Christmas last year were a wake-up call to us all. These tragic and violent events showed us all that respect and harmony is not something that can just be relied on. It is beholden on all of us, as citizens, residents and community members—as Australians—to work towards a peaceable society, a society that we all feel is ours in common.

Twenty years later, those words remain a powerful reminder of our shared responsibility to confront racism and prejudice and to build a country where everyone knows that they belong.

Bruce's compassion and generosity extended well beyond politics. His children have spoken lovingly of a father who was warm, energetic, curious and always interested in the people around him. At his funeral this week, his daughter, Julia, shared a beautiful reflection:

For him the line between stranger and friend was very thin.

To Mike, Julia and Steve and to his grandchildren, great-grandchildren and all who loved him, I extend my sincere condolences. Bruce showed us that compassion can transcend political differences and that the Public Service offers extraordinary opportunities to improve people's lives. May he rest in peace. Vale Bruce Baird.

I share my great sadness at the passing of the Hon. Bruce Baird and extend my and Amelia's and my family's deepest sympathies to Mike, Julia, Stephen, his grandchildren and great grandchild, to the entire Baird family—Liberal royalty in the great state of New South Wales. Bruce Baird was one of those politicians that you can remember. From when I was a young man in high school, I can remember Nick Greiner. I can remember his dismissal because I was kicked out of class because my teachers were celebrating. I found that very difficult at public school. I remember Bruce Baird because he was such an exceptional transport minister. There are very few politicians from your childhood that you could name or think about, on television or elsewhere. Not only was he an Olympics minister; he was the most effective transport minister of my generation growing up. That's no small thing—inherent competence in a man who really believed in the preparation required for the Public Service. He had prepared himself like no other: a deep Christian, an ideological liberal, a person who understood good policy, good politics, how to administer a government department and how to deal with people. He had real charisma, real X factor—a man to admire to be sure.

Think of the contribution that he made to Australia. There is no doubt that anybody who lived in Sydney in that era would tell you this: at that Sydney Olympics, we had never before seen that kind of spirit wash over an entire city. It washed over the entire place. Crime was non-existent. Prejudice had vanished. We celebrated a joint humanity. We celebrated a great, functional, fantastic Olympic Games. For a period of time, all quarrels were forgotten. Bruce Baird can forever be proud of that legacy, and his name will be synonymous with what was one of the greatest ever Olympic Games in world history and no doubt something that all Australians have a shared pride in.

Bruce was a strong Christian man, and his Christianity, I think, did dominate his political decision-making for the better. Liberalism has two great traditions. He was architect of and advocate for the liberal tradition. Certainly, I come from the conservative tradition. We never saw quite eye to eye on many of these policies, but I could never disrespect Bruce for having that giant intellect. He would argue and argue powerfully. I've never seen, in this place, more fear than in the policy committee in government, the Liberal backbench policy committee for immigration. The preparation that used to go into those meetings! Any immigration minister will tell you; any of their staff will tell you. To go to a meeting with Bruce Baird and his compatriots at that time and be challenged in that way was exactly how the parliament should function. He challenged the government. He challenged them with intellectual prowess, with moral principle, with a deep and abiding understanding of compassion. And it produced the best in government. By the time I arrived in the immigration portfolio, there was not a child in detention. And we can thank Bruce Baird for that. No child will, I believe, ever be detained again, even in our asylum system when parents make terrible choices or things happen or go wrong. What an achievement for a human being, to have brought through government policy to ensure that no child will ever sit in a detention centre again under government policy—real impact and real power in the federal parliament as in the state parliament.

In fact, Bruce Baird gave us that lived authentic vision of life that comes through in the Christian spirit, most notably adopted by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity when he said:

Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbour; act as if you did.

Bruce was a man who acted as if he loved his neighbour at all times, and everyone who met him would say so. He was a liberal. I was a conservative. He would make me laugh about the conservative tradition every time we had an argument. I would laugh at myself, laugh at my own tradition. He was that kind of man.

They say it is quite difficult for a son to have a great man for a father. Sometimes they fall into their shadow. Sometimes they're unable to live up to their tradition. But the greatness of Bruce Baird is borne out, in my opinion, in the bringing forward of his son Mike Baird, who was one of our state's best and strongest premiers. That is an intensely difficult thing to do with a great man as a father. But you can see the humanity in Mike. You can see the Christian tradition and the economic liberalism. While Mike brings his own particular inherent competence and conservatism to his role, his father shone through in Mike's premiership, which is still impacting New South Wales in a positive way. New South Wales's books are balanced. We have the world-class metro. We have the best infrastructure in Australia because of Mike Baird's deliberate premiership, sponsored and authored by his father, Bruce.

We thank God for Bruce and his life, and the Baird family. We thank them for their contribution to Australian liberalism—authentic, powerful intellectual giants of the Liberal Party who had a real impact in the biggest state in our country but also on the national stage. I thank them for what they have done for New South Wales and in providing our city with a vision of its best self, of how it can be its best, in the Sydney Olympics, which will never be forgotten, and, in the federal parliament, in the removal of children from detention. They were great achievements for a great man. Our condolences to all his family on the passing of this great figure.

I rise to pay tribute to Bruce Baird and offer my condolences to his family. Bruce Baird was my local member of parliament when I was growing up. Before I had any experience of elected officials, I knew him as somebody who took an interest in his community and in the people he represented. As a 19- or 20-year-old, I decided I wanted to become a Justice of the Peace, and you had to apply to your state member of parliament. It was Bruce Baird who happily nominated me to become a Justice of the Peace.

Then, in 1995, with the Labor Party looking for suitable cannon fodder to run in one of the safest Liberal seats in the land, I put my hand up for Labor Party preselection, expecting that I would be running against Bruce Baird. He stepped down as the member for Northcott, and I found myself standing against Barry O'Farrell. At the age of 22, I secured an eight per cent swing for the Labor Party, which I was confident at the time was entirely due to the fluoro posters that we nailed up onto telegraph poles and our enthusiastic campaigning. I suspect, in retrospect, though, that eight percentage points was about the size of Bruce Baird's personal vote, which shifted to us with a new Liberal candidate on the field. Bruce Baird's departure, I suspect, did far more for my electoral prospects than any number of leaflets—and Barry O'Farrell was still elected with a 24 per cent margin, which kept my achievements in perspective.

It said a lot about Bruce and his role as a state MP that people saw him beyond his party affiliation, that they trusted him as their state MP. He made big achievements in state parliament. As a New South Wales minister, he carried the responsibilities of transport and, as many others have mentioned in this debate, helped secure Sydney's bid for the 2000 Olympics. Later, as the federal member for Cook, he brought his experience to the parliament, and it is a loss to this parliament that he didn't have the opportunity to serve as a minister in this place. He continued making serious contributions to public life long after leaving elected office.

One of the things that struck you about Bruce Baird was his kindness. There was a 2007 profile of Bruce by Jeremy Halcrow, which told a story about him. Bruce had taken up the case of a young Iranian asylum seeker, a young man who'd fled after a deadly attack on his house church. Bruce pursued the case with immigration minister Philip Ruddock, who intervened to grant the man refugee status. Later, Bruce presented the young man with his Australian citizenship certificate in his Caringbah electorate office. By then, the young man was studying engineering and translating for his Farsi-speaking congregation. As Bruce related that story, he said it was 'immensely satisfying' to have helped change the course of the young man's life. His advocacy for refugees required courage, particularly in the time he served in this parliament. He was willing to disagree with his own government when he believed that people were being treated unjustly. His Christian faith placed obligations on him, including an obligation to act for people with very little power of their own. At his funeral his daughter, Julia, said:

For him the line between stranger and friend was very thin.

It's a beaut description of someone who was willing to welcome others into a better life, and it's a spirit that I see very much echoed in the work that my grandparents Roly and Jean Stebbins did in Melbourne as part of the Ivanhoe Methodist Church in welcoming refugees to Australia.

Bruce Baird's values are reflected in his children. I know Mike and Julia and have huge regard for them both. Mike made big contributions as Premier of New South Wales, bearing the pressures of leading a government but also engaging in a bit of fun, such as his social media video he did on 'reading mean tweets'. His work in business and his subsequent leadership of HammondCare have brought his abilities to a whole lot of different institutions, showing his capacity to have a big impact in government, in the not-for-profit sector and in business. The Asylum Seekers Centre has recalled that, as Premier, Mike secured access to fee-free TAFE courses and subsidised public transport for people seeking asylum. You can see there echoes of the work that Bruce Baird had done.

Julia Baird is one of Australia's most astonishing writers. Through Phosphorescence, she's helped readers consider what can sustain them through the hardest periods of their lives. She's written honestly about vulnerability, about swimming, about cancer and about paying close attention to the sources of hope around us. I also want to acknowledge Steve, whose leadership against modern slavery carries forward that same concern for human dignity. Bruce and Judy's example has found expression in the lives of each of their children.

To the Baird family I offer my deepest sympathy. The public tributes here and elsewhere speak to the vast esteem in which Bruce was held. Your loss is much more intimate and of course much greater.

I remember Bruce as the local member who encouraged someone from the other side of the political fence when I was a whippersnapper, and as a parliamentarian whose compassion helped people he might otherwise never have met. He helped to increase the regard with which people view public service. I'm grateful for the service that he gave to the community and to have had the chance to know him.

I mourn along with others the passing of an outstanding Australian, Bruce George Baird. Vale to a giant not just of Australian politics, not just of state politics, but also of business and community. Bruce Baird was somebody I had a lot to do with, given his chairmanship of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator during the time I was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. In February 2018, when I took on those roles, he welcomed my appointment, my election, and said:

I look forward to working with the incoming Minister to deliver consistency across Australia's borders, reduce red tape for heavy vehicle operators and boost road safety for all road users.

The word 'consistency' was something that was familiar in Bruce Baird's life because there was a consistency in his approach to things, whether it was sticking up for the battler, whether it was talking to or listening to a corporate boardroom or whether it was in a role as a minister himself. He mentioned during that 26 February media release from the NHVR the fact that I represented regional Australia, and as a National Party member I also acknowledge the role he played to improve the lives and outcomes for people who do not live in metropolitan Australia.

Bruce Baird, who grew up in Cronulla—who was educated at Winston College, Cronulla Public School and Sutherland Intermediate High School—lived in the city, yes, but knew the value and importance of regional Australia. I appreciate that, and I appreciated always his candid nature. He didn't leave you wondering what he was thinking, but he did it in a very dignified and respectful way, always. He was so, so knowledgeable. He was so across all of the issues, whether they were to do with heavy-vehicle licensing regulations or whether they were just about the community. I really did appreciate the forthright, frank and fair discussions that we had over time.

We know that, before his political career, he was Assistant Trade Commissioner at the Australian embassy in Bonn, West Germany. That was followed by an appointment as a trade commissioner at the Australian Consulate-General in New York and by other appointments. Before he arrived in the New South Wales parliament as the member for Northcott, he had so much community involvement. But, despite all the appointments and ministerial positions that he held—and his time as a good local member, which was followed by his time in the federal parliament between 1998 and 2007—Bruce was, first and foremost, a family man.

He will be very deeply mourned right across community life and right across the political spectrum. I know he is mourned, but he is mourned by none more so than his children. We've heard how much of a contribution his children have made. Steve became chief executive officer of International Justice Mission Australia. Julia is a columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald and a former host of the ABC News program The Drum. Mike's endeavours extended into many areas, not least of which was his being Premier of New South Wales from 2014 to 2017. He is also a former chief executive officer of HammondCare and has had involvement, of course, with cricket. Sadly, Bruce Baird's wife, Judy, passed away in 2021, and that was felt very keenly by the whole family.

Bruce Baird had a big heart. He was a man of great compassion. He was somebody who had a tremendous vision. He was a values proposition person. And, despite rising to heady heights in politics, he never forgot the little person. He never, ever forgot the battler. He never forgot that person who needed some compassion shown when it came to getting citizenship or getting refugee status. I know this extends to all of those he touched, all of those he influenced and all of those he inspired and motivated. And there are many, many of those people—especially his children.

To Bruce Baird's family, to his very wide circle of friends and to those who just knew him as that person they saw on television standing up for their values or their interests, I extend my condolences. I pass on my best wishes. Vale, a fine, fine Australian. Bruce Baird, you will be missed.

Can I associate myself with the very fine and, as always, eloquent remarks of the member for Riverina, the former deputy prime minister. It is an extraordinary thing to have seen the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Mitchell—who spoke in a very eloquent way—pay tribute to the Hon. Bruce George Baird AM, a fine parliamentarian, a humanitarian and a deeply devoted Christian.

Bruce Baird passed away suddenly at the age of 84 on 2 October, and I had the privilege of meeting Bruce a number of times over the years. When news of his passing came through, tributes flowed from across the political spectrum. Former prime minister Scott Morrison, who succeeded him as the member for Cook, called him 'a giant, a mentor and a friend'. The Prime Minister described him as 'a real gentleman and a true parliamentarian'. The Leader of the Opposition said he served his party, his state and his country with commitment and style. Former Labor minister, Craig Emerson, called him a 'truly lovely and smart bloke'. It is rare that a person can draw that kind of praise from every corner of this place. The Prime Minister said:

Tellingly, the respect and admiration for Bruce knew no political boundaries.

Bruce George Baird was born in Sydney on 28 February 1942. He grew up in the Sutherland Shire, attending Cronulla Public School and Sutherland Intermediate High School. It was a community that he would one day represent in this place, and it never left him. As his daughter, Julia, a very distinguished author and journalist, put it, he was always 'the boy from Cronulla'. Bruce Baird studied arts at the University of Sydney and later completed a Master of Business Administration at the University of Melbourne.

He then went into the world to serve his country. From 1972, he was Assistant Trade Commissioner at the Australian embassy in Bonn and, from 1977, a trade commissioner at the Consulate-General in New York. Those years spent selling Australia to the world shaped an outward-looking, forward-thinking Australian and promoted the same view of our nation. That is a view that Bruce Baird carried with him for the rest of his life. In 1984, Bruce was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly as the member for Northcott. Within two years, he was on the front bench as shadow minister for transport and finance, and, when the Greiner government was elected in 1988, he became the Minister for Transport. He also served in a number of other portfolios, including tourism and the environment, and as a minister assisting the premier and the treasurer. What we've heard in many tributes about Bruce Baird's life of public service is that it was one not just of devotion to his state and his country but of a real commitment to preparation for public service—the amount of time and energy he committed to preparation and getting across detail and the exemplary way in which he executed those ministerial responsibilities.

We've heard much in the tributes since Bruce's death of his work as the minister responsible for Sydney's bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games. We heard from the member for Mitchell, who put it so eloquently and beautifully in his tribute, about what a success the Sydney Games were and the vibrant and joyful way in which the whole of New South Wales, the whole of Sydney, came together as one community to celebrate humanity and to celebrate this great sporting event. Many Australians will remember that night when the words 'the city of Sydney' were read out in Monte Carlo, but fewer will know about the groundwork and the very hard work of Bruce Baird in leading that team to achieve that moment.

After leaving state politics in 1995, Bruce led the Tourism Council of Australia before returning to public life in 1998, as the federal member for Cook. He served the people of the shire in this place for nine years. He was never a federal minister, but he was something that I think matters even more in this place—he was a parliamentarian of conviction.

Bruce was a man of deep Christian faith, and that faith shaped his politics. He believed that how we treat the most vulnerable says something about who we are as a nation. Among the tributes, we've heard of his work around changes to the Migration Act, the excision of the Australian mainland from that act, and, most proudly, we've heard of his work along with his colleagues—my predecessor Russell Broadbent; former senator Judith Troeth; the former member for Pearce, Judi Moylan; and the late Petro Georgiou, a former member for Kooyong—about their shared willingness to stand up for what they believed in with courage and grace, and the fact that they were able to have the release of children from long-term detention is an enduring testament to their work which will remain forevermore.

Former prime minister John Howard has said that he and Bruce did not always agree, and yet Mr Howard has described Bruce as a personal friend. Mr Howard said he always argued his position with great integrity and in a manner designed to preserve and not disrupt the unity of the government. That says a great deal about both of them.

Bruce's friendships in this place crossed every line. He co-chaired a number of parliamentary friendship groups. He was particularly passionate about tourism, and, when he retired from this place in 2007, he carried on that dedication and commitment to public life through tourism, through the various tourism organisations and transport organisations he was part of, and as patron of the Asylum Seekers Centre in Sydney, his national review of international education and many more things.

As someone who served as a very junior staffer in the Howard government for my predecessor, who was then the member for McMillan, I saw firsthand the work that Bruce and his colleagues put into their advocacy efforts on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers. With so many enduring legacies, I think that may be his finest achievement. To Mike Baird, who I have the pleasure of knowing, to Julia and Steve, his children; to his late wife Judy; and to his grandchildren, his deep, deep love for his family is perhaps his most enduring life achievement. Bruce Baird: a great Australian, a great Liberal and I think the testaments to his life and legacy in this place and beyond speak volumes about the milestones he has left behind. Vale, Bruce Baird.

It's an honour to follow my friend the member for Monash in her beautiful tribute to Bruce Baird, a lion of the Liberal Party, a lion of this parliament, a tremendous human being, a wonderful state minister, a great contributor to our party and a great contributor to the state of New South Wales, to tourism, to international education and to small business and a wonderful Christian and a family man. I have the privilege of representing in the federal parliament the same suburbs that he represented when he was member for Northcott in the state parliament, the suburbs of Beecroft, Cheltenham, Epping, Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Normanhurst, Westleigh, Hornsby, Wahroonga and Waitara all now come within the Berowra electorate, and, indeed, there were people involved in my conference when I first became the member for Berowra whose time went back to Bruce's time as the member for Northcott, including Robin Timmins, the very long-serving secretary of the Berowra Liberal Party FMC and the long-serving secretary of the Pennant Hills branch of the Liberal Party, who played such an active role in Bruce's career and then in Barry O'Farrell's and in my own career as well.

I want to say something about Bruce's contribution locally as the member for Northcott that is still very strongly felt in our community, and that is his championing of the M2 Hills Motorway. Without the M2 Hills Motorway, the situation for commuters in my part of Sydney to come to town would be so much worse and so much more difficult. Bruce stood up for his residents, but he also stood up for the need for greater public transport, as the state minister for transport, and improved transport and infrastructure in our area. When Mike Baird was premier, he recalled, when he was pursuing his own infrastructure agenda, some of the death threats that Bruce Baird received for his advocacy for the M2, but it's hard to imagine Sydney—in particular, it's hard to imagine my part of Sydney—without the M2 and the speed in which it allows people to bypass large amounts of suburbs to get between the city and my electorate. It is the absolute lifeline for people in my area, and it's become a great relief for the major arterial roads within the electorate in terms of traffic congestion. It's hard to imagine what the electorate would be like today without the M2. In fact, it's hard to imagine what Sydney would be like today were it not for the M2. That is one of Bruce's many political achievements in our local community.

In a more direct and personal sense, I want to thank him for a decision that he made on 3 May 1991. On 3 May 1991, Bruce established, with Richard Lennon, the then mayor of Ku-ring-gai, as president, the Fox Valley branch of the Liberal Party. The Fox Valley branch of the Liberal Party is my branch of the Liberal Party. It was convened that night because, having had the Northcott electorate, Bruce was looking for a branch in a new part of the electorate in the Fox Valley area. There was a pretty distinguished roll-up to the first meeting. That roll-up included the branch's first treasurer, Mike Baird, and one of its members, Barry O'Farrell, who of course both later went on to become premiers of New South Wales. That branch has also produced not only me but Ross Cameron and Senator Maria Kovacic. So it has been a very important branch in the life of the Liberal Party in terms of the people it's produced. It grew to be one of the largest branches in the Liberal Party in New South Wales and certainly one of the most successful. That would never have started without Bruce's foresight and his great work.

Bruce's career as the state minister for the Olympics and the state minister for transport during the Greiner and O'Farrell governments, in my view, is the absolute high point of his career. He was so well regarded as the transport minister in New South Wales. Of course, he was the minister that secured Sydney the Olympics. Australia hadn't hosted the Olympics since 1956 in Melbourne. I feel a great degree of excitement for the people of Brisbane, for the Olympics that they will host, because we in Sydney got to see the city at its very best. In those weeks of the 2000 Olympics the city came alive. We were the focus of the world. It felt like anything was possible for our country, and we would never have had that opportunity without the wonderful work that Bruce did to bring the Sydney Olympics to Australia. For that, he will always be remembered and celebrated.

Before Bruce was a parliamentarian, he, of course, had already served the country as a trade commissioner in a range of different places, including West Germany and New York, and he'd worked as the government relations manager for Esso. Bruce was a very strong, committed Anglican and a person of deep faith. I had a memory that I can't find a reference for that at one point he taught at the Anglican school in Cranbrook that I attended, but I haven't been able to find a verification of that fact. He brought to parliament real life experience. He understood how government worked, and he also helped, through his own office, to blossom and burgeon the careers of other people, like Barry O'Farrell, who ultimately became his successor as the member for Northcott when he retired.

Soon after his retirement from state politics, he became the member for Cook and served in this place. I think, in many respects, that Bruce's time in the federal parliament would have been frustrating. Having served as one of the most successful ministers in the state Liberal government, he would have been right to have expected that he would have had the opportunity to serve here as a minister as well. Yet that wasn't to be. But, rather than being frustrated and angry, Bruce used his time here in a way that has impacted Australia for its great benefit. When I first worked in the building 25 years ago, I was the adviser to Tony Abbott when he was the minister for workplace relations and small business. We regularly quoted the Baird committee on small business deregulation and regulatory reduction. Bruce's work looking at ways to improve the operation of small business in this place was so important. Bruce's later work in international education is still as relevant today as it was when he chaired the committees in those areas.

Bruce brought his very deep commitment to his Christian faith to everything that he did. He particularly brought it to issues around dealing with asylum seekers and refugees. That very much motivated his passion for those issues, for which he became very much known. He was a regular figure around Liberal Party events in New South Wales. He was also a regular figure at arts community events. I think the last time I saw Bruce would have been at an opening of a play at the Sydney Theatre Company earlier this year that I attended. He took a great interest in the culture of our city, not just its sporting culture—and he was a very well regarded ocean swimmer—but also the artistic culture of the life of the city which he loved.

I think it's very often possible to stand in this place or to think about coming to serve in this place and think the most important contribution that we will make, the legacy we will leave, is the service that we give in this parliament. I think, on reflection, that that is not the most important legacy and contribution that we give. The most important legacy and contribution that we give is actually our children. And, when a parliamentarian has children that are successful despite the fact that they are away so much, it's partly a tribute to the spouse of the parliamentarian—to Judy, who Bruce Baird loved so much—but it's also a tribute to the way in which they conducted themselves. For somebody who served in both the federal and state parliament to produce well-adjusted children of any sort is an amazing feat. But to produce children who have gone on to succeed in their own fields and to lead in their own fields is something that's remarkable.

Mike Baird, in my view, is one of the very best premiers that we have ever produced in our party. A person with reforming zeal who was prepared to sacrifice office to achieve infrastructure reform in our state always deserves to be lauded. Bruce tried to discourage him from going into politics. He said in an interview that he gave that he spent a year trying to talk him out of it because he knew the downsides of politics and the pain it could cause him. But I'm pleased that Mike persevered nonetheless, because our state and our country would be so much poorer without the contribution Mike has made.

Julia Baird is a wonderful journalist and author—her book on Queen Victoria is one of the very best books on that subject—and a wonderful interviewer, for anyone who's been on the Drum program, and somebody who's battled rare health conditions and been very public about that in her advocacy. Indeed, all of his children have demonstrated that the faith tradition, the flame of belief that burned so bright in Bruce, burns in them.

Of course, Steve ran the International Justice Mission. Although I've not met Steve, I've had quite a bit to do with the International Justice Mission in my roles as shadow minister for education and shadow attorney-general in relation to dealing with child sexual abuse matters, which are just such a scourge.

So he produced a wonderful family. He was a wonderful servant, Bruce Baird. He was a wonderful Liberal, a wonderful local member in my community. His name deserves to be celebrated among the greats of our party. May his memory be a blessing. Vale, Bruce Baird.

Thank you, Member for Berowra, for those comments and reflections on Bruce Baird and his legacy. Vale, Bruce Baird.

Tate, Hon. and Reverend Professor Michael Carter, AO

I rise to support this condolence motion for Father Michael Tate AO, who died on 5 June this year, at the age of 80. Michael was a great Tasmanian. He was a Labor man, a senator, a minister, an ambassador and a priest. At his funeral, his friend Jeffrey McGee said his career read like four separate lives held together by one constant: 'a life of warmth and service to others'. It was one life with one thread running through it.

Michael was born in Sydney, but he was raised and educated in Hobart. He topped his law course at the University of Tasmania in 1968 and he became the dean of the law faculty. His opposition to the Vietnam War and to conscription in particular led him to the Australian Labor Party. In 1977 he was elected to the Senate as a senator for Tasmania, where he served for 15 years. As the Minister for Justice in the Hawke and Keating governments from 1987 to 1993, he left a lasting mark on this country. He played a key role in establishing the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, as the Prime Minister said, and he also started the national review of gun control laws. Both reforms reflected his deep sense of justice. In 1994, he became Australia's ambassador to the Holy See and to the Hague, and he represented us with wisdom and dignity.

I first had the privilege of meeting Michael when I had just joined the Labor Party as a young woman. I was working on campaigns and he was a federal minister. For a young person starting out in politics, it meant a great deal for me to be taken so seriously by somebody of his standing.

It was in 2000 when Michael answered a long calling and was ordained as a priest at St Mary's Cathedral in Hobart. He served as a parish priest in Sandy Bay, in the Huon Valley and in South Hobart and, for a time, as vicar general. He found his way to St James, a pilgrimage in the Huon Valley inspired by El Camino de Santiago. He was a man who walked alongside the people.

It was years later that our paths crossed again when Michael was doing work through CatholicCare on affordable and social housing in Tasmania and I was the Minister for Housing. We had a conversation whereby he got me to sign something for the Prime Minister and chat to the Prime Minister, which Michael wanted to do, but he also told me how pleased he was to see a Tasmanian in the federal cabinet with serious responsibilities. We talked about the impact that he had had and about the many ways he was serving his community. What stayed with me was that he wanted to make sure others could carry on that work. He wasn't thinking about his own legacy or what he had done, but he was thinking about who would continue his important work. That was so typical of Michael.

At the funeral, Archbishop Ireland said that Michael's generosity was not trumpeted but was experienced and that many people received help from him and never spoke of it because he never did. There are many stories in Tasmania of those families and individuals that he helped that Michael never spoke about.

Father Michael Tate was a legal scholar, a parliamentarian, a diplomat and a pastor, but he was also a loyal friend, a very generous mentor and a very proud Tasmanian. His legacy is one of integrity, faith and service to others, and Tasmania is the better for it. To his family, his friends, his parishioners and the Archdiocese of Hobart, I offer my sincere condolences. May he rest in peace.

I wish to rise to make a short contribution to the condolence motion on the life of Reverend Father Michael Tate, a former Minister for Justice in the Keating government, a proud Tasmanian, a legal scholar and somebody who I had the great privilege of getting to meet on a couple of occasions during the course of the debate on whether Australia should have a bill of rights.

The Rudd government had appointed Father Frank Brennan to lead a committee in 2009 to determine whether Australia should have a bill of rights. I have always been a trenchant opponent of Australia having a bill of rights. One of the things that Father Frank Brennan, who's a great friend of mine, did was he held a large seminar here at Parliament House, Canberra, where he got both opponents and supporters of a charter of rights or bill of rights to have discussions about their views. In that vein, he invited Michael Tate, who'd been on the public record for several years as a sceptical opponent of a charter of rights because he was concerned that, even in a more limited model, a bill of rights would move the power from the parliament to the courts. That is ultimately the main objection to bills of rights, because they are instruments that ultimately shift decision-making from parliamentarians—whether the public like us or not, they can always remove us—to courts. There is no opportunity to remove judges except by section 72, and that is such a rare thing.

Father Michael Tate brought his erudition, his scholarship, his humanity, his many years of thinking about the law and his serious study to the question of whether Australia needed a bill of rights. In various committees, he regularly made his opposition to such a bill of rights here. Michael Tate is also the subject of one of my favourite stories in Australian politics, about how he came to be ambassador to the Holy See. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition talked about his discussions with John Paul II about an early vocation delayed. How he came to be the ambassador is very interesting. When Paul Keating decided to do a reshuffle and left him out of the frontbench, he told the story that he knew he only had a moment to ask Paul Keating for something because Paul Keating would have felt guilty about having left him out, as he'd been such an important contributor. He thought, 'This is my moment; I will ask Paul for a favour.' He said, 'I would really like to be the ambassador to the Holy See,' and Paul Keating granted him his wish. In that role, he served Australia with great distinction.

Often, people's major contribution to the country is made here, where they serve as parliamentarians, but, for Michael Tate, he had a career where he shaped the Tasmanian legal profession for a generation, he shaped the Labor Party in its approach to justice here for a generation, and then he went on to serve the Catholic community of Tasmania for a generation, to influence and shape views about the church and the faithful nation of young Catholics in that state. It was a remarkable contribution, and he was a remarkable Australian. He was somebody I was pleased to meet and somebody whose advocacy against a bill of rights I was pleased to join in common cause. May his memory be a blessing.

It's with great sadness that I learned of the passing of the Hon. and Reverend Professor Michael Tate AO on 5 June 2026. On behalf of my family and community, I send condolences to all that loved Michael. The tributes and memorials that have poured in since then tell the story of his life and contribution as a former Labor senator, minister, diplomat and Catholic priest. They celebrate and honour his public service. Father Michael had an unusually varied resume, but a clear and unbroken thread ran through all of it—respect for the institutions in which he served, for the people that he represented and for the responsibilities that were entrusted to him. Elected to the Senate at 33 years of age in 1978, Michael entered parliament with values rooted in peace, justice and dignity. He opposed conscription during the Vietnam War, was proudly aligned with the reforming Second Vatican Council and was both inspired and motivated by the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr.

These convictions were not separate from politics, rather the foundation for it: the foundation which he later applied during his service as the Minister for Justice under the Hawke and Keating governments, where he pioneered the establishment of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and efforts to strengthen our approach to gun control laws. Michael's public service extended to questions of what it meant to be an Australian. Poet Les Murray later recalled that it was Senator Tate who approached him to help draft a new pledge of allegiance for Australians taking up citizenship in our great nation. These questions of belonging and reconciliation would also come to define the public life of another great leader and Catholic of that era, former governor-general Sir William Deane.

Michael Tate later went on to represent Australia overseas as ambassador to the Holy See and to the Hague before taking another turn in life by entering the priesthood. Michael was someone who showed that public life driven by deeply held principles could coexist with compassion. As Father Frank Brennan, a friend of Michael's, reflected after his passing, Michael was someone who acted according to his conscience, even when that came at a personal or political cost. In advice that Michael gave to university students, he spoke of life being like a poem and urged the students:

Don't wallow in the shadows, safe but unfulfilled.

He encouraged them instead to 'be open to discerning the poem, or, maybe, a series of poems, which you are meant to write your life'. By that measure, Michael Tate wrote some extraordinary poems over his life.

For Tasmania, Michael was a dedicated representative. For those who knew him personally, he was a remarkable mentor and source of guidance. For our country, his contribution extended far beyond politics but was always in the service of the Australian people. Vale, Michael Tate.

I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the chamber.

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:0 7