I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Biosecurity and export controls are foundational to Australia's economic prosperity and environmental protection. They safeguard our agricultural industries, preserve our pest and disease status, and uphold the integrity of our export systems. Effective regulation in these areas depends on sound policy, ensuring integrity in the people who participate in import and export systems, and the practical ability to investigate and respond to noncompliance in a timely and proportionate manner.

This bill strengthens these capabilities in the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Export Control Act 2020 in two ways: by strengthening the fit-and-proper-person framework and by modernising investigation powers available under these acts.

This bill represents the first step for my department in implementing the simplified trade system reforms. This whole-of-government reform project will modernise Australia's cross-border trade regulation and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on industry.

A key aspect of the bill is modernising and aligning the fit-and-proper-person provisions within the agricultural portfolio. Fit-and-proper-person assessments play a critical role in the effective operation of Australia's cross-border regulatory pathways, by ensuring that regulated importers and exporters meet appropriate standards of integrity, compliance and financial responsibility. This reduces the risk of misconduct or noncompliance that could expose Australia to serious threats.

These amendments support further development of the 'tell us once' approach among cross-border trade agencies, as part of the simplified trade system reforms. These reforms are intended to simplify and streamline interactions between government and industry, reducing duplication, time and effort for traders operating at Australia's border. This positive impact will flow through to the thousands of fit-and-proper-person assessments for importers and exporters that are conducted by the department each year.

It is important to mention that the fit-and-proper person assessment process itself is not fundamentally changing; what is changing is the legislative clarity and alignment that underpins that process.

Currently, there are legislative differences between the Biosecurity Actand the Export Control Actin relation to the three core criteria—criminal history, compliance history and financial history.

The bill will amend the criminal history provisions so that assessments may consider not only convictions and penalties but also serious outstanding charges. It provides clear guidance around what criminal history can be considered and over what time frame, further clarifying and strengthening the decision-making process.

In relation to compliance history, the bill will ensure consistency in respect of historical adverse administrative decisions which are considered as part of the 'fit and proper person' assessment. This will improve administrative efficiency while providing decision-makers with a clearer and more comprehensive evidentiary basis for their determinations.

The bill will better align financial history considerations with other cross-border agencies by expanding financial history to include debts other than debts owed to the Commonwealth. For natural persons, this includes whether an individual is an undischarged bankrupt, insolvent under administration or a director of a company wound up within the past two years. For companies, this includes circumstances such as receivership, administration or winding up.

The bill introduces a common and expanded definition of associates. This ensures that decision-makers can consider key relationships that may be in a position of genuine influence over an entity. These will include trustees of a trust, all partners in a partnership, and relevant office holders of a body corporate.

Privacy obligations, lawful information-sharing arrangements and appropriate governance oversight will continue to underpin the framework.

These reforms will directly benefit industry by streamlining regulatory requirements across import and export pathways. Industry participants operating across multiple regulatory frameworks will benefit from clearer, more-consistent application forms and assessment processes as well as increased clarity and transparency in regulatory requirements. These reforms will also support more-efficient 'fit and proper person' assessments through the transferability of information, improving administrative efficiency and strengthening risk based decision-making. Collectively, these measures will enhance the integrity of Australia's trade regulatory system.

Modernising investigation powers

The bill will also modernise investigation powers under the Biosecurity Act and the Export Control Act by enhancing the way the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 operates in relation to those acts. In particular, the bill will introduce targeted search and seizure powers that better reflect contemporary digital environments and align with longstanding powers available under the Crimes Act 1914.

Currently investigation warrants executed under the Regulatory Powers Act allow the department's investigators to operate electronic equipment on premises and seize evidential material that has been identified at that location. However, those powers were designed at a time when electronic storage was comparatively limited and when data was typically held on physical devices located at the premises being searched.

Modern import and export businesses operate almost entirely in digital environments. Records are held in large email repositories, cloud based systems and account based platforms. Individual devices may contain thousands of documents. In that context, the requirement for investigators to remain on the premises until each individual file is assessed against the conditions of a warrant is not only inefficient but also often impracticable.

These constraints create operational delays, increase costs for both the department and the occupiers of the premises, and risk compromising the thoroughness of investigations. As a result, the department has increasingly relied on search warrants issued under the Crimes Act, which contain broader ancillary powers to search and seize electronic material.

This has necessitated assistance from the Australian Federal Police or the relevant state or territory police, creating operational dependency on external law enforcement resources. More significantly, material seized under Crimes Act warrants is generally limited to use for criminal investigation and prosecution purposes. It cannot readily be used to support the department's broader regulatory functions, including administrative action or civil penalty proceedings. Nor can it be shared as effectively with state and territory biosecurity agencies.

For regulatory regimes such as biosecurity and export control—where enforcement responses range from education and warning letters to civil penalties and, in serious cases, criminal prosecution—this limitation is inconsistent with a proportionate, risk based compliance model. This bill addresses those issues directly.

The bill will amend the Biosecurity Act and the Export Control Act to incorporate additional search and seizure powers substantially similar to those already available under the Crimes Act. These amendments will:

These powers will be exercisable only where entry is otherwise authorised under existing legislation, including under an existing warrant framework or other statutory entry powers. They will remain subject to the same judicial oversight, statutory safeguards and conditions that apply to the current investigation powers. They do not create new categories of offences, remove judicial supervision or diminish individual rights.

Comparable approaches have been adopted in other Commonwealth legislation, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, where parliament recognised the need to adapt investigation powers to modern electronic environments. This bill follows that established precedent.

The policy rationale is clear, as evidenced by the following benefits against the associated risks:

This bill ensures that investigators can perform their functions efficiently in an environment where digital storage and remote data access are the norm. It provides clarity to regulated entities and reduces time spent on premises during warrant execution. It also strengthens the integrity of enforcement outcomes, including supporting the department's ability to respond proportionately to noncompliance, particularly where civil or administrative action is more appropriate than criminal prosecution. In doing so, it enhances the resilience and credibility of Australia's biosecurity and export regulatory framework.

The bill will also make minor and technical amendments to the Biosecurity Act and the Export Control Act to remove redundant references to powers which must not be sub-delegated, where powers have been delegated to SES employees in the agriculture department. These amendments will not affect the substantive operation of the acts but will improve the quality of legislation and keep the Commonwealth statute book accurate.

This bill will align the Biosecurity Act and the Export Control Act, strengthen and streamline the 'fit and proper person' provisions and modernise investigation powers under these acts. It will ensure that these acts continue to safeguard Australia's economic prosperity and agricultural industries.

Debate adjourned.

Competition and Consumer Amendment (AER Inquiry Powers) Bill 2026; First Reading Competition and Consumer Amendment (AER Inquiry Powers) Bill 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian Energy Regulator Inquiry Powers Bill 2026 establishes a new energy market inquiry framework for the Australian Energy Regulator, the AER. The bill reflects the intention to ensure that the AER has the tools necessary to monitor, analyse and respond to developments in energy markets that affect Australian households, businesses and the broader economy.

The market consequences of supply disruptions, infrastructure constraints, unpredictable fuel availability, international conflicts, changing global demand patterns or market conduct by individual entities can quickly flow through Australia's energy system and affect consumers.

The government must be able to respond quickly and effectively to such developments. To do so, it requires timely, reliable and independent information. This bill provides a mechanism to better support that objective.

This bill would establish a head of power to enable the AER to undertake inquiries at the direction or with the approval of the energy minister. Inquiries will enable swift responses to government reporting requirements in periods of market uncertainty, such as the Middle East conflict. This will help to ensure that Australian households are protected against electricity price shocks through periods of uncertainty. It will ensure that future energy policy is evidence based, proportionate and targeted and that any market interventions prioritise affordable energy for households and businesses while minimising unintended consequences for energy security and market function.

It will also improve overall the quality of energy monitoring and transparency beyond times of crisis. This inquiry function will enable the AER to investigate a wide range of energy market concerns and immediately respond to government direction where further oversight of market impacts is needed. These may include matters relating to competition, pricing, market conduct, supply chain issues, market efficiency, reliability, security and related services markets. This inquiry function would empower the AER to investigate unforeseen issues and monitor developments where there is a risk of adverse market or consumer outcomes.

The remit of the AER inquiries will be in relation to the supply of energy related goods or energy related services. This includes electricity, gas and fuels, and other goods required for the supply of electricity and gas. This definition is intentionally broad to provide flexibility for the energy minister to respond to future energy market concerns and adapt to an evolving energy landscape.

The bill expressly provides that the new inquiry framework does not limit the operation of part VIIA of the act. Part VIIA sets out the role and powers of the ACCC and other inquiry bodies in relation to undertaking price inquiries. This ensures that the existing inquiry and price surveillance functions available under that part continue to operate according to their existing terms. The bill therefore adds to the tools available under the act rather than replacing or restricting existing powers.

To initiate an inquiry, the energy minister would direct the AER with an energy market inquiry notice; which will define the scope and timing of the inquiry. This notice will include any directions from the minister to hold collected information publicly, or in private, or any other direction that the minister deems necessary. Alternatively, the energy minister may approve requests for the AER to conduct inquiries on their own initiative by written notice.

A key feature of the framework is that it builds upon existing legislative arrangements. Rather than establishing a new compulsory information-gathering regime, the bill allows the AER to utilise its existing information-gathering powers under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This approach avoids duplication, promotes consistency and ensures that existing safeguards continue to apply.

All inquiries would have reporting requirements, with the AER to report to the energy minister at the conclusion of the inquiry or over a time period or frequency of the minister's choosing. These reports are expected to be publicly available, although the energy minister has discretion to not publish reports.

The bill also supports effective regulatory coordination. Energy market participants are often required to provide information to multiple government agencies and regulators. The government is committed to reducing unnecessary duplication and regulatory burden wherever possible. Accordingly, the bill establishes a limited information-sharing framework.

The bill will strengthen the government's ability to understand developments affecting Australian energy markets. It will support timely analysis of emerging risks and opportunities. It will improve regulatory coordination. And it will ensure that governments are better equipped to make informed decisions in the interests of Australian households, businesses and energy consumers.

Debate adjourned.

Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Second Reading Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2026 introduces important reforms to strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of Australia's health system.

Australia has a world-class health system that offers affordable, high-quality, accessible health care to all Australians. This is due in large part to the various health benefit schemes—including Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—that help Australians pay for the health care they need.

The reforms in this bill build on the government's broader response to the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance (the Philip review) which identified that some aspects of the current legislative framework can limit the timely and effective responses to noncompliance and fraud.

Regulatory powers

The review identified a gap between voluntary compliance options, such as asking someone to provide information about payments, and more serious regulatory responses. This means regulators do not always have a practical middle option when Medicare rules may not have been followed.

Schedule 1 of this bill introduces new regulatory powers to allow decision-makers to respond to matters in a way that is more practical and proportionate.

For example, infringement notices will give regulators an option to respond to low- to mid-level compliance concerns where Medicare rules have not been followed. Enforceable undertakings will enable a person or company to agree to address a problem and meet certain conditions to prevent further noncompliance.

This bill applies parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014(Regulatory Powers Act). Those parts provide standardised frameworks for civil penalties, infringement notices and enforceable undertakings.

These changes will ensure the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing can respond proportionately and will support the earlier resolution of matters to protect the integrity of Medicare without resorting to more serious regulatory options.

Reforms of offences and civil penalties

Some existing offences and penalties are limiting the ability of the department to appropriately respond to some Medicare and PBS concerns. For example, the department currently have limited practical options to respond when someone fails to keep records relevant to Medicare and PBS services.

Separately, some existing penalties do not allow regulatory responses that differentiate between less serious concerns and more deliberate behaviour, and some provisions have not responded to changes in technology.

Schedule 2 of this bill introduces a graduated system of offences that will enable lower-level conduct of concern to be subject to lower penalties than more serious and deliberate conduct. This will increase flexibility and allow more timely and proportionate responses.

The bill will improve the information-gathering powers of Pharmaceutical Services Committees of Inquiry so they can more effectively undertake their role in investigating concerns about the conduct of approved pharmacists in supplying PBS medicines.

Other updates to the National Health Act will improve processes for PBS Safety Net cards and enable the approval of forms relating to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits.

Other changes will update offences so they work better with current technology, including electronic claiming systems, and extend the timeframes for prosecution so serious fraud matters do not have to be detected and investigated within three years.

Updates will ensure that offence provisions are clearer and more consistent with equivalent Commonwealth offences and aligned with the guide to framing Commonwealth offences and the Crimes Act 1914 (Crimes Act).

These reforms will provide the department with more practical ways to deal with Medicare and PBS concerns to better protect the integrity of Australia's publicly funded health programs.

Administrative inquiries and recovery of overpayments

Existing inquiry powers relating to the PBS are making it difficult for the department to consider concerns early and make the most appropriate regulatory decisions.

Current recovery powers only apply in some situations, which can make it difficult to recover PBS payments even if they did not meet framework requirements. These challenges are limiting the ability of the department to protect PBS health payments and benefits.

Changes in schedule 3 in this bill will address these limitations by ensuring decision-makers can access the information they need to make informed compliance decisions and take appropriate action when concerns are identified.

This will enable PBS payments to be recovered if they did not meet requirements. For example, a PBS payment could be recovered if a medicine was supplied without meeting relevant requirements under the National Health Act.

Payments that do not meet requirements risk the financial sustainability of the PBS, which is a critical component of Australia's health system.

This bill will strengthen the department's ability to protect PBS payments and make sure decision-makers can get the information they need to make better regulatory decisions.

Professional Services Review

Schedule 4 of this bill also introduces targeted reforms to improve the operation of the Professional Services Review.

The Professional Services Review plays a critical role in protecting patients, the community and the Commonwealth from the risks and costs of inappropriate practice.

However, aspects of the current legislative framework can give rise to inefficiencies, delays and unintended consequences that impact the effectiveness of the scheme.

This bill addresses those issues.

Changes in the bill will allow the Professional Services Review director or committee chair to apply directly to the Federal Court for civil penalty orders.

The bill will also address unintended consequences from a provision that results in Medicare benefits not being payable to any practitioners who are employed or otherwise engaged by a person under review, ensuring that the provision only applies to the person who is under review.

Furthermore, the bill will introduce some practical improvements to enhance the efficiency and operation of the PSR scheme.

This includes clarifying when a hearing is considered to have commenced, ensuring continuity of proceedings, allowing for corrections for referrals, expanding grounds for a challenge of a committee member in appropriate circumstances and enabling a more realistic timeframe for the completion of committee reports.

Together, these reforms will support a more efficient, proportionate and effective Professional Services Review process—one that better protects patients and the community while reducing unnecessary administrative burden.

Medicare Participation Reviews

The independent review of Medicare said current regulatory processes need to work better.

The Medicare participation review process was introduced in 1985 and no longer fits well with current regulatory approaches.

The role of Medicare participation reviews has largely been overtaken by other regulatory mechanisms, including the Professional Services Review and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

Schedule 5 of the bill will replace the Medicare Participation Review Committee process with powers that will allow action to be taken where a practitioner or entity is charged or convicted of a health related offence and in relation to breaches of pathology undertakings.

For example, a person could be suspended from participating in Medicare if they were charged with a fraud related offence involving a Medicare or dental service.

These changes will ensure the department can take appropriate action to protect Medicare if a practitioner is charged with a health related offence and address existing administrative burdens to ensure compliance activities remain appropriate and relevant to protecting the Medicare program.

The reforms do not affect the obligation of decision-makers to afford procedural fairness, including by providing practitioners and other affected persons with an appropriate opportunity to respond to relevant information and to consider the individual facts and circumstances of each matter. Applicable review requirements will also continue to apply.

The measures in this bill will continue to ensure robust processes and mechanisms are in place to identify and respond to noncompliance and fraud so that Commonwealth resources are directed to necessary health services and Medicare remains sustainable.

These measures will also continue the government's commitment to respond to recommendations from the review.

The government is committed to protecting and strengthening Medicare and the PBS, and this includes strengthening the integrity of Medicare and the PBS.

By supporting the integrity of Medicare and the PBS, this bill will ultimately benefit all Australians.

Debate adjourned.

Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026; Second Reading Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026

The coalition will support the passage of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026 in the House and seek referral to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence for a short inquiry. At the outset, the bill looks fine, but it was quite a rush to get it to the parliament and to the opposition. We understand that this bill has been in the works for some time, but to get a very late high-level briefing over the weekend and then to have to be here now is one of the quickest turnarounds for a bill that I've been involved in. It is only right that it goes to the new defence committee so it can be interrogated through the departments and allow stakeholders to give feedback by coming in and talking to the committee about their concerns, being mindful that also has another quick turnaround time, which is unusual.

The most important responsibility for any government is to keep Australians safe. That includes the men and women we ask to defend this country. We ask them to train hard, spend time away from their families and prepare to put themselves in danger for our nation. They should be able to trust that their government will give them the equipment they need to protect themselves and the bases where they serve. As a former soldier, that matters to me. As the member for Herbert representing the people of Townsville, the largest garrison city in the country, this matters to me. As the shadow minister for defence industry and the shadow minister for defence personnel, it is a responsibility I take seriously, because the decisions we make here affect the people wearing uniform. If equipment is delayed, they are the ones left waiting. If bases cannot deal with the security threat, they are the ones at risk. They deserve laws that help them do their job and a parliament willing to make changes that they need. That is how I approach the Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026. This bill aims to do important work. We need to make it easier to develop defence equipment and technology here in Australia. We need to give the people protecting our bases clear legal powers to do their job. I welcome these changes. Defence needs laws that keep up with the threats and technology our people face today. Our job now is to make sure these changes help the people who serve.

This bill has six schedules or parts. The first deals with developing and testing defence equipment and technology. It aims to remove legal barriers that can hold up work needed to develop, test and maintain that equipment. Australian businesses should have a fair chance to do that work. The document explaining the bill says that red tape can make it more practical to test equipment overseas. This is an opportunity to do it here and to do it better. We want to build more of what Defence needs in Australia. We want Australian jobs and Australian skills. Making it easier to develop and test equipment here gives our businesses a better chance to help defend our country.

Schedule 1 would allow the defence minister to make what are called capability declarations. This would set out the work that can be done, who can do it and which laws are affected. A declaration could allow that work to go ahead without breaching certain state or territory laws. It could also change how certain Commonwealth laws apply, but only where those laws allow it. This could make it easier for Defence to carry out work across different states and territories, with clear rules about what is allowed and who is responsible. For businesses, the process needs to be easy to understand and use. They need to know how to apply, who to speak to and what rules they must follow. Getting this right will help Australian businesses plan their work and get equipment to our serving personnel sooner. There are limits. A declaration cannot allow force against people in Australia, sexual offences or the carrying out of police duties. Certain electronic activities need extra protections and declarations that last no more than six months. These rules would give Defence more room to get important work done while keeping protections in place.

Schedule 2 deals with defence security zones. These are places where special rules apply to protect defence people, equipment and information. These zones can cover more than military bases; they can also cover relevant industry sites and other places where Defence work takes place. This bill allows temporary zones, zones that move with defence assets and zones set up in an emergency. Defence work happens in many places. It makes sense for the law to protect that work wherever it needs to happen. Officials given these powers could check identity, carry out searches, refuse entry, remove or detain people and seize items. They would have to follow the rules set out in the law. Those rules, along with proper training, will help officials do their jobs and give the public confidence that the powers are being used properly.

This schedule also gives officials powers to deal with drones and other machines that operate without anyone on board. The people protecting our bases need to be able to spot the threat, judge the risk and act in time to keep people safe. They need clear legal powers, equipment that works and training in how to use it. The bill would allow officials to interfere with a drone's navigation or signal, take control of it, seize it, stop it from working or destroy it. It also covers machines without anyone on board that operate on land, on the water or underwater. That makes sense. It gives Defence laws that can keep up as technology changes. There are safety rules. Any action must be responsible and reasonably necessary. It must not put aircraft carrying people in danger at airfields regularly used by civilian aircraft. Action to stop a drone must follow procedures that CASA, the aviation safety regulator, has been consulted on. Those rules matter, especially where civilian military aircraft use the same airfield. Protecting a Defence site also means protecting the people around it.

The next step is a clear plan to put these powers to work. That means deciding which places need protection and what protection they need. It means having the right equipment and making sure people are trained to use it. It also means making sure the people on duty know who can give the order to act. Defence, police and aviation authorities will all need to work together. Getting this right could give the people protecting our bases more confidence to act when it matters.

Schedule 3 gives the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force a bigger role in checking how these powers are used. It also requires reporting to the parliament. These checks help the people using the powers and give Australians confidence that they are being used properly. The inspector-general would check how the new rules are working, whether the people are following them and whether their actions are proper. If sensitive information is removed from the annual report presented to parliament, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence must receive the full version. I welcome those checks and balances. Making sure the inspector-general can do this work will help ensure the new rules work as this parliament intended.

Schedule 4 makes changes to the Defence Act and related laws so they work with the new powers. It updates definitions and references. It also brings together rules for civil penalties, infringement notices and court orders to stop breaches. Its purpose is to make sure the new rules fit with the rest of the law. Schedule 5 renumbers the parts of the Defence Act and updates references in other Commonwealth laws. This makes the act easier to follow. Schedule 6 makes a small related correction to a reference in the proposed Aviation Consumer Protection Act 2026. It only takes effect if the relevant aviation provision starts. These final schedules help the rest of the changes work properly.

The document explaining the bill says Defence is expected to put these changes in place using existing resources. The focus must be on making this work for the people and the businesses who rely on the new rules. Defence needs to make sure its people have the right equipment and training and the new powers are used properly. It should explain how it will do this with its current staff and budget so the parliament can track its progress. We want to see more defence work done on drone safety here in Australia. We want the people protecting our bases to understand their powers and have protections they need. Those changes could make a real difference for our serving personnel.

Throughout this work, Defence should keep listening to the people on the ground. Listen to the soldiers, the sailors and the aviators who use the equipment. Listen to the people who maintain it. Listen to the businesses trying to build and deliver it. Their experience can help make these changes work from the start and show where more needs to be done. I want Australian businesses to have a clear path to building the equipment and technology Defence needs here at home. I want the people guarding our bases to have the legal powers and equipment they need to protect them. Above all, I want the men and women of the ADF to know that their safety is being taken seriously. This bill gives us a chance to improve the protection and to support the Australian businesses behind our Defence Force. I welcome these changes.

Throughout this bill process, there are things that we need to highlight. I'm sure in the public hearing on Friday that it will be highlighted. That's around different ways that information is gathered by Defence and the technology that will be implemented and how long information is kept, where it's stored and who can access it. There are parts in the bill that say that the minister has to be confident that information that is being gathered has been gathered in accordance with the act but also not gathered for intelligence gathering, not gathered for any other agencies, and for information that is collected to be a part of a capability test and then therefore will be deleted. It did raise concerns when I read it, because this bill has been pushed through quite quickly. It's more than 240 pages. It's quite large. There's a big explanatory memorandum. There are all these moving parts, and the defence committee got it late. When this kind of process moves quickly, it makes me wonder why.

I know that one part of the bill is talking about drone defence; that's very important. We've seen reports that have been over RAAF Base Williamtown and other military bases where we've seen incursions of drones swarming. We haven't heard much come out from the government about where they've come from, who's been operating it or whether any sensitive data has been breached. We've got our fast jets there. We don't know if they've been filmed. We don't know if our defence personnel have had their faces filmed and then been followed back to their homes. We don't know who operated these drones. I think for transparency we should.

This bill will allow a fast move to get drone defence on bases. The Australian Federal Police have the ability to do drone defence, but in places like Townsville we don't have a large presence of Australian Federal Police, but we have the largest garrison city in the country, so allowing Defence Force members to be trained to use counterdrone technology is a good thing. When you think of counterdrone technology, it's not just shotguns. We're talking about other ways that you can remove a drone from the air, whether it's through laser, whether it's through pressure or whether it's through cyber, where they can hack in and then put the drone on the ground. And then you think, 'Where does the drone go?' It drops to the ground, so you've got to do it in a way that isn't over people's homes and isn't over important equipment. What rules are in place for when you're using these technologies? If you're using rifles or a shotgun, there's a thing called a trace. Where does the projectile land if you missed? All these things come into play.

Our Australian Defence Force men and women know how to do this. They are well trained, very smart and well equipped. But we need the frameworks in place to make sure that it is legislatively tight and good but also gives them the ability to act in the way that they need. Those kinds of questions have been on my mind, and many others have reached out to me around the country going, 'What happens if a drone comes overhead? What happens if there's a swarm of 30 plus? Where's the origin? Where did they come from? How do you take them out of the sky?'

These are emerging technologies that Australia is developing and that other nations are developing. You need to be one step ahead of the game all the time because, as we develop it, the bad actors develop another way. As many people would know, certain drones that you will buy from your local store will have exclusion flight zones where they can't actually fly over certain areas—military bases, airports and the like. The ones that are doing it, the ones that are going over the fence, the ones that are going into our military bases—that means that they are either have no chip in them or they potentially could be bad actors.

When a drone goes over a RAAF base, whether it's at Williamtown, whether it's in Darwin or Townsville—Townsville is a dual airport. The Royal Australian Air Force manage it. They run it, but it is also a civilian airport, and they work really well together, but, when a drone goes overhead there, the potential of risk and the potential to ground flights become quite high, and then you have to stop the drone from being overhead and all these other complexities that come with it. It is quite substantial, so it is very important that our technology can pick up early detection of drones where they take off, their point of origin and land them, whatever mechanism they use, and that we put them down in a place that's safe, not on someone's house, not on the runway. Put them down where they need to.

If you look at what's happening around the world—look at Ukraine, for example—those drones have bang on them. They've got explosive ordnance on them, so, if you shoot down a drone with explosive ordnance, it blows up where it lands. I'm not suggesting that any of the drone incursions that have happened in Australia have any bang on them, but what I'm saying is you have to act like they would. We can't be complacent here, and we must also protect bases like we would if we were on operations. If you've seen what's happened in the war in Ukraine, they can daisy chain 30, 40 or 50 drones all at once. They can also do unmanned drones that are on the ground. They can daisy chain them. This becomes a significant threat. It's changed the way that we do war and changed the way that we've done battle now and how we see that we could be fighting in a war. Drones are the threat. Cyber is a threat.

How do you counter it? You make sure that we have the best legislation, the best laws and the best ability to do that. I'm hoping that this bill goes that way. We will be making sure and monitoring this bill and how it progresses into from legislation into law and how we work closely with our state and territory law enforcement and how data is collected and how we're making sure that drone incursions are not happening. I would expect, even though it's been rushed, that the relevant minister at the time, the defence minister, reports on when drone incursions happen over bases. Be transparent with the Australian people. Be transparent with the brave men and women who serve this nation, because it wasn't that long ago when you opened up the paper and it said in there that the tactic to stop the drone collecting sensitive information and sensitive data was to close the blinds. Closing the blinds isn't a protection of the base, its people or the equipment there. It's a massive problem that that we've seen.

This bill that we support and which we'll have a very quick inquiry so it can go to the Senate when they sit next and go through there—we want to make sure that the advice given from the base commander isn't to close the blinds and the advice from Defence to its personnel isn't 'pretend it's not happening' and 'pretend it's not there'. I can tell you how the story broke. They went all the way up to chain, all the way through to the highest, the CDF. All the service chiefs knew about it. It got written to the minister, and nothing happened, so they came to me, and they read me in on what happened. There was a whistleblower, a young serving aviator, and I got CC'd in all the correspondence and showed everything, and I was horrified. I was horrified because no action was taken. I was horrified because the minister and the defence department went, 'Oh, well, it's a police issue.' It's not a police issue. This is a national security threat. With this bill, going forward, I'm hoping we don't get into that position again. We're not talking about a couple of drones here. We're talking thousands of drone incursions around this country that the Australian public didn't know about. We wonder why people don't trust politicians.

Moving forward, it's the coalition's commitment that we will work collaboratively with the government on good policy. We will hold them to account on policy that we don't believe is in the best interests of the nation, but we will not stand in the way of policy that protects our brave men and women and their families. There are many schedules to this bill. It is quite large. I think it's clear that this is a part of a much bigger bill that they've pulled something out of. It's been worked on, I believe, for some time. I do hope, going into the Christmas period and into the start of next year, that this can be up and running and new technologies can be developed and developing. I'd rather get something out there quick and work on it out there than try and make it perfect here, and I'd rather that, if it doesn't work, it fails fast, because, if you fail fast, you can rebuild and keep going.

National security shouldn't have a price tag on it. There shouldn't be a price tag on our brave men and women because we need to keep them safe, keep them in the fight and make sure that they have the best equipment that protects them. They expect their government to act collaboratively, to work together, to debate properly and, most importantly, to remember that they are the reason that we're in here talking about this bill. They're the ones that we're putting first. I just think that, in the very challenging and dynamic and strategic place that we're in now, we need to ensure that we here in this parliament are putting our best foot forward for our service personnel.

Debate adjourned.

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026; Second Reading Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026

It gives me great pleasure and is a great honour to talk on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026. At the outset, I would like to say that we support these bills. These bills, I believe, were referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, where they did their job, which is to deep-dive and get briefs that are classified—the secret briefs, compartmental briefs—where they have interrogated these bills. The coalition can comfortably say that we support this.

These bills are intended to modernise the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and better define its role. I think that it's very important, when you're talking about better defining roles, to ensure that not just the people that serve there but people that also want to understand more about what the role is are able to look in and see and understand. I think that's a good move.

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission was created by the Turnbull government in 2016 to bring together criminal intelligence, policing data and technology into a single national body. I remember at the time, although I wasn't in parliament then, great contributions from not just the government members at the time but also the opposition. Making sure that we have the Criminal Intelligence Commission is a good thing. It's a smart way of bringing people together from different parts of sectors or professions and having the data and technology in a single body. I believe it streamlines their actions but also makes sure that that they can do their job more effectively. The goal was simple but important: give law enforcement a clearer national picture of serious and organised crime and improve operational responsiveness. This is good. I think having that whole national picture is the cornerstone when you're making legislation and when you're creating a body like the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. It was not just guided by politicians who think they're doing a good job. It was guided by the experts, having the experts in law enforcement and intelligence agencies sitting around the table and talking about why setting up this commission and targeting organised crime and targeting those that do harm to the to people in our country was important and how having a dedicated body or commission for it made sense.

The coalition recognises the importance of a strong and effective national criminal intelligence capability. There are many different agencies that have many different intelligence roles. From my time on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I learned more about what our intelligence framework is but also the importance of it. They all do different things, but they all link in together. To be able to have a commission that brings people in and brings all that in to get a really good picture of the national threat and to target those organised criminals is a good thing. We remain cognisant of and committed to the principles of making such an organisation as successful and effective as it can cohesively be. I think that that's really important.

The coalition want to do two things. We want to work constructively with the government on good legislation. We want to make sure that we're holding the government to account. But, when it matters, when it's keeping Australians safe, when it's making sure that our agencies or commissions have the ability to do their jobs or when there are changes that need to be made, the coalition is laser focused on ensuring that occurs. National security is a big cornerstone for the coalition, as it is for every government and every political party, I'm sure. The reason we like to put things to committees like the intelligence committee or, like with the previous bill that I read out, the defence committee is that, as is my belief, politicians aren't experts on anything. We're not. No good ideas come from politicians. They come from the experts. Our job is to create the healthy framework. Our job is to put the legislation, the rules and the laws in place so they can do their jobs. So holding hearings, interrogating bills and having the experts come in and guide us is extremely important and something that the coalition holds very close to its heart.

At first glance, many of the proposed changes in these bills appear reasonable and reflect findings from the 2023 Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission review and a 2024 independent intelligence review. Once again, the reviews coming in from the experts guide us to make sure that we are making policies, legislation and changes that reflect what they need. There are also various questions about how these reforms will work in practice. For that reason, the coalition supported them going to an inquiry. Once again, when we have legislation that is complex, is large and takes a lot of time to go through and dissect, sending bills to a committee, and a high-level committee—the intelligence committee, just like the newly established defence committee, runs under secret provisions, so what we're told in those meetings doesn't come out and what we're told by people stays there. That's good, because it helps guide these tough questions and the briefings they get. Because we put it to the intelligence committee, our representatives there were satisfied, from what they were able to hear and interrogate, that the coalition should support this bill.

This bill does a few things. The government says that the bill will reinforce the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's work on collecting, analysing and sharing intelligence. It is always good to work with our partners in the intelligence world and share and work collaboratively, because if we're not sharing intelligence we see mistakes happen. We've seen in other countries where the left hand doesn't talk to the right hand, and we do not want to see that here in this nation. That's why having this commission and having the ability, with the minister making these changes, is something we support.

To providing national crime insights, running criminal history checks and intelligence assessments: you might think these are things that the commission have always done—which they have. We're just giving them a better ability to do this. We're preserving cohesive powers but under a new approval and oversight framework, providing an updated legal footing for covert intelligence operations and search warrants for intelligence purposes. This is another good step in the right direction. We're maintaining the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's role in national policing information systems, introducing new secrecy, disclosure and accountability frameworks and authorising fees for national policing information services.

To the issues and concerns that the coalition has: the coalition supports strong and effective action against serious and organised crime. However, these reforms must get the balance right between intelligence disruption and coordination, and that is exactly what has been examined through the committee. In that context, there were several issues and questions that we originally thought deserved scrutiny. There were five in particular that were important for us. Firstly, loss of disruption capability. The bill removes the role of the commission in the operational disruption of criminal networks. This reverses the approach that the former coalition government had. We strengthened the disruption powers, especially through the identity and disruption initiatives of 2021. The government's position potentially shifts disruption responsibilities to the AFP; I don't have a problem with other agencies doing that work, but that was something we wanted to interrogate. We were concerned whether the AFP had the capacity, resourcing and funding to absorb this role without impacting other priorities. We have to remember that the Australian Federal Police are very busy; all our agencies are. We don't want to impact their ability to continue to do their role without either a significant funding increase or pretty much bringing them in and saying, 'What do you need to be able to do this?'

There was a major policy shift on how crime is disrupted. The former coalition government supported intelligence agencies playing an active role in this disruption of serious organised crime. The government's approach appears to separate intelligence from disruption. There was a question for us as to whether this would create gaps between intelligence collection and operational action. It is true that a more intelligence focused commission may generate more intelligence, but it needs to be clear on the process and mechanisms that will be established to ensure that this intelligence is used effectively in operation. Gathering intelligence is good, but how do we then ensure that that intelligence that is gathered is actioned, and in a timely manner, so that we are disrupting organised crime and other criminal networks in this country? This led to other important questions about how intelligence will be prioritised, as well as how it will be shared and acted upon across agencies. Talking about the sharing of information, which I think we addressed at the start, we want to make sure that that things happen quite quickly so that we're not seeing intelligence gathered and then intelligence being obsolete because of the time period between gathering and action.

These bills abolish the commission's board, which currently brings together police and intelligence leaders, and set priorities and authorise action. If the bills pass, this will be transferred to ministerial authorisation instead. The kinds of things that our intelligence committee would have deep-dived into—looking at that part, if I was reading the bills for the first time, that would have been one of the red flags that I would have seen: taking the experts from the board away and using ministerial intervention to determine what happens next. Ministers aren't experts in this area—it doesn't matter what colour shirt you wear. This may reduce the role of certain agencies and potentially weaken decision-making. The board currently provides a national coordination mechanism across jurisdictions, so it potentially also raises questions about how Commonwealth, state and territory governments will practically identify and pursue national priorities, because we're talking about a national body here.

On funding and capability risks, the government has made a claim that there will be minimal financial impact as a result of the introduction of these bills, but there is limited detail around this. That is a bit concerning, when there clearly should be. We should know how these changes are going to work. Do we need different funding to the commission? Not talking about funding doesn't mean it's not there. As a part of this, there is also a need for more clarity and more detail about how many more or less commission staff the government is proposed to fund and from where the new specialist intelligence analysts will be recruited. How's it going to work? These are questions that I think that most people would reasonably have.

In summary, after many months of scrutiny through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, some of those questions that that we just heard have been resolved. Some—not all. But we, as the coalition, are comfortable in supporting the bills. The content of these bills is significant and complex. The bills reshape the role of the commission. They balance intelligence and disruption and national coordination mechanisms. The coalition's position is that we'll always recognise and support the importance of strong and effective national criminal intelligence capability. In the future, we will also work constructively to identify improvements where they are needed.

In a time of great uncertainty around the world, in a time where we've seen our nation change, having agencies working collaboratively with the correct amount of funding will ensure that they are getting the best intelligence that they need to do their job, to disrupt criminal networks and activities around the country and to provide strong and fearless feedback to the minister and to the government so, if changes need to be made, they can bring forward legislation. The coalition will work always constructively with the government on national security and intelligence. When it is complex, it is appropriate for it to be sent to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That committee is set up for complex policy, complex legislation, that this parliament is looking at, so I do think that it is an appropriate form of action. Like I said at the start, the coalition's position is that we will be supporting these bills.

Debate adjourned.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026; Second Reading Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Lindsay has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Mackellar has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to. In accordance with the resolution agreed on 27 October 2026, I will put the question immediately.

Question negatived.

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

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Colin Boyce Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Darren Chester Pat Conaghan David Farley Garth Hamilton 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 Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young Basem Abdo Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Nicolette Boele Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon 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 Dai Le Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost 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 Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Allegra Spender Anne Stanley Zali Steggall Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Andrew Wilkie Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Basem Abdo Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Nicolette Boele Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon 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 Gee 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 Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost 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 Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Allegra Spender Anne Stanley Zali Steggall Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Andrew Wilkie Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Colin Boyce Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Darren Chester Pat Conaghan David Farley Garth Hamilton 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 Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the House will now consider the bill in detail as a whole.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.

The question now is that the government amendments as circulated be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 7), omit "and being", substitute "or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 14), omit "and", substitute "or".

(3) Schedule 1, item 90, page 28 (lines 5 to 10), omit subsection 140(5), substitute:

Effect of industry codes

(5) The validity of an industry code registered under this Division before the commencement of this subsection is not affected, and is taken never to have been affected, by a failure of the body or association concerned to:

(a) publish a draft of the code or invite submissions about the draft as mentioned in paragraph (1)(e) or (f); or

(b) specify a period of at least 30 days for making submissions about a draft of the code in accordance with subsection (3).

(4) Schedule 1, item 91, page 28 (lines 13 to 18), omit subsection 145(4), substitute:

Effect of industry standards

(4) The validity of an industry standard registered under this Division before the commencement of this subsection is not affected, and is taken never to have been affected, by a failure to comply with section 148 (public consultation on industry standards).

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 39 (lines 21 and 22), omit subsection 25D(2), substitute:

(2) Seriously harmful material or conduct does not include:

(a) excluded material; or

(b) class 2 material.

(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 40 (lines 10 to 22), omit paragraph 25F(1)(c), substitute:

(c) material as follows that is produced for the sole or dominant purpose of entertaining individuals:

(i) audiovisual content made available by an on-demand program service;

(ii) material contained in a film or computer game that has been classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 other than class 1 material or class 2 material;

(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 40 (after line 34), at the end of subsection 25F(1), add:

Note: Certain films classified under other Acts are taken to be classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995: see section 6HA of that Act.

(8) Schedule 2, item 8, page 41 (lines 6 to 15), omit the definitions of broadcasting video on demand service, commercial radio broadcasting service, commercial television broadcasting service, national radio broadcasting service and national television broadcasting service in subsection 25F(3).

(9) Schedule 2, item 8, page 45 (line 4), omit "paragraph (e)", substitute "paragraph (1)(e)".

(10) Schedule 2, item 8, page 47 (line 11), after "Commissioner", insert "under subsection (4)".

(11) Schedule 2, item 8, page 47 (line 21), after "Commissioner", insert "under subsection (4)".

(12) Schedule 2, item 8, page 48 (line 4), omit "the tool", substitute "user empowerment tools".

(13) Schedule 2, item 8, page 48 (line 28), after "conduct", insert ", make available and retain".

(14) Schedule 2, item 8, page 51 (line 27), after "Commissioner", insert "under subsection (3)".

(15) Schedule 2, item 38, page 68 (line 5), omit "specified".

I thank all those in this chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. The government is introducing minor technical amendments to the bill, including redefining the definition of exempt content subject to the classification scheme; solidifying the effect of the existing industry codes and standards until the new legislation commences so eSafety can continue their existing investigations; clarifying the definition of a nudify app; and minor language changes, to improve consistency throughout the bill.

Debate about a digital duty of care comes down to a simple question: do you really think that big tech is on the side of worried Australian parents and vulnerable Australian children, or are they on the side of their shareholders? And we, as elected members of this place—whose side are we on? Australia's digital duty of care will set basic safety standards for the digital services we use every day, just like we have for food, cars and kids' toys. The duty will change the foundation of Australia's online safety laws and put the onus on digital platforms to put systems in place to prevent online harm before it occurs. Calling a bill 'unsalvageable' is not a policy position; it's simply throwing in the towel and refusing to do the work. Voting against the digital duty of care is a vote for endorsing the status quo.

The question before the House is that government amendments (1) to (15) as circulated be agreed to.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Basem Abdo Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Nicolette Boele Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon 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 Gee 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 Dai Le Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost 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 Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Allegra Spender Anne Stanley Zali Steggall Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Andrew Wilkie Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Colin Boyce Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Pat Conaghan Garth Hamilton Alex George Hawke Kevin Hogan Bob Carl Katter Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Julian Leeser David Littleproud Michael McCormack Melissa McIntosh Zoe McKenzie Ted O'Brien Llew O'Brien Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young

The question now is that the amendments circulated by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Member for Mackellar's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 2, item 8, page 51 (after line 27), after subsection 27G(1), insert:

(1A) The Online Services Ombudsman Scheme established under subsection 27GA(1) is not a complaint and dispute process for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section.

Note: This means that a person responsible for a prescribed online service cannot satisfy the requirement in subsection (1) of this section by being a member of the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme.

(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (after line 12), after section 27G, insert:

27GA Online Services Ombudsman Scheme

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument (the scheme instrument), and in accordance with this section:

(a) establish a scheme to be known as the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme; and

(b) provide for the operation of the scheme.

(2) The scheme instrument must specify a start date for the scheme.

Online Services Ombudsman

(3) The Online Services Ombudsman is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards Act) 1999); or

(b) the person (if any) prescribed by the scheme instrument to be the Online Services Ombudsman.

Function of scheme

(4) The function of the scheme must be for the Online Services Ombudsman to:

(a) investigate; and

(b) make determinations relating to; and

(c) give directions relating to;

complaints about:

(d) prescribed online services; and

(e) other matters (if any) specified in the scheme instrument.

Note: For prescribed online service, see subsection 27G(2).

(5) The scheme instrument may specify:

(a) requirements for the scheme; and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a), requirements to be complied with by any of the following in relation to the scheme:

(i) the Online Services Ombudsman;

(ii) a member of the scheme;

(iii) a person or entity specified in the scheme instrument.

(6) The scheme instrument may confer powers or functions on the Online Services Ombudsman, or on another person or body, in relation to the scheme.

Members of the scheme

(7) Each person responsible for a prescribed online service is to be a member of the scheme.

Funding for the scheme

(8) The scheme instrument must:

(a) require the members of the scheme to fund the operation of the scheme; and

(b) specify arrangements for funding the operation of the scheme.

No charges for end-users

(9) An end-user of a prescribed online service is not liable to pay any fee or charge (however described) to a person responsible for a prescribed online service in respect of a complaint made under the scheme by the end-user of the prescribed online service.

Relevant matters and consultation

(10) When making or amending the scheme instrument, the Minister must have regard to the following matters:

(a) accessibility;

(b) independence;

(c) fairness;

(d) accountability;

(e) efficiency;

(f) effectiveness;

(g) such other matters (if any) as the Minister considers relevant.

(11) Before making or amending the scheme instrument, the Minister must consult with:

(a) the Commissioner; and

(b) the Online Services Ombudsman.

27GB Complying with the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme etc.

A person responsible for a prescribed online service must comply with:

(a) any requirements in an instrument made by the Minister under subsection 27GA(1); and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a) of this section, any directions given by the Online Services Ombudsman, as mentioned in paragraph 27GA(4)(c), in connection with the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme.

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (line 13), at the end of the heading to section 27H, add "and the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme".

(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (line 16), after "subsection 27G(1)", insert "or section 27GB".

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (line 21), after "subsection 27G(1)", insert "or section 27GB".

I welcome the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 and its objective of placing a legal obligation on tech companies to protect Australians from foreseeable harm when using their platforms. For too long, powerful multinational corporations have operated without adequate accountability while Australians have been left to deal with the often devastating consequences. This bill is an important step towards changing that. A key part of this bill is the provision of stronger internal complaints and dispute resolution processes for users, which I welcome. I also acknowledge the vital role of the eSafety Commissioner as a publicly funded regulator in investigating breaches and holding platforms accountable through enforcement action and financial penalties. But these mechanisms will simply not be enough. An independent ombudsman responsible for digital platforms is critical to ensuring Australians have a failproof way of enforcing their rights against large multinational corporations. This is the purpose of my amendments. My amendments prescribe that online service providers must be a part of an independent external dispute resolution scheme through an online services ombudsman.

We can all relate to the problem of dealing with big tech platforms when something goes wrong. There are no phone numbers or direct contacts who take care of complaints. You email an unknown entity and often never get a response. When accounts are hacked, small businesses and community organisations can be locked out of the platforms they rely on to operate, communicate, reach their customers and support people. Losing access to an account can mean losing income, customers and years of work. Often, complaints about harmful content go unanswered, and the content is never taken down. Challenging a decision made by a multinational tech company can be practically impossible. And, when platforms fail to act, there is nowhere independent to turn.

My amendments provide a practical solution to all of this. They would require the minister to establish an online services ombudsman scheme through a legislative instrument. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, TIO, would perform this role. The TIO already provides an established model of independent dispute resolution for telecommunications consumers. These amendments would build on that model and extend independent protections to users of prescribed online services. Importantly, the scheme would be empowered to investigate complaints, make determinations and issue directions, and digital platforms covered by the scheme would be required to become members and comply with those directions. Crucially, the scheme would be funded by the platforms themselves, not by everyday Australians. This industry funded approach is already familiar in telecommunications, financial services and energy. It also creates an incentive for companies to resolve complaints before they escalate. The amendments would require the scheme to be designed with accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness in mind. Importantly, it would operate alongside, not replace, platforms' existing internal complaints obligations.

This is not a new or radical proposal. There is strong support for independent external dispute resolution from the Australian public, consumer advocates, legal and community organisations, and academics. The ACCC has previously recommended stronger internal and external dispute resolution arrangements for digital platforms. These calls reflect a simple principle: Australians should not have fewer rights online than they do when dealing with their bank, telecommunications provider or energy company. This bill is about establishing a duty of care, but that duty must be meaningful for the people it is intended to protect. Strong laws need effective enforcement, and effective enforcement must be matched by accessible remedies for individuals. An independent online services ombudsman would give Australians somewhere independent to turn and provide a practical pathway to resolution. I commend the amendments standing in my name to the House.

I thank the member for Mackellar for her amendments relating to external dispute resolution processes and exemptions for small business. The government recognises that the current process for dispute resolution is not working for a lot of digital platform users, including small businesses. In response to the recommendations of the independent statutory review of the Online Safety Act, the government is prioritising the creation of enforceable internal dispute resolution processes through legislative instrument. Section 27G of the bill empowers the eSafety Commissioner to do this in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. Failure to comply with the eSafety Commissioner's enforceable internal dispute resolution process will result in penalties of up to $10.2 million.

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar, and I want to raise in particular the impact this has on small businesses. I get these requests every single week from small businesses that have been significantly affected because they have been dumped for some online platform and can't get a resolution of these issues. I appreciate that the government is seeking to address this, but this is an issue that is ongoing and needs urgent attention. The eSafety Commissioner is not the place for this. It is about having a time line and a commitment about when we're going to get this resolved for small businesses, because this has been an issue.

The ACCC's digital platform inquiry recommended an ombudsman for disputes for digital platforms seven years ago and suggested that the TIO should take on that role. That's seven years old. The government has been in power for over 4½ years. It is well beyond time that the government takes action here and supports small business in trying to resolve these issues that materially impact them and make sure they have a pathway that is practical and timely and that they don't have to pay more for in order to get a resolution of these issues, because it fundamentally affects their business. We don't accept this from the banks. We don't accept it from the telcos. There are ways that we manage all those, and this is absolutely needed for small businesses as well.

The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on the sheet circulated by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Nicolette Boele Kate Chaney Andrew Gee Dai Le 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 Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Libby Coker Emma Comer Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Cassandra Fernando Ali France Tom French Carina Garland Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Peter Khalil Ms Catherine Fiona King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Alicia Payne Fiona Phillips Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Tracey Roberts Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou Ben Small David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Anne Stanley Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Andrew Wallace Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

The question now is that the amendments circulated by the member for Curtin be agreed to.

Member for Curtin's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 2, item 8, page 39 (after line 31), after paragraph 25E(1)(d), insert:

(da) material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and encourages or fosters a child's dependence on it in place of human relationships;

(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 47 (line 33), omit "User", substitute "Providing user".

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 49 (after line 7), after section 27B, insert:

27BA User empowerment tools must be prominent and accessible

(1) A user empowerment tool must be designed, offered and managed so that:

(a) the tool is:

(i) accessible; and

(ii) easy to use; and

(iii) prominently available on the service; and

(iv) functional; and

(v) available on an ongoing basis; and

(b) use of the tool does not:

(i) affect the general functionality of the service; or

(ii) reduce or impair user experience.

Civil penalty

(2) A person responsible for an online service must ensure that user empowerment tools provided by the service for users of the service meet the requirements set out in subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 6,000 penalty units.

Formal warnings

(3) The Commissioner may issue a formal warning if the Commissioner reasonably believes that a person responsible for an online service has failed, or is failing, to ensure that user empowerment tools provided by the service for users of the service in Australia meet the requirements set out in subsection (1).

(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 49 (lines 10 to 22), omit subsections 27C(1) and (2), substitute:

Scope

(1) This section applies if the Commissioner reasonably believes that a person responsible for an online service has failed, or is failing, to comply with one of the following requirements:

(a) a requirement in section 27 (risk assessments);

(b) a requirement in an instrument made under subsection 27A(1) (providing user empowerment tools);

(c) subsection 27BA(2) (user empowerment tools must be prominent and accessible).

Remedial directions

(2) The Commissioner may give the person a written direction requiring the person to take specified action directed towards ensuring that the person does not fail, or is unlikely to fail, to comply with the requirement mentioned in subsection (1) in the future.

Note: For variation or revocation, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(5) Schedule 2, item 15, page 55 (after line 17), after paragraph 163(1)(aa), insert:

(aaa) section 27BA;

(6) Schedule 2, item 19, page 57 (after line 4), after paragraph 163AA(2)(b), insert:

(ba) section 27BA (user empowerment tools must be prominent and accessible);

(7) Schedule 2, item 20, page 57 (after line 24), after paragraph 164(1)(ab), insert:

(aba) section 27BA;

(8) Schedule 2, item 22, page 58 (after line 5), after paragraph 165(1)(ab), insert:

(aba) section 27BA;

Today I propose two substantive changes to the digital duty of care bill. I commend the minister and the government for engaging in good faith on this important legislation and for being open to reasonable improvements to it, like the ones I'm proposing today.

The first change is reflected in amendment (1). It adds a new category of harm to children that platforms have to consider—attachment hacking. This is where a service simulates emotional intimacy and encourages or fosters a child's dependence on it in place of human relationships. It will apply to all online services. Most importantly, it will apply to AI companions, like Nomi and Chai, and to general chatbots, like ChatGPT and Claude, if they continue to simulate emotional intimacy and foster dependence. eSafety found AI companions offer humanlike, sycophantic and often sexually explicit conversations. About 200,000 Australian children aged 10 to 17 have used one. We've seen just how badly this can go wrong. Sewell Setzer, aged 14, Juliana Peralta, aged 13, and Adam Raine, aged 16, died by suicide after extended conversations with chatbots. Reporting on their chat logs suggests the bots discouraged them from turning to other people.

This amendment would also capture the slower, less obvious harms of AI chatbots and companions that pretend to be your friend. Psychologists are telling us that children are increasingly turning to AI instead of friends, parents and teachers. This is a significant risk to children's long-term psychological development. Human relationships are how children learn to form bonds, regulate emotions and form a sense of self. Relationships with strangely friendly or sycophantic AI chatbots are not. Because this harm is long term, the evidence is still emerging, but, from the social media experience, we've learnt that waiting for exhaustive evidence of damage leaves a generation of children impacted. Importantly, this doesn't restrict AI chatbots or companions being used by children, but it tells these AI companies that simulated emotional intimacy, sycophancy or pretending to be a friend or romantic partner is unacceptable.

The second change is reflected in amendments (2) to (8). This ensures that user empowerment tools such as the opt-in or opt-out setting that the government says it will require under this bill must be prominent, accessible, easy to use, functional, available on an ongoing basis and not affecting the functionality of the service or impairing the user experience. Why is this important? We know that tech companies will do what they can to exploit loopholes and keep users on their algorithm. After the EU required Meta to give users an option to switch off the algorithm, the company hid the setting, removed significant functions from the non-algorithmic feed and automatically switched users back to their algorithmic feed every time they closed and reopened the app. This malicious compliance is unacceptable. To ensure Australians have genuine control to switch their algorithm on and off, the setting must be prominent, accessible and easy to use and not affect the functioning of the app. Putting these standards in the primary legislation and not just in a ministerial determination strengthens these obligations and gives notice to social media companies that this is something they must comply with in good faith.

I also note that I had intended to move amendments to increase penalties for noncompliance with the digital duty of care. These amendments will now be moved by the member for Bradfield. The current penalties that apply to companies that do not comply with the digital duty of care are roughly $100 million. This would be about one-twentieth of one per cent of Meta's revenue last year—too small to change the behaviour of some of the wealthiest companies in the world. The EU, UK, Canada and New Zealand have either implemented or proposed fines that range from three to 10 per cent of global revenue. We should do the same. A big stick like this is essential to get these companies to change their behaviour. I would also like to see a private right of action added so that Australian users, not just the regulator, could enforce this new duty.

I would like to thank thousands of Curtin constituents who informed my work on this bill by responding to my community survey, the UWA students who attended my workshop on this issue and the many organisations across the technology ecosystem who engaged with me and my office. I commend the government for its work on this bill, and I thank the minister, who has indicated that the government will support these amendments. I commend these amendments to the House.

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Curtin and agree wholeheartedly on the importance of ensuring these attachment bots be included in relation to online harms. But I also have a question for the minister because, whilst there's a strong focus on protecting under 18s from harms online, there are other foreseeable harms that we're seeing occur and are not being addressed in this digital duty of care. My question for the minister in this consideration in detail process is: why has the government failed to explicitly include harmful AI generated deepfakes in its duty of care legislation? If the purpose of this legislation is to prevent foreseeable online harm, why are we failing to address one of the fastest-growing threats?

We've got an opportunity to get ahead of an emerging threat, yet the government is leaving a significant gap in online safety protections. Artificial intelligence can now make someone appear to say something they never said, do something they never did and participate in an event that never happened. We've already seen how this technology is being misused in Australia. Deepfake video circulating, for example, of Senator Jacqui Lambie was falsely depicting her criticising another party's voters. That results in threats from those voters back to her. At a time when we're talking about a heightened security environment for members of parliaments and the public at large, we're allowing this to continue to be legal.

The amendment I had wished to propose to this effect sought to address deepfakes depicting identifiable people without their consent where the content is capable of misleading viewers and likely to cause serious harm. We know the government has looked at this from the nudify apps perspective, but the harm goes beyond that. Harm to a person, whether they are under 18 or over 18, where their image, likeness and voice are used by AI technology to generate deepfake content that is then pushed through social media platforms and digital platforms and where there is no consent from that person that is readily identifiable should also be treated as a harm that these platforms should have to prevent and be aware of. So I ask the government to look at protecting all Australians, not just under-18s, from this use without their consent of their image, likeness and voice in relation to the creation of AI deepfakes. It is not just in the political space that this matters. This could ruin someone's business reputation. If someone is in the public eye in sport—we've seen Sportsbet do it with some actors as well. It is really important that the government address this gap.

I would also like to note my deep frustration with the process. This was an amendment that I had sought to get drafted, but, through lack of resources through the system, it has not been possible for the parliamentary drafting services to provide the draft of that amendment despite being asked to do this over a week ago. I find it deeply unacceptable for the parliament to not be able to provide adequate services to members.

Let me first respond to the member for Warringah's questions. I can confirm that AI generated images that cause serious harm would be defined as adult cyberabuse. They can be taken down by the eSafety Commissioner. That would include deepfake nude images. The duty would also require platforms to have systems in place to prevent the harm from occurring.

The member is correct in that material and content that does not cause serious harm is not the subject of this bill. We feel that the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence that is currently on foot is meant to be looking into these particular issues, and we intend to incorporate those informed findings into the forthcoming Australian AI standards, which we believe is the more appropriate place for them. Other feedback is noted. I also thank the member for Curtin for her amendments, which the government will support.

On user empowerment tools, the government recognises the importance of making sure that the primary bill mandates that the user empowerment tools are accessible, easy to use, prominently available on the service, and functional and available on an ongoing basis. We support that. On attachment hacking, we also recognise that the use of AI chatbots and companions are creating risks to children's long-term development and it's horrifying. As sociologist Sherry Turkle observed: 'Social media came for our attention. Chatbots are coming for our attachment.' I've spoken in this chamber before about the boy who was found to have 50 different tabs open seeking companionship, and whilst some of those chat—

The time for debate has expired.

The question is the amendments circulated by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Basem Abdo Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Nicolette Boele Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon 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 Dai Le Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost 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 Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Allegra Spender Anne Stanley Zali Steggall Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Matt Thistlethwaite Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Andrew Wilkie Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia Mary Aldred Angie Bell Sam Birrell Colin Boyce Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Pat Conaghan Garth Hamilton Alex George Hawke Kevin Hogan Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry David Littleproud Michael McCormack Zoe McKenzie Ted O'Brien Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Melissa Price Ben Small Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young

The question now is that the amendments circulated by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.

Member for Bradfield's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 33 (before line 22), before the definition of data access rules, insert:

annual global turnover, of a body corporate for an income year, has the meaning prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this definition.

(2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 34 (after line 8), after the definition of harmful to children, insert:

income year has the same meaning as in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 45 (lines 14 to 17), omit section 26C, substitute:

26C Compliance with the digital duty of care

(1) A person must not fail to comply with the person's digital duty of care.

Civil penalty:

(a) if the person is not a body corporate—60,000 penalty units; or

(b) if the person is a body corporate—the greater of:

(i) 300,000 penalty units; and

(ii) 5% of the person's annual global turnover for the income year in which the contravention of this subsection occurs.

(2) Despite paragraph 82(5)(a) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty payable by a body corporate for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section must not be more than the pecuniary penalty specified in paragraph (1)(b) of this section.

(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 48 (line 31), omit the penalty, substitute:

Civil penalty:

(a) if the person is not a body corporate—60,000 penalty units; or

(b) if the person is a body corporate—the greater of:

(i) 300,000 penalty units; and

(ii) 5% of the person's annual global turnover for the income year in which the contravention of this subsection occurs.

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 48 (after line 31), after subsection 27B(1), insert:

(1A) Despite paragraph 82(5)(a) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty payable by a body corporate for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section must not be more than the pecuniary penalty specified in paragraph (1)(b) of this section.

I rise to speak to the amendment that I've moved. A duty of care is only as strong as the consequences for breaching it, and, under this bill, the maximum penalty for a company that breaches its duty of care is around $109 million. For almost any Australian business, this would be ruinous, but we're not talking about almost any business. Last year, Meta took in more than US$200 billion in revenue. That means it brings in $109 million in about three hours. If a company can earn back their fine before lunch, it doesn't deter any behaviour; it's just a small additional cost to doing business. This amendment lifts the maximum penalty for a company that breaches the duty of care or fails to meet its risk assessment and user empowerment obligations to the greater of around $109 million or five per cent of annual global turnover. This isn't radical; it's catching up. In the EU, fines can reach six per cent of global turnover; in the UK, it's 10 per cent of worldwide revenue. Canada is proposing up to three per cent and five per cent for criminal fines. New Zealand is proposing up to 10 per cent of worldwide revenue. Australia has led the world on online safety. We shouldn't now be too soft on these companies when they breach their obligations.

I've heard three objections to this amendment. Firstly, it's the reputational risk, not the dollar figure, that drives compliance. Well, I can say that social media companies are among the least trusted industries in the world. They have gone through scandal after scandal, and their behaviour hasn't changed. Reputation clearly isn't doing the work. Secondly, there is no precedent for penalties based on global turnover. Well, courts in the UK and Europe are already working through exactly these cases. The point of these penalties is not to raise revenue; the point is to encourage and drive compliance. The bigger the stick, the less likely we are to ever need to use it. And thirdly, this could strain our relationship with the United States. This is a maximum of up to five per cent. The courts keep full discretion to impose lower penalties. It applies to every company equally, wherever it's headquartered, and it's entirely reasonable for Australia to set Australian laws to protect Australian children. So, paired with a private right to action, which I urge the government and the Senate to take up, enforcement would rest with Australians themselves, not just the government.

I would like to commend the member for Curtin for leading the charge on the crossbench's advocacy on this issue. She was initially going to introduce this amendment alongside the range of other amendments that she's proposing but was generous enough to suggest that I introduce it instead. Parents in my electorate tell me they feel powerless against these platforms. This bill tells those parents that the platforms now owe their children a duty of care. This amendment makes sure that the platforms take that duty seriously. I commend the government's work on this critical legislation, and I urge the government to adopt and implement my amendment.

I thank the member for Bradfield for her amendment to increase maximum penalties. The bill proposes $109.2 million, which is consistent with other consumer protection fines in Australia. While that may seem like a negligible amount for $1 billion company who did just unblushingly pay $25.6 billion in fines to New Mexico a few weeks ago, it's important to remember we're not doing this alone. This is supposed to be a global coalition. It's having a cumulative effect. There is a global reckoning coming. This is part of it. We're leading the way. We do want to see behavioural change from these companies. That is our shared end goal. Thank you.

There being no further speakers, I'll put the question. The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

Member for Fowler's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 34 (after line 20), after the definition of seriously harmful material or conduct, insert:

small business entity: a person is a small business entity at a time if the person is a small business entity (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) for the income year (within the meaning of that Act) in which the time occurs.

(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 36 (after line 13), at the end of Division 1, add:

25AA Small business entities

Exemption

(1) This Part does not apply in relation to a person who is responsible for an online service if the person is a small business entity.

When the exemption does not apply

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an online service if the online service:

(a) allows end-users to post, share or send material to other end-users, or to communicate in other ways with other end-users; or

(b) provides, or links to, pornography; or

(c) generates, enables end-users to generate, provides, or links to, AI-generated nudity; or

(d) is targeted at children.

(3) If the Commissioner is satisfied that an online service poses a material risk of serious harm to users of the service in Australia, the Commissioner may declare, in writing, that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the online service. The declaration has effect according to its terms.

(4) The Commissioner must ensure that a declaration made under subsection (3) is published on the Commissioner's website as soon as is practicable after the declaration is made.

(5) A declaration made by the Commissioner under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.

Interpretation

(6) In this section:

AI-generated nudity means an image or video that:

(a) is generated or altered, wholly or partly, using artificial intelligence; and

(b) depicts, or appears to depict, a person in a state of nudity, whether:

(i) the person is real or fictional; or

(ii) the depiction is realistic or non-realistic.

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 45 (lines 8 to 9) omit subsection 26A(3), substitute:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the cost of the action or measures:

(a) must not be taken into account if the person responsible for the online service is not a small business entity; and

(b) must be taken into account if the person responsible for the online service is a small business entity.

(4) Schedule 2, Part 3, page 83 (after line 22), at the end of the Part, add:

58 Delayed application to small business entities

Small business cost assessment

(1) The Minister who administers the Online Safety Act 2021 must cause an independent assessment to be conducted of the likely costs for small business entities of complying with Part 2 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule).

(2) The person conducting the assessment must give the Minister a written report of the assessment.

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

Delayed application of amendments

(4) If a responsible entity for an online service is a small business entity, Part 2 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule) applies in relation to the responsible entity after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the first day on which a copy of the report of the assessment has been tabled in both Houses of the Parliament as mentioned in subitem (3).

Note: Section 25AA of the Online Safety Act 2021 (as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule) provides for an exemption from Part 2 of that Act for small business entities in certain circumstances. Nothing in this subitem affects that exemption. The effect of this subitem is that, for small business entities that are not covered by that exemption, Part 2 of that Act will apply to those entities only after the end of the 6-month period mentioned in this subitem.

Interpretation

(5) A term that is used in this item that is defined in the Online Safety Act 2021 (as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule) has the same meaning in this item as it has in that Act.

These amendments are about proportionality. They recognise that an ordinary small business's website is different from a platform that allows users to share harmful material, and they seek to give small businesses clarity about their obligations under this legislation. Think about the businesses in Fowler—a builder in Edensor Park displaying photographs of completed renovations, a bakery in Cabramatta showcasing its baked goods variety, a cafe in Liverpool accepting bookings, a restaurant displaying its menu, a mechanic in Bonnyrigg advertising Services. These businesses use the internet to reach customers and earn a living. A website used for those purposes should not be treated in the same way as a service that allows users to distribute pornography or generate new images using artificial intelligence. The law should recognise that distinction clearly.

My amendments make three changes. First, they establish a small business exemption using the small business entity definition in the income tax legislation. That exemption is not unconditional. It does not apply to services that allow users to post, share or send material to other users or otherwise communicate with one another. It does not apply to services that provide or link to pornography. It does not apply to services that generate or enable users to generate, provide or link to AI generated nudity, and it does not apply to services targeted at children. The amendments also allow the commissioner after inquiry to remove the exemption for a particular service when satisfied that it poses a material risk of serious harm to users in Australia. Business sites alone should not provide an ongoing exemption for a service with those features or risks, but an ordinary small business website should have a clear exemption where none of those exceptions apply.

Second, the amendments require compliance costs to be taken into account where a small business remains covered. That does not make it cost effective. It does not create an automatic defence. It ensures that the cost of an action or measure is considered when determining what is appropriate for a small business. A family business does not have the same resources as a multinational technology company. Recognising that difference is not an argument against online safety. It is an argument for obligations that are practical and proportionate.

Third, the amendments require an independent assessment of the likely cost to small businesses of complying with this part. The report must be tabled in both houses of parliament for small businesses that remain covered, the part would apply only after a further six months. To be clear, the deferral also applies to small businesses operating services excluded from the ongoing exemption, including services targeted at children and those involving pornography or AI generated nudity. It also applies where the commissioner removes the exemption. That is the transition proposed by these amendments. It should be considered separately from the question of which services qualify for an ongoing exemption. The assessment would give parliament and small businesses a clearer account of the likely compliance costs. The additional six months would provide time for affected businesses to prepare. I ask the government: How many small businesses does it expect to be covered? What does it estimate compliance will cost businesses operating ordinary, low-risk websites? Why should those costs not be taken into account when determining what measures are appropriate?

These are practical questions about how the legislation will operate beyond the major technology platforms. Small businesses deserve clear answers. We should distinguish between services according to their features and risks, we should consider the resources of the businesses expected to comply, and we should understand the likely cause of the obligations parliament imposes on small businesses. For anyone who has a small business in this House, they should understand how much costs have increased to operate a business since this government came to power. These amendments seek to put those principles into legislation. I ask the House to support them. I commend the amendments to the House.

I thank the member for Fowler for her amendments. As I said in response to the amendments by the member for Mackellar, the government will work with industry to address their concerns. To that effect, I can update the House that we've set up a meeting between the eSafety Commissioner and COSBOA.

The question is that the amendment circulated by the member for Fowler be agreed to.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Nicolette Boele David Farley Andrew Gee Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Bob Carl Katter Dai Le Sophie Scamps Rebekha Sharkie Allegra Spender Zali Steggall Andrew Wilkie Basem Abdo Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Jo Briskey Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Sharon Claydon Claire Clutterham Renee Coffey Libby Coker Emma Comer Kara Cook Trish Cook Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Cassandra Fernando Ali France Tom French Carina Garland Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Matt Gregg Julian Hill Rowan Holzberger Ed Husic Madonna Jarrett Alice Jordan-Baird Ged Kearney Peter Khalil Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Zaneta Mascarenhas Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost David Moncrieff Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Gabriel Ng Alicia Payne Fiona Phillips Tanya Joan Plibersek Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi 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 Sarah Witty Tony Zappia

The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Basem Abdo Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Nicolette Boele Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon 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 Tom French Carina Garland Andrew Gee 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 Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost 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 Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Allegra Spender Anne Stanley Zali Steggall Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Matt Thistlethwaite Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Andrew Wilkie Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Pat Conaghan David Farley Garth Hamilton Kevin Hogan Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Julian Leeser David Littleproud Melissa McIntosh Zoe McKenzie Ted O'Brien Llew O'Brien Tony Pasin Alison Penfold Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026; Third Reading Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

The question is that the bill be now read a third time.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Basem Abdo Anne Aly Ash Ambihaipahar Jodie Belyea Carol Berry Nicolette Boele Chris Eyles Bowen Jo Briskey Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Josh Burns Alison Byrnes Julie-Ann Campbell Jim Chalmers Kate Chaney Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon 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 Tom French Carina Garland Andrew Gee 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 Zaneta Mascarenhas Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost 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 Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Marion Scrymgour Sally Sitou David Smith Matt Smith Zhi Soon Allegra Spender Anne Stanley Zali Steggall Meryl Swanson Jess Teesdale Susan Templeman Matt Thistlethwaite Kate Thwaites Anne Urquhart Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Rebecca White Andrew Wilkie Josh Wilson Sarah Witty Tony Zappia Mary Aldred David Batt Angie Bell Sam Birrell Cameron Caldwell Jamie Chaffey Pat Conaghan David Farley Garth Hamilton 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 Henry Pike Melissa Price Leon Rebello Rebekha Sharkie Ben Small Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Tom Venning Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Tim Wilson Jason Peter Wood Terry Young Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026; Second Reading Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026

I move:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government did not take a minimum tax on discretionary trusts to the 2025 election and promised before that election not to raise taxes;

(b) Treasury's own Impact Analysis says around 350,000 small businesses operate through a discretionary trust, and that each of them is left with three options:

(i) pay a new 30 per cent tax; or

(ii) restructure and pay stamp duty; or

(iii) lock in fixed shares for life in a one-off election in 2028-29;

(c) Treasury puts the compliance cost at an average of $141.5 million per year; and

(d) twelve matters are left to legislative instruments that have not been released, and consultation ran for less than the 30-day minimum set by the Government's own Office of Impact Analysis; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) withdraw the minimum tax on discretionary trusts, or, failing that, delay the start of the minimum tax on discretionary trusts by 12 months, to 1 July 2029; and

(b) split the bill such that the capital gains tax amendments, the definition of a new residential dwelling and the payday superannuation transitional relief can be dealt with separately".

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026, which are being debated in cognate. Let's be clear: the coalition opposes Labor's small business tax on trusts, and we oppose all three bills. The last of them is rushed, and it's a botched attempt to patch the damage that Labor's own capital gains tax increases will have on startups. A coalition government will axe Labor's startup tax and end the tax breaks for electric vehicles altogether, because we believe it's important that we have a sustainable budget position. And when the House considers the bill in detail, I will move amendments to split the bill, with small business tax on trusts out of the bill.

We have a situation right now where small businesses of the nation are screaming for help. They feel tortured by their government. Whether it's higher costs, taxes or regulations, the Albanese government's attitude towards small business is to see no small business and to hear no small business, and they certainly do not want to talk to small businesses. As a consequence, the government simply has no understanding of the impact of their higher-tax agenda on the small businesses of this country. Our taxaholic Treasurer is consistently focused on how he increases costs on Australian small businesses so he can feed his own spending addiction. And as we know, as we've just seen from the latest CPI data that came out minutes ago, that means we're seeing higher inflation pressure and of course higher interest rates, and unfortunately we no doubt are going to see further increases in interest rates as a consequence of the decision of the Reserve Bank on Tuesday. The government is playing a game of interest rate chicken with the Reserve Bank, and, once again, their hand is being forced by an Albanese government addicted to spending.

But the problem is that the more they continue to spend the more they have to tax. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxes and it's today's inflation, and small businesses are being asked to put their hands in their pockets because the government cannot pull its own belt in. You just need to look at the suite of these measures in these tax bills. And let's just be very clear about this. They're called 'tax reform' bills, but tax reform is not something that occurs when you increase taxes on Australian communities.

I think it's really important that we be honest about this. These might be bills introduced into the parliament by the government, but these tax bills are also in alignment with the tax agenda of the member for Wentworth, who consistently has gone out and flagged higher taxes on the constituents of Wentworth. And of course, the government, the Labor Party, has turned around, when they've said, 'Increase taxes over here but cut them over there' and said, 'We'll just take the tax hikes on the Wentworth constituency.' There's a point at which business needs to wake up and realise that, while you might think politics works like business, politics does not work like business. Business leaders who think politics works like business get dudded, because the Labor Party has a rapacious appetite and a lust for power. They use that power to empower themselves and to reward their friends. If you think you can negotiate with these people, if you think you can negotiate with this government to somehow get a better tax system, you are deluded.

And that is what we've seen. The member for Wentworth supported increasing taxes on innovative businesses, increasing taxes on small businesses, and the government took those tax increases but didn't give the offsets that she proposed. As a consequence, small businesses around this country are now rallying to try and see change, to have an advocate in the opposition and the coalition, because we knew at every step that when you put forward higher taxes on small businesses then the government is going to deliver on those and is going to punish small business. Our job is to stand up and fight against that. But the innovative businesses that turned around and supported the campaign by the member for Wentworth and now feel dudded seem shocked that the Labor Party, in their desperate lust for money and power, are of course going through and imposing higher taxes on them without the overall benefits and tax cuts elsewhere. This is what happens.

Politics is binary. The government wins, or the opposition wins. It's a contest between the organised and the disorganised. The teals at every point have consistently sold out the constituencies they claim to advocate for and represent because they have a naive understanding or belief that they can somehow deliver better outcomes for the community. The Treasurer at every point has been playing the member for Wentworth. The Treasurer has been using the opportunity the member for Wentworth has provided to increase taxes on innovative businesses. The Treasurer has been playing the teals like a fiddle, and they have enjoyed every step of the way until they realised how much the Treasurer has been using and manipulating them.

Now we are at this point where the government is introducing and trying to ram through this parliament higher costs and higher taxes on small businesses and innovative businesses and selling Australians down the sewer, which ironically is a contest because the Prime Minister has a particular penchant for sewers at the moment, it seems. We need to understand the real impact this is going to have on Australian small businesses. Right now, they are struggling with record insolvencies and even higher rates of voluntary closures because they can't find somebody to sell their business to or the government has bullied them into submission. They no longer feel that they can get ahead. Small businesses are gasping for air as they are experiencing higher costs and higher taxes as a consequence of this government, whether it's increasing the cost of their energy bill, payday super and the impact that has on cash flow, or the surcharges ban and the impact that has on cash flow.

Only the other day, I spoke to a small business, and they were telling me about how they're paying about $10,000 a month in surcharge fees, and the government has for the first time turned around and said, 'You've got to absorb that cost.' But, by the way, with gross hypocrisy and double standards, they turn around to the Australian Taxation Office and say, 'You can't provide the pathway for people to use exactly the same payment methods.' Apparently every small business across this nation is expected to accept legal tender except for the Australian Taxation Office. Today, we've revealed the Australian Taxation Office is engaging in automated fines against small businesses when they don't even have any data that there is a wrong and are then threatening small businesses with 200 per cent fines. The answer from the Albanese government is: 'Let them eat taxes. Let small business eat taxes.'

This government has no empathy for the small businesses of this nation. This government has no understanding of the pain, the suffering and the torture they are deliberately inflicting—unless, of course, they're getting their jollies from it. And sometimes you have to question whether this Albanese government is enjoying the pain it is inflicting on small business, because no rational actor could honestly believe that this government could inflict so much harm, so much damage and so much anxiety on Australian small businesses as the Albanese government, unless they drew a sick pathological joy from the exercise.

When I talk to small businesses across this country, what they are doing is screaming for hope. They are desperate for change, and they cannot understand why the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and so many members of the Labor caucus seem to find a sick fascination and joy in their pain. They feel tortured by this government, and there is a time and a place at the next election where they are going to have their voice heard. And, when that voice is heard, I'm afraid that a number of members on that side of the chamber who are currently there are going to be thrown out, and they deserve to be thrown out because of the number of lives and the number of families that they have destroyed, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Even worse than that, these three bills, as they're now introduced, are deliberately putting targets on so many small businesses in the government's rapacious appetite for revenue. Just look at what they're doing on their small-business tax on trusts. So many small businesses don't even understand that they are yet the target of this bill. This is why we tried to refer these bills off to the House economics committee—a good committee, one I used to chair when I was last in parliament—and that was for the Labor Party members' benefit, so they could finally understand the insanity that their treasurer was engaging them in. If they want to follow him like lemmings off the political cliff, they have to understand the consequences of the decisions that they are making.

This tax on trusts is deliberately targeted towards small businesses, many of whom don't know they're impacted. Most Australians who run small businesses were advised by their financial adviser or their accountant or their solicitor to go on and establish a trust. They didn't choose to do so because they thought it was some sort of genius way to achieve an economic end themselves. They were advised to do it because that was what century-old law—let me say that again: century-old law—recommended they do. They went off and set up a trust, and it is simply a piece of paper annually that their accountant presents to them that they sign to confirm to the ATO when they're making their submissions to the Tax Office and approving their audits. What they're going to find in the coming weeks and the coming months as these bills are passed through parliament—they're going to go and talk to their accountant, and their accountant is going to say, 'This is how much you owe for your tax return this year, but, by the way, next year you're going to have to pay double, triple, quadruple the increase in tax because of what the Albanese government is doing for you now.' Even worse, if you want to restructure your finances to minimise your exposure to the higher taxes the Albanese government is going to impose on you, you are going to experience $50,000 of adjustment costs—if you've got assets by the time you deal with the legals, the financials, the compliance.

If members of the Labor Party think that this is the end and this is the end of the debate, politely, this is the beginning of the debate. This is where the financial advisers, the accountants and the lawyers of Australia are going to tell the Labor Party members' constituents how much the Albanese government has betrayed the small businesses of this country. As they find out the cost and as they find out the consequences and as they shift structures, they're going to incur $50,000 bills. That's a massive deadweight cost on the economy simply to reorganise their finances and legal structures. Even worse than that, they're going to face a deadweight cost which could aggregate to as much as $13 billion across the economy. It's effectively the same as saying: 'We're just going to write off an entire year of economic growth. We're just going to write off a year of business activity.' No Australian is going to be better off after these tax changes. Not even Labor, when they come into this chamber, try to say that somehow small businesses are going to be better off as a consequence of these tax changes. They're not even trying to pretend. They're just after more revenue because they can't kick their spending addiction. They cannot kick their addiction to inflation and to higher interest rates, which are punishing Australians and more importantly increasing the cost of mortgages and which mean Australians go to the supermarket and pay more and get less.

If small businesses change their structures, that is just going to invoke a whole series of further steps. Only last Friday, I was in the federal electorate of Flinders with the wonderful member for Flinders. Many small businesses from the Mornington Peninsula, which is one of the great hubs of small-business activity across Australia—not quite as good as the Goldstein small businesses, but I do respect the fact that they are definitely my spiritual home small businesses. It's one of the places where my mother used to have a small business. I need to be clear.

When I met with those small businesses, particularly the accountants, the solicitors and the financial advisers, they said, 'This is the beginning of the end for a lot of small businesses because not only are you going to see changes in structures; it will immediately trigger a series of events.' Those are events like going back to their bank and asking for refinance because they'll be legally obliged to because their legal structure will change. So what are they going to do? They'll have their finance facilities adjusted. A lot of businesses that believe that they're going to be able to get the finance they're used to are going to suddenly find an environment of falling asset prices by the design of the Albanese government and the Carroll government, as well as the Allan government and the Andrews government in Victoria—falling asset prices by design, rising taxes and declines in profitability. The Labor government is selling them short. Their runway is going to reduce, and you're going to find that a lot of small businesses simply won't be able to operate.

Job done if you're a Labor government! Smash small business. Smash people's hopes and dreams. Destroy and torture those people who just backed themselves ahead. Do you know what happens then? People have to go and get a job in a unionised workforce, and then the Labor Party can manipulate and control people.

That is what their end objective is—to manipulate and control Australians—but the problem is that it destroys the aspiration, the belief and hope Australians have in themselves. That is what is so terrifying about the insidious, nefarious agenda of the Albanese government. Their focus is on how they enlarge their power as part of their lust for power, but not only are they going to go to the bank and find out that they're not able to get the finance, they're going to go and see their insurance broker and find out their insurance policies are going to have to be reissued. Guess what we're seeing every time small business goes to an insurance broker? The cost goes up.

In fact, what small businesses are going to find is that the cost continues to rise on them because of the decisions of the Albanese government, and that's just legislation point 1, where small businesses are being betrayed by this government, all because they can't control their spending addiction. We also know that they've provided pathways allegedly to be able to solve some of these problems, but, of course, it's by nominating beneficiaries of small business trust into the future. The problem is then, of course, you can't add new beneficiaries, like if people have children. Imagine that—we're now going to tax births in this country. What sort of sick mind decides that should be the basis of legislation?

I see your smirk there, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, I think it's just and wise, because only someone truly insane would design a piece of tax legislation which now actively taxes births, let alone what we've seen with the death taxes that this government has introduced and continues to impose across its federal budget. We have never seen anything like this. It is the arrogance and insanity of central planning, in the belief that, if we just give government all of our money and all of our resources, somehow we'll be a better country, but the old adage stays true that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have, and this government is absolutely determined to take everything it can from the small businesses of this country.

They claim farms are exempt. Farm income might be exempt, but contract shearing, mustering in the farm, stay and the power line rent all get taxed along the way. They've introduced rules that nobody can read. Twelve times the small business tax on trusts leaves the rules for the minister to later decide and determine the outcomes. Not one has been released, because, again, this treasurer, because you've got to trust them—50 times over, they wouldn't possibly tell you a lie. Fifty times over, we know full well that they did told the truth on their higher taxes before the election and have now set to pass them after the election, and now they're going to give themselves more discretionary power under this legislation so the minister and the Treasurer can make any decision they see fit. We pass this tax now. We trust the Treasurer with the rules later. I've got a tip for you: nobody believes this government anymore. Nobody trusts this government anymore because the Australian people have been betrayed by this government so many times before. We know that there's a huge cost to compliance as a consequence of this legislation, and, of course, it means that Australians will be left behind.

Then we have the TLAB No. 4, which targets start-ups. As I said before, this should really be renamed the member for Wentworth tax bill, because she has been the one who, every step, has made the case for higher taxes on business on the idea that you can turn around and the Labor Party is somehow miraculously going to give tax offsets elsewhere. Sorry for those in the big business community, the small-business community and innovative business community who have been deceived by the member for Wentworth, but it doesn't work that way. She has given a permission runway to members of the Labor Party to hike taxes on her own constituents and not given any tax offsets. This is and continues to be one of the great frustrations of debates around tax. Labor literally have no satiation, no end to their appetite, for higher tax revenue, because they see it as a pathway to empower them. TLAB 4, which deals specifically with innovative start start-ups and the like, is going to lead to a situation where a lot of people just aren't going to operate start-ups in this country. I've talked to so many people who have done well, innovators, people who are backing themselves to get ahead, and they consistently say, 'Why would I bother in Australia any more with capital gains tax increases, with the change to small business taxes on trusts and with how the government is basically targeting every innovative small business in this country?' They are turning around and saying, 'Why would I bother?' They're just going overseas or starting their business overseas in places like Queenstown in New Zealand, Dubai, Singapore or wherever they can get better tax arrangements.

What does that mean? It means that Australia does not have the pathway for growth in the future economy. Small businesses, particularly those in their first five years, are most likely to employ people proportionate to their size, most likely to be innovative and most likely to be productive. The Albanese government has turned around and said it wants to steal from the innovative, productive and employing side of the economy to feed their rapacious appetite for revenue today. They've created an environment of sovereign risk where they have smashed business confidence to back in the future growth of this country. With that, it isn't just capital that will disappear; talent will disappear. That will be a disaster for the future Australian economy.

The Treasurer continues to say that this is somehow going to be very pro start-ups. Well, I've never yet met anybody in the start-up community who has said: 'That last federal budget was great for us. We loved it. If only we could have more taxes to be able to back us in, if only we could have the government break more promises, because that's the pathway to our growth and success. If only we had more dishonesty from the government, we would end up being more confident about our future.' In case this is ever quoted back at me, I want to make it clear that I was being ironic, because not a single small business that I have run into, particularly innovative small businesses, believes in any way, shape or form that to be the case. What they are actually saying is the complete reverse—that they are being attacked and assaulted by this government every step of the way.

The Treasurer has continued to make the case that his budget is somehow beneficial, but the reality is small businesses, innovative businesses and the like continue to suffer under the consequences of this government's dishonesty. This federal budget and these pieces of legislation come down to a simple choice. It's a choice about the type of country we want to be. Do we want to be a nation that is built from families, communities and small business as the foundations for the strength of a nation? Or do we want to be a nation where the government controls people's lives and imposes conformity on them? No human society in history has been successful in respecting rights and freedoms, building a nation where hard work pays off and empowering people to be in control of their lives while imposing conformity from Canberra or a capital like that. Every society that has sustainably succeeded is one that has backed families, communities and small business and has backed them to thrive, not just to look at their feet but to look to the horizon with hope. Every society that has been successful and every economy that has met the material needs of its people and the spiritual needs of their journeys has always backed families, communities and small businesses as the foundations for their success—particularly small business. Every small business is an act of economic hope. It's an act where people back themselves because they believe that through their ingenuity, their own productivity and their hard work and effort that they will be able to get ahead.

The tragedy of these bills is that the government has come along and in the Prime Minister's very trademark way now said, 'No, that's mine.' He has come along and tried to take away that hope, that ambition and that dream of so many Australians that are the self-starters of our country. They don't just lift themselves up; they lift up the opportunity for every Australian because they are the ones who then go on and create the pathways for employment. They're often the place that a young kid gets their first job, gets trained and developed and has a pathway to get their first foot on the ladder of economic opportunity. They're the first people to go in and support our community—organisations like local sporting clubs, charitable groups, scouts groups and guide groups—because they believe that the health of their community is good for their business. They're the ones most likely to lead, disrupt, compete, dare and challenge the status quo for change and to build the technology and the capacity of our nation. That includes, by the way, the biotechnology and medicines that not just make us competitive but improve human health and human outcomes.

At every point, the Albanese government are turning around and saying, to a better future—they want to take that back for themselves. They want to take that power, that energy, that ingenuity and that potential and give it to Canberra because they believe, deep down in their being of beings, that they have a better answer and know how you should live your life better than you do. They believe that they can provide better economic opportunities for you if you just empower them. They believe that they can provide better mutual support to individual citizens than families. They believe that, if they impose their will from Canberra, there will be a better outcome for small businesses than backing small businesses in to empower them.

We've made it very clear, every step of the way, that we plan to repeal all of the government's taxes that they introduced in this federal budget, which they never had the courage to take to the Australian people. Let us never forget that. Every single member of the Labor Party went to an election and said they would not introduce these taxes. More importantly, they lacked the courage to go to voters and tell them that they were going to introduce these taxes. Even worse than that, every member of the Labor Party betrayed the Australian community when they then went and followed this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, like lemmings, off a political cliff and decided that they were going to back in these taxes.

I cannot believe that, in a nation that so badly needs more trust, more honesty and more courage, we have a government as dishonest, as spineless and as distrusting as this government—the Albanese government. This is not just the way forward. It is not just the way forward for the Labor Party, certainly not the Labor Party, and the inheritance they receive. It is a betrayal of the Australian community and what they went to the ballot box and cast their vote for. Now we're left with the consequences.

What we can say is that there is hope on the horizon, because this government will end. Their higher taxes that no-one voted for will end. There will be a better future, because some of us in this parliament understand that the pathway to build Australia's success is by backing the Australian people—backing their ingenuity, backing their sacrifice, backing their hard work, backing their innovation capacity and backing them—to make sure that they build the foundations of a better future for all of us. The coalition understands that when we repeal these taxes we will be backing in the small businesses of this country, not just small businesses that exist today but the glint of hope and opportunity that rests in the eye of the next generation of Australians who dare to dream, who dare to look to the horizon with hope and a belief in themselves that they can do great things. That's the type of citizen I want for this country.

I do not want the soft bigotry of low expectations that the Albanese government oversees. I want to see a country where, no matter who you are or where you come from, you can build a better future for yourself, lift the standards for yourself, lift your economic welfare and lift your whole community with you. That's what we back and that's what we believe. We do not believe in the government being the solution to all problems. We want the government out of people's way. The role of government is to make sure that it respects its citizens, backs them in and understands that it is to create an empowering and enabling framework for people to go out and live their best lives.

It's our chance and our moment to make sure that we build a better Australia for every Australian. That is not what is being done in these laws being put before this parliament. Instead, what we see is a government that is so addicted to spending that its only solution is to grab its very large hand and shove it in the pockets of Australians, of whom it is jealous and resentful because they have managed to back themselves into success. Even worse than that, the jealousy and resentment from the Albanese government then tries and punish and humiliate people who want to back themselves in and have a better future. This sick fantasy of the Albanese government, and the focus it brings to this parliament, is not one that breeds the type of nation we want. It is not one that builds a better future for Australia, and it is not one that enables Australians to live out their best lives.

Now is our critical moment. At the next election, these taxes, and, of course, the assault on small business, will be on the ballot paper. I look forward to a Taylor-led Liberal government that is going to repeal these taxes and build a better future for all of us.

Before I call for the amendment to be seconded, I just want to put on the record, Member for Goldstein, not to reflect on myself as a deputy speaker, that I wasn't smirking and that wasn't part of the debate. I just want it noted for the record that I wasn't smirking. Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

For those of us who were lucky enough or privileged enough to sit through the whole 30 minutes of the member for Goldstein's contribution, I think looking at it in equal parts horror and fascination, it took until maybe the 26-minute-and-30-second mark before there was something of interest and value to respond to; that was when the member for Goldstein, the shadow Treasurer, started talking about the philosophical differences between Labor and the Liberals. We see now a stark difference between the two sides. He is correct to point out a difference, even if he is incorrect in the way in which he characterises those differences. I want, in the time that I am in this place, to continue to prosecute this argument that Australia is not the country I was born into. The country I was born into in the 1970s was one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, and over the course of the last 40 years or so we have become one of the least egalitarian countries in the world.

I know that there is division in the opposition on this value, on this idea, on this philosophy of the role that government plays in society, and that the shadow Treasurer is one of the spear carriers for smaller government, for government withdrawing and leaving it all to the private sector. It is this philosophy, which is responsible for privatisation, economic rationalisation and deindustrialisation, which has devastated the working-class communities that most of us in this place represent. It is those three things, and the withdrawal of the role of government and the idea that the private sector can always do better, that have laid waste to our textiles industry and our manufacturing industry and have wrought havoc on that sense of what it means to be Australian—that is, none of us are better than any of us. That philosophy is exemplified in what we heard in that contribution from the shadow Treasurer.

I support these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026. They are part of the government. As Paul Keating said, change the government and you change the country. We have seen over the last 40 years, as I said, a descent into inequality and poverty for working-class communities. Change the government and you change the country. We have seen change over the last four years of the Albanese government. Some people would like it to be quicker; perhaps some people would like it to be slower. We're not about throwing over the tables and letting the chaos work it out for itself; we're doing it in an ordered way and in a way that will provide some longevity to these changes.

I know it is not just on our side. I know that on the other side—it's always good to see the member for Riverina here, because the agrarian socialists that exist within the National Party, I'm sure, also appreciate what it means for government to play an active role in our economy. Big wheels turn slowly. It's not just on our side. I think the member for Goldstein is now isolated in many ways with, as Paul Keating described it, a 'sterile ideology' that should be rejected. These bills exist within that change. In business, I like the idea that it's riskier not to invest than to invest—that doing nothing is actually the risky option. As the Treasurer has said, these are contested matters. There is no doubt that these are contested matters. We have over the last few months consulted widely with the community. (Quorum formed)

Now that everybody's here, they might want to sit down and listen to this contribution! I wish I was a bit better prepared now. Where was I? Oh, they've gone—give them about five minutes and then call a quorum again, perhaps. There are many elements to this bill which are worth addressing, but I'll confine my remarks to a limited number of them. The biggest one in there, of course, is housing. The changes to the CGT are going to have a significantly positive impact on dealing with a problem that has resulted in one of the greatest examples of inequality in Australia, as we have seen homeownership fall off the cliff from rates around 72 or 73 per cent to around 65 per cent and falling. When you look at that demographic of between 25 and 45, it has just completely fallen off a cliff. One of the measures in here deals with the capital gains tax changes and housing. There was a time when you were able to buy a house that was worth four times your income. These days houses are worth about nine or 10 times your income.

There was also a time when people wrote letters to the editor—handwritten or typed, put in an envelope and sent to the editor. A constituent of mine, Ian from Shailer Park, brought to my attention a letter that he wrote to the Courier-Mail in 2007 in which he said:

If Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello want to take credit for the economy, they must also accept the blame for the housing affordability crisis threatening our country.

House prices do not double of their own accord in five years. They were stagnant for much of the 1990s. I don't know what levers Howard and Costello pulled to cause this doubling, but I do know that, as a result, Australia is facing one of the greatest social disasters possible—a generation of people who cannot afford their own home in the once lucky country. Many parents will see their superannuation disappear very quickly as they try to assist their children buy a home. The legacy of the Government's pursuit of an ill-considered ideology will blight this country for several generations.

This guy should be on government economic committees because he nailed it 19 years ago. He knew what was coming. We saw house prices double after the introduction of the CGT changes. Since then they have doubled—in some cases doubled again—to put homeownership out of reach. Fundamentally, these TLA bills do three things; they are about: providing more tax cuts for workers; making it fairer for first home buyers; and realigning earned income with income earned through other means.

That is why the changes to trusts are so important. Somebody asked me why we are doing this. The answer is really quite simple. Over the last 20 years, the use of discretionary trusts has doubled in this country. Something like 90 per cent of the wealth held in those discretionary trusts is owned by the top 10 per cent of households in Australia. So that's why we're doing it. As the Treasurer said, these are not easy changes; these are contested changes. The consultation that has happened over the last few months is a commendation as to how this government consults with all members of this House.

Trish, a constituent I've been working with on this very issue, is an example of somebody who will be looked after by this legislation. She's retired. She owns one investment property with her husband. She has a little bit of super. At the moment, because her accountant advised her to set up a discretionary trust, she is able to divide the income fifty-fifty between her and her husband—a very modest income from a very modest single investment property—which nets her about 20 grand, just around the tax-free threshold. Of course, a 30 per cent automatic tax is not meant to catch people like Trish. The changes in these bills will mean that she will be able to elect to reapportion those distributions very simply so that they are effectively fixed. That will mean that she won't have to pay that 30 per cent minimum tax.

Her second concern was what would happen when she passed. Again, this legislation deals with that. She or her estate will be able to nominate beneficiaries who will take up a proportion of what was there for the beneficiary who passed away. Rather than stuff the explanation, I thought I might read out the example in the explanatory memorandum—which I'm not sure I've ever heard the member for Riverina do! I hope reading the explanatory memorandum out is okay. The example reads as follows:

The trustee of the Green Trust made an EET election in the 2028-29 income year, which complies with the requirements including specifying Mr and Mrs Green as beneficiaries in the EET nomination and specifying each with a 50 per cent share of the income and non-income earnings of the trust estate.

Mr Green passes away during the 2036-37 income year. Mr Green's will names Mrs Green and their two children as beneficiaries of Mr Green's deceased estate. Before the end of the 2036-37 income year, the trustee decides to allocate Mr Green's nominated share of income and non-income earnings equally between the two children. The trustee of the Green Trust notifies the Commissioner of this decision in the approved form by the due date, and the EET election remains in force.

I've read that out because Trish is listening to this and because we have listened to Trish. We have consulted widely. We have here a package that deals with that inequality that has beset Australia in the last 40 years. And we have consulted to make sure this is a fair deal for Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and related bills deal with taxes and with trust. When it comes to trust, you cannot rely on Labor. And when it comes to taxes, we know that this government is the highest-taxing government ever. The problem is that we've got businesses going backwards. We have small business in this country in freefall at the moment—30 businesses a day closing their doors. The small business sector is on its knees. Because of Labor's policies, nearly 15,000 small businesses collapsed in 2025. It was the worst year in record and, sadly, this year it's no better.

Labor has introduced thousands—not hundreds, but thousands—of new regulations: more compliance, making it difficult and more expensive to do business. Businesses' electricity bills have surged by about 40 per cent since May 2022. Coffee shops, hairdressers, motor mechanics—all of those small businesses that we all rely on—have to find that money, over and above their running costs, each and every week, just to make ends meet. And they can't keep doing it. There's only so much that you can charge somebody for a cup of coffee. There's only so much that you can charge somebody for a haircut. There's only so much that you can charge somebody when it comes time to fix their motor vehicle. They're doing it so tough, and Labor is only making it harder.

We have put forward a number of sensible amendments, and I hope the government, in good faith, accepts them, agrees with them and votes in favour of them. We know that the government did not take a minimum tax on discretionary trusts to the election last year. Indeed, they promised before that election that they would not raise taxes, yet we know that Labor has done that. Treasury's own impact analysis says that around 350,000 small businesses operate through a discretionary trust. Many of them are farmers. Many of them are those who work the land, who provide the food and fibre our nation relies on—and not just Australia but many other countries as well. Each of those businesses that rely on that discretionary trust is left with some options. They can pay a new 30 per cent tax hike, they can restructure and pay stamp duty, or they can lock in fixed shares for life in a one-off election in 2028-29. Treasury puts the compliance costs at an average of $141.5 million each year.

Labor loves to spend money. On Monday night I went and listened to the Senate estimates environment committee hearing. That's what I did; that's what I spent my Monday night doing. It was really interesting to hear the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Minister Murray Watt, the senator who has carriage of the water portfolio, answer questions in that important portfolio area.

It was with some disgust last night, in between reading legislation, that I read an article in the Border Mail, the newspaper covering Albury-Wodonga. It said:

Regional NSW Minister Tara Moriarty visited Lavington Sports Ground on Tuesday, October 27, to outline spending across 34 projects covering an area from Wentworth to Goulburn.

This just goes to show the malaise about spending and why communities, and people, are so frustrated with politics, politicians and Labor governments in particular. The article said:

Lavington Football Netball Club received $52,555 for resurfacing and upgrading a court that has been in place since 2023 but unsuitable for hosting matches.

The club's netball administration manager Rhys Winckle said "it's actually essentially just a training facility at the moment, and that's all we can really use it for until this court surface has actually been applied".

Of course, Lavington was pretty happy that they received this funding.

The article went on to talk about AusCycling in Wagga Wagga, my hometown, receiving $99,954 for a mobile cycling centre and the Ganmain sports club—it's a great little community, a wonderful little community; for a little village, Ganmain's sporting history is probably second to none per capita in the nation—receiving $83,524 to 'upgrade an underused area for a community hub'. The article continued:

The bulk of the money, $1.365 million, went to Goulburn's council to upgrade that city's hockey centre with two modern fields to attract major championships.

Good luck to Goulburn. Well done, Ganmain. Congratulations, Wagga Wagga, and half your luck, Lavington.

This is the rub. All that money. All those four centres received part of the windfall of '$6.58 million in funding that was shared across 14 projects as part of the active regional communities program'. Deputy Speaker Chesters, you'll be interested in this because, being from Bendigo, you are in the Murray-Darling Basin. The article reported:

Ms Moriarty said the NSW government did not support the policy of water buybacks pursued by the Commonwealth but would not be rejecting a total of $160 million offered by Canberra to mitigate the impact of more environmental flows.

She was quoted:

There's a lot of other options that are available for repairing our waterways and our environment, which we do support. But we want to make sure that this region, that is so incredibly important for food production not just for this region, but for all of New South Wales and for all of Australia … stays strong into the future while we repair our environment.

Ms Moriarty estimated 624 jobs would be created through the $50 million spending but could not say—

this is the interesting point—

how that figure would tally against the number of positions lost because of buybacks.

I mention all that as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 debate because that article shows how wrongheaded the bureaucracy and Labor governments are at the moment. Whilst those four centres that I mentioned certainly are in the Murray-Darling Basin, they are certainly not—n-o-t; put it in capitals, underline it, put it in red; I don't care—affected, really, by water buybacks. They are not.

When it comes to taxes, when it comes to discretionary trusts, when it comes to government spending money, when it comes to helping communities—I just don't understand why communities that are not affected by something then receive a cash windfall at the expense of other towns which are on their knees. Small businesses in towns such as Leeton, Narrandera, Finley, Deniliquin and Tocumwal and in the city of Griffith have diminished so much because of bad water policy. Those small businesses are on their knees not just because of bad water policy but also because of bad federal Labor policy. They have the double whammy, then they pick up the paper and they read that the towns close by in the same region but not affected at all by water buybacks are receiving a cash windfall for their sporting organisations. It's no wonder that people are angry. It's no wonder that there's grievance. It's no wonder that people are asking why. It's no wonder that people are just saying, 'We are sick of these bad policies.'

Now, people might ask what we will do to fix it. We will put in place a tax-back guarantee. When it comes to Treasury laws amendments, when it comes to reforming the tax system, under a coalition government—hopefully one after 2027 if the Prime Minister goes early or in 2028 when the next general election is due to be held—85 per cent of taxpayers will be fully protected from bracket creep. From 2028-29, every taxpayer will be protected from 2031-32. From 2028-29, the bottom two income tax thresholds will be indexed to inflation, fully protecting 85 per cent of income earners from Labor's higher taxes. That's what's crippling. That, folks, is what is crippling small businesses and taxpayers everywhere.

Labor is fond of talking about real income increasing, but it's a folly. It's a fantasy. It's a Labor Party talking point that just doesn't ring true out in the community, because people know that, every time they fill up their car, it's costing them more. Labor will talk about the Strait of Hormuz. They'll talk about the situation in Iran. They'll talk till they're red in the face about situations overseas affecting Australia markets.

Someone else's fault.

It's always someone else's fault, as the member for Berowra just said. Every time people go and buy their groceries, they're paying more or they're getting less in their trolley or both. This can't continue. Then, we have a situation where Labor just wants to buy more water out of the agricultural productive consumptive farming pool, like they did just recently with 86 gigalitres taken out, the equivalent of 34,400 swimming pools. What's that going to do to the ability to have Australian produce on the supermarket shelves? What's that going to do to the ability to have cheaper food? Well, it's going to have less Australian made food and higher food prices. It's obvious.

Then, of course, you have Australians opening up their power bills. We hear the Minister for Climate Change and Energy constantly spruiking his home battery program. Well, people are paying through the neck when it comes to energy costs, not just people but manufacturers. I heard the member for Forde earlier talking about textiles and manufacturing. He was good to mention that and good to acknowledge that. But those industries are going backwards. If it is so good and great, why is Labor constantly having to subsidise and rescue alumina in Newcastle in the Hunter Valley, the steel industry in Whyalla in South Australia or the rice mills down in the Riverina to the tune of $14 million? Recently the latest buyback cost 92 jobs. Fourteen of those people found other work within SunRice. They were fortunate, much more fortunate than the 78 who did not. That's 78 families who now don't have an income. Then they hear us talking about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026. They see that Lavington and Wagga Wagga and Ganmain and Goulburn are getting money as a recompense for the water buyback situation, and they get angry. And they get annoyed. And they get frustrated. And they are in despair—and for good reason.

We've got to be better than this. Bureaucrats have to get maps, and they have to look at those maps. They have to also speak with local members of parliament and say: 'If we're going to spend money in Goulburn, will that help them because they've lost the irrigation channels and they've lost all the irrigation farmers? If we give money to the Lavington sports oval, is that going to help the irrigation farmer who might have a paddy of rice?' They don't have rice in Lavington! It's just ridiculous.

Labor has to be better. Bureaucrats have to be better. I'm almost pleading. It's just dumb. It's nonsensical, it's stupid and it's a waste of taxpayers' money. Labor, you have to be better than this. People demand it. People expect it. People need it. People deserve it. Be better.

Tax reform, by its very nature, concerns rates, revenue and fiscal sustainability. But, at its core, at its heart, tax reform is about values. Underlying every debate about rates, about thresholds and about revenue are deeper questions: Do Australia's economic rules reflect the aspirations and reward the hard work of Australian taxpayers and of everyday working people? Do they reflect who we want to be as a nation?

A fit-for-purpose tax system does more than just raise revenue. It influences where capital flows, it decides how innovation is rewarded and it translates hard work into opportunity—not just opportunity for those individuals but opportunity for our country. Most importantly, it helps determine whether Australians believe that, if they work hard and play by the rules and contribute to their communities, they have a fair chance to get ahead. This is Labor's approach to tax reform.

The Albanese Labor government's agenda focuses on rewarding work, supporting that aspiration and better aligning the income earned through work with income earned in other ways. If you're a nurse working shift work, caring for our sickest Australians; if you're a boilermaker, working a double, clocking in and out; or, if you work in aged care, looking after our growing older population, you shouldn't have to pay more taxes than people holding wealth in other ways. Labor's reforms are pro-worker because Australians who earn their income through their own effort should know that that hard work is valued and that hard work is rewarded.

The reforms are pro-aspiration because homeownership should not become an impossible dream for the next generation. Young people in this country have never had a dream to pay off someone else's mortgage. Young Australians have a dream to own their very own home, something that helps them plan for their future. Labor is supporting tens of thousands of people to enter the property market, to own their own home and to build security for themselves and for their families.

And, yes, the Albanese Labor government's tax reform will create a fairer balance between the way income from work is taxed and the way income from other sources is treated. Let's have a closer look at that point. There are now more than one million trusts in Australia. There are, of course, sound reasons and legitimate reasons for individuals and businesses to use those trusts, including succession planning, asset protection and the management of family affairs. However, the rapid growth in the use of discretionary trusts over recent decades—by the way, the number has more than doubled in the past 20 years—raises critical questions about the sustainability and, indeed, the fairness of the current system.

The benefits of the discretionary trusts are not evenly distributed. The majority of income generated through trusts flows to households in the highest income bracket, and around 90 per cent of private trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households, those with net assets exceeding approximately $2.3 million. A key feature of discretionary trusts is their flexibility which can provide opportunities to organise tax affairs in ways that are not available to most wage and salary earners, in ways that simply aren't on the table for everyday Australians. Treasury analysis indicates that families using discretionary trusts paid an average effective tax rate around four percentage points lower than families with similar incomes who did not use a trust.

Reviews of Australia's tax system over the past 50 years have also identified these inequities. This includes the 1975 Asprey report, the 2008 Henry review and the coalition's 2015 tax discussion paper. All of them said exactly the same thing: we have to do something about this. They highlighted the failure of that fundamental principle of fairness, that income should be treated consistently regardless of how it is earned or how it is held. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 will deliver a fairer tax system. These changes will affect only a small portion of taxpayers. More than 95 per cent of individual taxpayers and over 90 per cent of small businesses will not be impacted in any given year. It's also important to note that these changes will not apply to a range of trust arrangements that serve important social, charitable and public purposes. This includes fixed trusts, charitable trusts, special disability trusts and superannuation funds along with primary production income and certain categories of income received by—(Quorum formed) vulnerable minors. The exemptions also extend to deceased estates and discretionary testamentary trusts. In addition, distributions made by trusts to registered charities and deductible gift recipients will remain outside the scope of these changes.

The government has undertaken extensive consultation throughout the development of these reforms, seeking stakeholder feedback on the practical operation of the trust reforms and the exposure drafts. These consultation processes have helped to refine the legislation and ensure the reforms are implemented in a considered and effective manner. As a result, there are options to minimise, and in many cases avoid altogether, restructuring costs for small businesses and other taxpayers who use discretionary trusts.

Discretionary trusts will be exempt from the minimum tax if they make fixed distributions to nominated beneficiaries. This provides an alternative to accessing rollover relief and offers greater flexibility in responding to the reforms. For those who choose not to restructure, trusts will continue to be available for legitimate purposes such as asset protection, succession planning and business operations. The reforms do not remove or restrict the use of trusts. Instead, they will reduce disparities in tax outcomes by ensuring that income distributed through trusts is taxed more consistently with income earned directly by workers and families through wages and salaries.

The remaining schedules of bill No. 3 represent the next stage of Labor's housing affordability reforms and focus on the changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing announced in the budget earlier this year. The objective is very clear: to create a housing market that works better for first home buyers while maintaining incentives for investment that expands the nation's housing stock. In short, we want to make sure that we get more supply in the system after four decades of undersupply and get everyday Australians into their very first homes.

These reforms strike a balanced approach by preserving the gains that existing investors have already accrued while directing future investment more strongly towards increasing new housing supply. By improving access to homeownership and easing some of the barriers facing prospective buyers, these measures are expected to assist around 75,000 Australians—additional first home buyers entering the market over the coming decade—and this will help reverse the long-term decline in homeownership rates and restore the prospect of owning a home for a new generation of Australians.

This bill builds on the foundational capital gains tax reforms passed by the parliament, and it addresses a number of more complex and technical issues to ensure the changes operate as intended across a diverse range of taxpayers, investment structures and trust arrangements. Comprehensive consultation with stakeholders was carried out, as with the other schedules of this legislation, but the legislation contains safeguards to prevent the loss-ordering rules introduced in the first stage of the reform from having unintended consequences for superannuation funds and other superannuation entities that invest through trust structures.

The bill also provides clarifying detail regarding the definition of a new residential dwelling, by identifying the categories of housing that will remain exempt from the new limits on negative gearing. Consistent with Labor's fundamental drive to encourage additional housing supply, investors in eligible new housing will continue to have access to negative gearing provisions and the 50 per cent capital gains discount. These measures provide clarity for investors while directing incentives towards housing that increases the overall stock of homes in this country.

Eligible new housing includes residential properties that make a genuine contribution to supply, such as more homes built on previously vacant land and redevelopment projects where existing dwellings are replaced with an increased number of new residences. The legislation also recognises that some forms of housing serve important social and community purposes and, as a result, a range of housing types will remain exempt from negative gearing restrictions. This includes special disability accommodation, affordable housing projects, public housing, retirement living communities, residential aged-care facilities and build-to-rent developments.

The focus of this bill is to drive innovation, to unlock new investment and to help build a more dynamic and resilient Australian economy, and this means more support for businesses and start-ups, investing in more research and ensuring that our Australian tax system is sustainable. The Albanese Labor government has already rolled out $3.8 billion in tax relief for businesses, and this bolsters those supports. It includes the innovation business capital gains tax concession, which will support investment in innovative start-ups. That's on top of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. It's on top of the loss carry-back, and, in my local electorate where, if you jumped up, hopped in a hot air balloon, dropped the sandbags and floated over the south side, the strongest glow would come from the small businesses in Sunnybank, retail, hospitality, manufacturing—this bill supports small business, as does this government. This bill is about building a system that rewards effort, supports aspiration and drives investment for all Australians.

What we are dealing with is this federal Labor government's proposed trust tax reform, and it represents another major burden on Australia's small-business community. Don't take my word for it. Don't take the coalition's word for it. Let me give you, in a set out, methodical manner, a range of examples from businesses in my electorate of Monash, because, across the board right now, small businesses are struggling to keep their head above water. They are running on financial and emotional reserves. They have had an increase in input costs right across the board, from fuel to insurance to the complexity of employment laws and regulations, and they are really struggling right now.

One example is Abe from a local agrispecialist accounting firm that has over 500 regional agriclients. Abe says:

This legislation has Australia moving from a flexible tax system to a rigid tax system

Abe says:

Minimum 30% tax in trusts is higher than the 25% company tax rate

And Abe feels that many small businesses will be forced to close their door due to these changes. Abe's small business example is the following: a family trust that splits income. Family adults pay more far more tax under this proposal. There's an example that's set out of $150,000 of trust income split equally between a husband and wife in a farming family and their adult son who works in the business with no other income. In the 2025-26 financial year, the tax would be $19,614. This will be lower again if we applied the 2026-27 financial year rates. From July 2028, that tax is $45,000, or 30 per cent, simply because the trustee pays a minimum tax and a beneficiary's credit is non-refundable. The result is $25,386 more tax a year on the same income, and each person loses around $8,462 of unusable credit. That's not fair. Abe goes on: escape routes and restructures all cost. Restructuring can mean stamp duty, and the fixed distribution locks in beneficiaries and shares. How is this fair? How is this equitable for a small-business entity? It's not.

Then we've got stamp duty. The ATO's rollover relief doesn't cover stamp duty. Duty is a state tax, so it depends on where the property is and how you restructure. The expanded rollover relief gives exemptions to income and capital gains tax for three years if they restructure. It applies for three years from 1 July 2027. I'd note that CPA Australia says the draft leaves state taxes untouched. What it does not address are the regulatory and state stamp duties, and the stamp duty barrier remains, so a restructure can be tax neutral federally and still trigger a large state duty bill.

The legislation lets an existing discretionary trust avoid the new tax by choosing to make fixed distributions to prenominated beneficiaries, with tax still paid at the beneficiaries' marginal rate. What is the point of a discretionary trust when they must now be fixed? The question that has arisen from my constituents is: how is it fair that a taxpayer has set up a structure based on historical discretionary trust rules, and now the goalposts have moved? Shouldn't the rules be grandfathered? My constituents put it quite rightly. Commentators have called one consequence 'a birth tax'. Under the current draft, beneficiaries generally need to be nominated when the trust makes its election, so a child born later can't easily be brought in.

I want to go through my email inbox, with some other feedback. We've got Carrie, from South Gippsland. Carrie says that the proposed tax on trusts will hurt essential businesses in the Monash electorate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, I represent a regional community. Oftentimes we will have a farming family who are in tough times, in drought or a bad season, and one of the partners will have a business outside of the family farm in town, be it food or hospitality, that is an important supplement to their income—so it's going to hurt those small and family-run businesses as well. Carrie also says many family, small and medium-sized businesses are structured as discretionary trusts for asset protection flexibility in managing irregular income and distributing profits and for family business continuity. These family, small and medium-sized businesses are critical to the local economy. Carrie says:

Family businesses such as tradies, accountants, cafes, retail shops and hairdressers are likely to face considerably higher tax bills. Many businesses will be forced to restructure their operations, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal, accounting and financial aid.

One thing I get feedback on regularly is that we are creating a compliance industry in this country because red tape and duplication of regulations of tax imposts are growing. As a small-business owner, you do not have a HR department, an IT department or a marketing department; you are the marketing manager, the IT manager and the HR manager. At the same time as you are wearing all those hats, you've got to run a business and serve your customers. These regulatory imposts, this additional red tape—small businesses are drowning in red tape right now, and this just makes it worse. Carrie says:

At a time when businesses are already dealing with escalating cost pressures, I believe we should be making it easier—not harder—for businesses to invest, grow and employ more Australians.

I say to Carrie: hear, hear. I say to Carrie: as your local federal member in this parliament, I'll always stand on the side of small and family owned businesses. The coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—will always stand on the side of small and family-run businesses because it's those businesses that get out of bed every morning and put their houses on the line to give other Australians a shot at a job. It's those Australians that are the first to put their hand up to volunteer in our service clubs and community organisations. It's those Australians who are the first to put their hands in their pockets to sponsor our food banks, our footy and our netball clubs, and to run, invest in and grow our regional communities.

I've had feedback from an accountant, also in South Gippsland. Four clients attended their office in one day, when this was announced, who had to restructure. The cost of this is huge, and they can't afford the cost right now because the cost of everything else is going up and up, and there is no respite for these small businesses. The changes will be made and the tax paid will be identical, but the disruption and impact are huge. Quite frankly, they will be left wide open with no protection in many cases. I had a solicitor from my hometown of Warragul contact me saying that local people that that solicitor provides advice, support and service to are concerned. Their main concern is the unknown. They don't know. It goes to Carrie's point earlier about the goalposts continuing to move. This solicitor says that we definitely need certainty in the testamentary discretionary trusts space. There have been changes since the budget, but they still have big concerns. As it stands, people will need to change these trusts to remove companies and trusts as beneficiaries. However, in some cases those who have set up these trusts have lost the capacity to make those necessary changes.

There are fewer than 11,000 active testamentary discretionary trusts currently in existence in Australia, compared to over 840,000 discretionary trusts. These testamentary discretionary trusts are largely set up to protect really vulnerable people, protecting inheritances for children, widows, widowers and people with a disability who are beneficiaries after a death. There is a concern, this solicitor from West Gippsland says, that people just don't know. She's had lots of discussions with clients, but she doesn't have any clarity. She says, 'Our advice is that we'll just have to wait and see.' That is a response from so many businesses across my electorate and, indeed, across regional Australia right now under this government who pulled the rug out from under them and moved the goalposts and who run on a legislative platform of surprise for small businesses, who just don't know what is around the corner for them except for the fact that costs are going to rise and regulations are going to increase under this government.

It's very common for some parties, particularly family members, to work in a business on a paid or unpaid basis. This leads to consequences in the sense that it often undermines one business partner in terms of capital contribution and labour contribution. The consequence of these changes will be fewer people choosing to go into small business. That is the Australia that we're living in right now under this federal Albanese Labor government. I really worry for the next generation of younger small-business leaders in this country that they have had such a fright from looking at all of the obstacles, all of the imposts and all of the challenges that their parents' generation and the current generation of small-business owners and leaders in this country are facing. We've got young people right now, this week, starting their VCE exams, and my best wishes to them. To own and run a small business is a noble vocation. It should be applauded, it should be encouraged and it should be celebrated. And yet, right now, under this federal Labor government, the Prime Minister is making it harder. Small-business owners have never had to work harder for less and have never faced more risk and red tape. This is a prime example of that. It is warning off younger Australians who would otherwise say: 'You know what? I love entrepreneurialism. I love running a small business. I love serving my community. I love working with my staff. I've got a few ideas about some products or services that I could offer to my local regional community. I think that would add to the visitor economy and the attractability of the town. It'll employ people from farming families.'

As I said earlier, when times are tough, often being able to supplement that farming family's income through a hospitality business or a gift shop business in town can make all the difference. Right now, there is a big flashing red light that this government is imposing on small-business owners and, indeed, the next generation of entrepreneurs and small-business owners in this country by asking, 'For the imposts, the hours, the risk and the red tape that you will be under, is it really worth it? Tragically for this country, there are thousands of younger people looking right now at the risks and reward outcomes and saying: 'I think under this federal Labor government it's not worth it. I'll go and get a salaried role. I'll go and become an employee, because risking my house and risking my own children's future to run a small business with all of this ahead of us just might not be worth it.' That is a tragedy. It is a crying shame, because we cannot do without small businesses. They are the largest employer of people right across this country. They employ young people, often giving them their first shot at a job and their first experience in a workplace. They provide flexibility and opportunities for progression, particularly for women. In regional Australia, small-business owners, particularly women, have said to me, 'Working in a large corporate entity in a capital city, I just didn't get the opportunities for career progression and promotion that a small family run business afforded me.' We're going to lose out on those opportunities, and that is a crying shame.

Right now, small business is up against it. It's up against rising costs and rising red tape and not getting a fair go in this country under this federal government. But I stand on the side of small and family run businesses. The Liberal and National parties stand on the side of Australian small and family businesses. We will give you a go, we will support you, we will stand up for you and we will do everything we can to defeat the punitive, the unfair and the untold pressures that this federal Labor government is imposing on thousands of Australian small-business owners right now.

There is an old saying that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes, but in Australia we've managed to introduce a third certainty: if there is a tax concession available, someone will find a way to turn it into a property investment. And, if that concession is particularly generous, they might establish a family trust to manage it. I don't begrudge anyone working hard, building a business, investing their savings or trying to get ahead. That is part of the Australian story—but so is the fair go, and the fair go means the rules should not depend on whether you earn your income through a pay packet or through a structure that requires three accountants and a family lawyer to explain. Working Australians should not need a trust deed to get a fair deal.

These three bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026, put that principle into practice. They rebalance how we tax work and investment, encourage new housing and innovation and make sensible adjustments for businesses and workers. Of course these reforms are controversial. Tax reform usually is. Everyone supports a fairer and simpler tax system right up until someone suggests changing the concession they happen to be using. Suddenly the national interest becomes a lot less interesting. But our responsibility is to ask whether existing arrangements still serve Australia, not simply whether someone has come to rely on them.

Start with discretionary trusts, because this is where much of the opposition is focused. There are entirely legitimate reasons to establish trusts—asset protection, succession planning and managing family affairs. The people who have used them lawfully have done nothing wrong. But consider two families earning broadly similar incomes. In one household, both parents receive wages, their employers withhold tax and the rest goes into the family bank account. In the other, income is earned through investments held in a discretionary trust. Depending on its circumstances, the trustee can distribute that income among beneficiaries and reduce the family's total tax bill. Both families may be following every rule, yet their tax outcomes can differ simply because of the structure through which they receive their income. Treasury found that, in 2022-23, families with discretionary trusts faced an average tax rate of around four percentage points lower than families with similar incomes without them. Four percentage points is not a rounding error to someone who earns their living from wages, and the advantages are concentrated. Approximately 90 per cent of private trust wealth is held in the wealthiest 10 per cent of households. That does not mean every trust beneficiary is wealthy or every trust is designed to minimise tax. It tells us where the greatest benefits of the present system flow.

There is a broader budget consequence too. A concession does not cease to cost money merely because the cost appears as revenue never collected. If income from one source receives more favourable treatment, the government must make up the difference through other taxes, reduced services or borrowing. That is why this debate is not a contest between those with trusts and those without. It is a question about how we share responsibility of funding the country we all rely upon. It also exposes a question parliament cannot avoid. Why should two families with comparable incomes face different tax burdens because one has access to a more flexible legal structure? The first of the schedules of the No. 3 bill and the accompanying rates bill answer that question with a 30 per cent minimum tax on the relevant discretionary trust income from July 2028. The trustee pays it. Eligible noncorporate beneficiaries receive credit so the same income is not taxed twice without recognition of tax already paid. There are exclusions for genuine testamentary trusts, deceased estates, special disability trusts, charitable arrangements and primary production income, among others. (Quorum formed) This is not a ban on family trusts. It is a limit on the tax advantage that some structures can deliver.

I recognise the concern amongst business owners who established trusts years ago on professional advice. They may hold business assets, employ staff and have planned their succession around those arrangements. Changing the rules affects real decisions. That is why implementation is important. The legislation provides expanded rollover relief for those who choose to restructure a company or fixed trust. It also offers an election to make fixed distributions to nominated beneficiaries without restructuring. More than 90 per cent of small businesses are not to be affected in any given year. Those protections are not an afterthought. They reflect consultation and an attempt to preserve legitimate business activity while fixing the tax imbalance. We're also helping businesses through a permanent $20,000 instant tax write off, loss carry back and other measures supporting investment. Supporting small business should mean helping people build enterprises and employ Australians. It should not mean promising every tax advantage will last forever, nor can we pretend this issue is new. The Asprey review examined income-splitting through trusts in the 1970s. The Hawke-Keating government returned to it in the 1980s, and the Howard government committed to trust tax reform in 1998. The reform never eventuated, yet the capital gains changes of that period, which made investment concessions more generous, went ahead. The concession survived. The reforms did not. More than 20 years later, the number of discretionary trusts has more than doubled. It is difficult to argue that another decade of inaction will somehow resolve the problem.

That brings me to housing, where the consequences of tax choices are visible every Saturday morning. We all know the scene—young Australians at a home open, working out whether they can stretch their deposit, increase their offer and still afford the mortgage. Often they are competing with investors who can deduct eligible rental losses against other taxable income. The investor gets a tax deduction; the first home buyer gets another Saturday at a home open. Private investment plays an essential role in providing rental homes. The issue is not whether people should invest in property; it is what taxpayers should be subsidising through the tax system. Buying an existing home may be a sound investment, but it does not by itself create an additional home. When supply is already constrained, subsidies for buying existing homes can intensify competition for the same limited stock. And, for the first home buyer, the house is not primarily a line in an investment portfolio. It is security, somewhere to raise a family and somewhere to put down roots and stop worrying about the next lease renewal.

The government's negative gearing and capital gains reforms change the incentive for future investment. They preserve favourable treatment for qualifying new dwellings that genuinely add to housing supply. The legislation provides certainty around what counts as a new home, including the relevant occupancy period, and protects arrangements supporting affordable housing, specialist disability accommodation, public housing and other essential housing. Existing capital gains are protected through the broader transition, rather than being retrospectively rewritten.

Importantly, the legislation recognises that not all housing serves the same purpose. Homes for people with disability, for affordable rentals and for retirement accommodation respond to needs the market does not always meet on its own. Protecting appropriate concessions for those developments is not an inconsistency; it follows the same principle. Public incentives should support identifiable public benefits. That distinction is one reason these reforms are more carefully targeted than a blanket restriction would be. The intention is not to punish investment; it is to attract investment to construction, where more capital can mean more homes. Treasury estimates that housing tax reforms will help another 75,000 first home buyers enter the market over the next decade.

I will not pretend that tax reform alone will build the homes Australia needs. We also need skilled workers, infrastructure, planning approvals and construction capacity. There is little sense in spending public money to expand supply while tax settings encourage investors to bid up existing stock. Government policy should be pulling in the same direction. This leads to the larger economic question behind the No. 4 bill: if we're going to offer tax advantages, what activity should we encourage?

Australia needs people prepared to start businesses, develop technologies, invest in research and employ skilled workers here, rather than take their ideas overseas. Those are not guaranteed investments. A startup may take years to earn a profit, and many never do. That risk is precisely why targeted support can influence whether a promising Australian idea receives the capital it needs. The Innovative Business Capital Gains Tax Concession provides a 50 per cent discount for eligible new equity investments in innovative companies, including for founders, employees and early-stage investors. There are limits on company age and turnover, innovation requirements and a minimum three-year holding period. These are incentives for backing businesses over time, not turning over assets for a quick tax result.

The legislation also modernises venture capital incentives so funds can continue supporting growing companies as valuations and investment needs change. That is especially relevant in sectors such as clean energy, advanced technology and medical research, where capital needs are large and the returns may be years away. The research and development changes apply the same logic. They direct stronger tax support towards core research, increase the turnover threshold for refundable incentive and lift the expenditure cap to encourage more research to remain onshore. Young firms receive targeted support while eligible biotechnology and medical technology businesses can access the refundable offset for up to 15 years, in recognition of the longer product development and approval processes. Developing new medical treatment can mean years of trials, specialised manufacturing, regulatory approvals and considerable expense before a single patient benefits. After all, developing a new medical treatment is slightly more complicated than purchasing your fourth investment property. The economic points I've been making are serious. A country cannot build a future simply by trading existing assets on ever higher prices. We also need to create products, skills, treatments and industries that did not exist before. Tax incentives should help unlock that work.

The No. 4 bill includes two more practical adjustments. First, it allows more businesses to choose monthly pay-as-you-go instalments, helping payments reflect changing trading conditions. Anyone who has run a business knows that 'profitable on paper' and 'cash in the bank' are not always the same thing. Second, it phases the electric vehicle fringe benefits tax concession towards more targeted support while protecting eligible existing commitments. The original discount helped the electric vehicle market develop and, as that market matures, it is reasonable to ask whether the same subsidy is still required in the same form. Good incentives should be judged by the outcome they achieve, not by how loudly people object when they are reviewed.

There is one final measure worth addressing: payday superannuation. Since July employers have been required to pay super alongside wages rather than waiting until the end of the quarter. That means contributions reach workers' retirement accounts earlier, with more time to compound. It also makes unpaid super easier to identify before months of entitlements accumulate. But the transition can result in some workers receiving contributions attributable to the previous financial year and the current year within the same tax year, potentially pushing them above the concessional contributions cap. The No. 3 bill provides automatic transition relief for that timing problem. Workers should not face an unintended tax penalty because we have made their superannuation payments more reliable.

I rise to make a plea to the government to pause—stop and consider what these bills will mean for the small businesses in Fowler and right across this nation. In Fowler, there are more than 27 small businesses. Many of them are family run—the mum and dad who run the local laundromat, the family with a small real estate agency, the couple who've built up a few restaurants and the mechanic who opens the roller door at seven every morning and close long after dark. Many came to this country with nothing. They work long hours. They do not ask for handouts. They are building a safety net so their children and their children's children will never have to rely on government. These are not tax dodgers; they are the backbone of this country.

At our Fowler business forum last week, one owner, who runs Salon Online, asked me a simple question: who pays the government's taxes? Small businesses employ people. Those employees pay tax. Without those businesses, where will the government get the taxes that pay for this parliament, the bureaucracy and the services this nation relies on? She has a point. Small business is the engine of this economy. Changes of this scale to negative gearing, capital gains tax, trusts and R&D should have been taken to the people at the last election. They were not. The Prime Minister ruled out these changes again and again during the 2025 campaign. These are not technical tweaks. They go to the livelihoods of families who have spent decades building something.

I'm concerned about how the government is handling these bills. These are complex changes with significant consequences for businesses, families and investment. Yet they have been brought together in a cognate debate with very little time for us to review the detail. Members should have a proper opportunity to examine these bills. How can we assure business owners that the consequences have been carefully considered when we have had so little time to examine those consequences ourselves? These serious matters require serious scrutiny. The government controls the timetable. It should allow parliament time to do its job.

On 21 October I held the first Fowler Small Business Forum with local small-business owners. They came from cafes and restaurants, allied health, textiles, IT and other industries. Their message was consistent. They are already struggling, and they fear these changes will make things harder. Small businesses pay tax and collect GST without withholding employees' superannuation. Making it harder to run a business affects workers, families and revenue-supporting public services. Several owners at our forum operate through trusts. Some have arrangements involving what are commonly known as bucket companies. They now face difficult questions: Will they pay more tax? Will they need to restructure? What will professional advice cost? That is the perspective I bring to this debate, focusing on the trust and restructuring measures in the No. 3 bill and the R&D changes in the No. 4 bill.

My starting point is fairness. Everyone should pay their fair share of tax. I understand the government's argument about differences between the taxation of discretionary trust income and a worker's earnings, but fairness also means considering who is affected and whether the transition is reasonable.

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

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Fuel

When fuel prices spiked this year, Australians were told it was the war, supply was tight and nothing could be done, but it's now pretty clear that oil companies have been taking us for a ride. Last week, Ampol told the stock exchange that conditions in the Middle East were 'net favourable' for its business, and it wasn't kidding. Its refining margin more than doubled on a year ago. Its net profit for the first half of this year rose nearly 400 per cent. Viva Energy's operating profit rose 154 per cent, but it only sold one per cent more fuel. They didn't sell more fuel; they made more on every litre. This hurts Australians in multiple ways: paying for those higher margins at the bowser, paying more for everything that's moved using these fuels and paying more on mortgages as the resulting inflation drives up interest rates.

But it gets worse. Since 2021, taxpayers have paid these refiners to stay open when margins are thin. In the lean years, the public carries the risk. When a war delivers a windfall, the companies keep it. Refiners should not be profiting from a crisis while Australians suffer. A windfall profits tax would make sure the public shares in the upside, not just the cost. In the long run, the best protection is to stop depending on imported fuels at all.

Impact North

Last month I attended Impact North's 2026 Business Builder graduation ceremony on Larrakia country in Darwin. Shannon Motlop is growing Aboriginal community harvest through native foods and catering. Tearna Pearce delivers therapeutic art and weaving workshops through Country Home Arts and Weaving. Jacqueline Phillips provides cultural services in Maningrida through JP Cultural Solutions, while Valda Shannon preserves Warumungu language knowledge through Lukarrara Consultancy. Shirley Djandjomerr is developing traditional owner led tourism through Malbak Aboriginal Corporation. Matthew Evans is creating employment pathways through MS-NT Contracting. Ceah Evans and Camsia support Indigenous jobseekers through Mura Training and Business Solutions. Jacqueline Hingston shares culture and country through Warumungu Country Tours and Namikili Aboriginal Cultural Tours.

Eight diverse businesses, with one common purpose—building a stronger future for their people and their communities. These graduates show that remote Aboriginal entrepreneurs are employers in their own right. They create jobs and keep income and knowledge on country. I commend Impact North for providing support that respects culture and these Aboriginal entrepreneurs.

Economy

The Treasurer is duchessing the constituency, coalescing creditworthiness with prosperity—dangerous. The big three credit agencies measure one thing only: a government's willingness and capacity to repay debt on time. That is a creditworthiness metric. Prosperity is broader: wellbeing, opportunity, equality and sustainability. Our national debt is no longer abstract; it's a daily burden on families, businesses and future generations. Debt is a unique asset. It grows without water, sunshine or oxygen. It's a creeping cancer when mismanaged. At 5.2 per cent interest, debt service liability directs Australia into an uncomfortable generational transfer of responsibility.

There are three choices. The first is capitulation. If debt keeps climbing, interest crowds out every other priority and our sovereignty bends to the creditors. This is not hyperbole; it's maths. The second is taxation. No nation taxes its way out of debt. The revenue required would crush households and strangle businesses. Tax and spend is capitulation wearing a suit. The third is productivity. We should earn our way out of debt through real growth—sovereign manufacturing, energy security, agricultural exports, skilled trades and infrastructure with genuine returns. Every dollar of stimulus must answer one question: does it grow the productive base that services and pays down debt? The choice is ours—surrender, squeeze or build. (Time expired)

Road Safety

Few responsibilities are more important than keeping children safe on their journey to and from school. In my electorate of Sturt, 25 schools will benefit from new 40-kilometre-per-hour school speed limits by the end of this year, helping make that journey safer for local students and their families. Delivered through a partnership between the Commonwealth and South Australian governments, this initiative will reduce vehicle speeds around schools when children are most likely to be travelling to and from class. It's a straightforward change but one that can make a real difference where it matters most—around our schools.

The new speed limits will also bring SA into line with other states that have already adopted lower school zone speed limits, helping to create safer environments for students, families and school communities. In Sturt, seven of the 25 schools receiving these new speed limits are located on or near Portrush Road. As one of Adelaide's busiest arterial and freight routes, Portrush Road carries significant traffic volumes every day while also serving thousands of students and families. By reducing speeds during school drop-off and pick-up times, drivers have more time to react, risks are reduced and children can move through these busy areas more safely. There's no single solution to road safety, but measures like this make a genuine difference. For families in Sturt and communities across Australia, these new 40 kilometre-per-hour school speed limits are a practical investment in safer journeys and safer school communities.

Data Centres

We are on the cusp of a massive data centre invasion across regional Australia. The tech billionaires think our country communities are fair game, and parliament is asleep at the wheel. I was out at Stubbo near Gulgong, where Firmus wants to drop a colossal data centre that will devour enough electricity to power hundreds of thousands of homes, but the unanswered questions here just keep piling up—zero answers on where the water is coming from, zero protection for our productive agricultural land, zero protection for the environment, public safety and privacy and zero say for our country communities. The tech bros are rolling in it while these mega projects are threatening our way of life and driving up power and water bills.

That's why I introduced my AI Kill Switch and Data Centre Control Bill 2026 to this House. We need an immediate halt to this unregulated rollout and a ban on these data centres until our laws catch up to protect the public and our regional communities. Parliament and the political parties of this nation need to wake up and act before it's too late. Our country communities are demanding action and there has not been enough of it in this House. We need to act now and bring these data centres under control because the future of our country communities depends on it.

Daniel Morcombe Foundation

Every parent knows the feeling of wanting to keep their children safe. But, for Bruce and Denise Morcombe, the unimaginable happened, when their 13-year-old son, Daniel, was abducted and murdered in December 2003. Daniel should have had a lifetime ahead of him. Instead, his parents turned their unimaginable grief into an extraordinary legacy protecting children right across our country. This week I had the privilege of meeting with Bruce and Denise here in parliament, together with many of my colleagues from all across our parliament, and their courage, their determination and their unwavering commitment to ensure that what happened to Daniel never happens to another child is absolutely inspirational.

Through the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, they have helped educate generations of Australian children about recognising danger, seeking help and staying safe. Their message is simple but powerful: recognise, react and report. In 2004, the Albanese Labor government continued this parliament's commitment by supporting, through a $2 million investment, the foundation's vital child safety work, including Day for Daniel, which is this Friday. I encourage all Australians to wear red this Friday and support their important work.

Victoria: Business

Labor is obviously very bad for business. Today we've seen inflation rise. We've seen 17 interest rate hikes and we've had capital gains tax changes and changes to trusts and negative gearing. Sadly, today, Victoria has been ranked the worst state in Australia to do business in for the third year in a row. The Business Council of Australia has ranked Victoria dead last out of every state and territory. Victoria came last for payroll tax, last for property taxes and charges, and near the bottom for business licensing. This means businesses face more costs, more paperwork, more delays and less confidence to invest.

In Victoria, a caff can face 34 separate licences, approvals or processes before serving a single cup of coffee. Victoria has also fallen from fourth to eighth on planning performance. Business leaders say high taxes and excessive regulations are making it harder to create jobs and grow businesses. Small Business Australia estimates that red tape alone is costing between $2 billion and $6 billion—and this is on top of all the federal Labor changes making it exceptionally tough for business. What we need in Victoria is a change of government. Have Jess Wilson as leader and get Victoria back on track.

Women in Parliament

There's a lot that comes with being an elected representative. Most of it is incredible—the people who let you into their worlds; the chance to provide help and support; the moment when an outcome you've been advocating for finally comes to fruition and you know it will make your community stronger and more connected. This role is so often filled with light, optimism and collaboration, but there are also times when it is clear that the dial on political discourse has moved.

Like many of my colleagues in this chamber, particularly the women in this place, I have been subjected to horrendous abuse and threats of violence both online and in person, and our teams feel the impact as well. I've been screamed at in my face, had a bike nearly thrown at me and received a number of violent threats. Our appearance is critiqued and we are told constantly to get back in the kitchen. These people don't want people like me, people like us, in this parliament. While these voices may seem loud, we keep going. We keep going to be the voice of the communities we love.

My favourite thing about being the member for Gorton is being in and amongst my community. Being accessible and approachable is at the very heart of this role because that's how we hear what matters most. As elected representatives, we're not asking for an environment without differences of opinion, robust debate or high emotion; we want the certainty that we can do our jobs safely, because when we have that certainty that's when we can do the best for our communities.

Prime Minister

'Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.' Walter Scott's words come to mind when I look at the mess the Prime Minister has found himself in this week over the Marrickville Golf Club. It started with a $6 million grant to the club where he is an honorary member. When the member for Indi asked questions, an attempted dirt sheet on her from the Prime Minister's own office ended up with journalists. In question time yesterday, when two members asked about the same golf course, the Prime Minister couldn't help himself; he started menacing them with similar veiled threats—and, of course, the story keeps changing. This is a leader who yelled, 'Smash her, smash her,' to one of his frontbenchers. In September, the Saturday Paper quoted a close ally on his factional dominance. I won't go into the words used to describe that female colleague; they were appalling and they were violent. He needs to take a good look in the mirror. It should be condemned.

Right now there's a deficit of trust in the institution of politics, and that is a great shame. We have a prime minister who has exhausted his line of credit with the truth. He is running a deficit of decency. This prime minister called for a change in tone in the way we do politics. I agree. It's about time he looked in the mirror, because Australians deserve so much better.

Reserve Bank of Australia

Inflation is 4.3 per cent. Unemployment is 4.7 per cent. Every time inflation rises, some people seem to think there is only one answer—raise interest rates. But the Reserve Bank has two responsibilities under the law—not one, but two: price stability and full employment. Interest rates can reduce demand, but raising mortgage repayments won't bring down global oil prices and won't lay a single brick for the homes Australia desperately needs.

Meanwhile, our commercial banks have been busy cutting jobs themselves. NAB plans to cut 2½ thousand positions, ANZ announced around 3½ thousand staff departures and, according to the Finance Sector Union, the Commonwealth Bank has cut more than a thousand positions this year. They call it 'restructuring'. Workers face uncertainty about their livelihoods. I don't expect banks to act as charities, but I certainly don't expect the Reserve Bank to treat Australian jobs as expendable. Its independence is important, but independence doesn't mean immunity from criticism. Interest rates are one lever; they are not the entire toolbox. We need more housing, more skilled workers and more affordable energy. Inflation hurts working Australians, but unemployment does too. A lower inflation rate is a cold comfort for someone who has lost their pay packet. We cannot fix the cost of living by costing Australians their jobs.

Prime Minister

I outlined in my very first speech to this House back on 30 July last year that we as elected representatives need to lead from the front and be positive role models like our mums and dads, our nannas, our nans, our pards and our fearless pioneers. When I grew up, it was these very special people in my life who taught me the lesson that honesty is the best policy. Serving as a police officer for 23 years, I shared that philosophy with the people I came across every day: honesty is the best policy. Proudly representing my community and local council and in state government, being authentic and honest is what mattered the most. Australians deserve honest leadership, not a prime minister who repeatedly lies to them. Many in the Hinkler electorate tell me that this country is headed in the wrong direction. Small businesses are feeling the pinch right now. Their customers are under pressure. Did Aussie families see the $275 reduction in their energy bills, the promise this prime minister made almost 100 times? Since Labor was elected, Australia has had the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. Labor's record spending means the budget is now forecast to be in deficit for the next 40 years and debt has passed $1 trillion. Labor's toxic taxes are an assault on aspiration. Why do Australians always pay the price because this prime minister can't even admit he's made a mistake?

Mental Health

All MPs would have received an email this week from Nieves Murray of Suicide Prevention Australia telling us that in 2025 3,283 Australians died by suicide. Male suicide has decreased slightly but is still around three-quarters of one per cent. Suicide impacts people of all ages of people—men and women—across Australia. Gut-wrenchingly, the number of children who died by suicide increased from 70 to 100 last year, meaning nearly two children a week are dying by suicide. Among occupation groups, we are losing male workers in the technicians and trades industries at a rate nearly four times higher than the general population and female workers who work in health professions and social professions and trades. These are the people building Australia. These are the people looking after our kids in child care and our parents in aged care. We have to do better, but we also have to get the message out that we are fixing a broken system. In Logan, we've set up the Logan Medicare Mental Health Centre, where all you need is your Medicare card. We set up a brand new one in Pimpama in the northern Gold Coast. We've expanded our headspace for kids in Upper Coomera and in Logan, and we've set up the Medicare mental health line, which you can get help with on the phone. We know the system is broken, but we are fixing it. We need to get the message out there that help is available. Pick up the phone. Talk to a mate. Give me a call. Remember there is help there.

Prime Minister

Across our nation, Australians are being let down by a prime minister who says one thing but does another. Mr Albanese promised Australians they'd be better off under Labor. Instead, they are grappling with soaring grocery bills, skyrocketing power prices and a housing crisis that has put home ownership out of reach. The Prime Minister promised 91 times that electricity bills would fall by $275, yet Australians have seen some of the steepest energy price rises in recent memory. The PM denies membership of his local golf club that received a $6 million grant, yet not one of the hundreds of volunteer groups in my electorate were invited to apply.

O'Connor is paying for the ideological obsession with net zero. Industries are being driven offshore, small businesses are drowning in red tape and farmers are being squeezed from every direction. Farmland is being taken out of food and fibre production for carbon projects, renewable energy developments and transmission corridors.

Veterans have been let down by Labor's attempt to cap access to health care, and seniors face cuts to their private health insurance rebate. Young Australians can't afford a home, and the changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing are disincentives to invest. Mass migration remains too high, yet regional communities struggle to access the overseas workers they need. Australians have lost faith in this prime minister, whose words are not his bond.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

There are times in our lives when we're part of something bigger than us, bigger than this room—part of something that's truly transformational and nation-building. Today is one of those days. We passed our duty of care reforms. When the safety of Australians and the wellbeing of our children are on the line, this government will not back down from holding big tech to account. We know big tech is controlling more of what we see in our feeds, and they've found a very profitable business model in outrage and our captured attention. Social media algorithms are not just reflecting division; they are driving it. They reward anger, they promote misogyny and they fuel the growth of the manosphere. They erode the trust, respect and social cohesion on which a healthy democracy relies. For young people, the impact can be especially harmful. Algorithms can promote unrealistic beauty standards, extreme content and constant comparisons while encouraging more and more time online. Frankly, our attention is no longer simply captured. It's being commodified. It's being fuelled by outrage and driven by clickbait.

Th coalition and One Nation opposed this, claiming it threatens free speech. In fact, it does the exact opposite. Freedom means giving people a choice. The greatest challenges of our time demand more than just good intentions. They require the courage to act, the conviction to lead and the determination to deliver change our nation needs. Today, this government did just that.

Prime Minister

For democracy to succeed, people need to be able to trust their government. They need to be able to trust that if a government promises that their energy bills are going to be $275 cheaper as a result of policies they enact then that promise is based on some pretty rigorous and stress tested modelling. They need to trust that there's a likelihood that it's going to happen. When a prime minister is asked before an election, 'Will you rule out changes to the capital gains tax discount or negative gearing?' and he answers, 'Yes, how hard is it, for the 50th time?' then people need to be able to trust that those changes won't be made and the government won't renege on their promise after the election. They need to be able to trust, when the Prime Minister gives an explanation about a grant that was awarded to a golf club of which he is a member, that the information in that explanation is correct. They need to be able to trust, when the government says they have real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages, that subsequent government spending is not going to drive up inflation, leading to 16 straight interest rate rises and therefore significantly more expensive mortgages. They need to trust that when the Prime Minister makes a mistake or breaches their trust he comes clean. The Albanese government has breached the trust of Australians, and the real question now is, why? Why do Australians always pay the price because the Prime Minister can't ever admit he has made a mistake?

Mental Health

We often hear that blokes don't talk about their mental health, but what if we're simply not making it easy enough for them? TIACS, which stands for This Is A Conversation Starter, is proving what happens when we actually get this right. Founded by two former chippies, Dan Allen and Ed Ross, TIACS provides free mental health support for blue-collar workers and their families. These are the same blokes behind TradeMutt, the colourful workwear brand that gets people talking about their mental health. Importantly, 50 per cent of TradeMutt's profits go directly towards funding TIACS. As a former tradie and coalminer and, now, as Special Envoy for Men's Health, I know how important this actually is. The numbers speak for themselves. In 2025 26, TIACS delivered over 4,000 counselling engagements, up by 21 per cent. They supported 1,330 clients, of which 81 per cent were men and 61 per cent were from rural and remote Australia. They also supported 160 people experiencing suicidal thoughts. The stats show that three in four Australians who die by suicide are, unfortunately, men. TIACS shows that when support is accessible, blokes will use it—no referrals, no waitlists and no out-of-pocket costs. Congratulations to Ed, Dan, Sue, Matt and the entire TIACS team. Keep doing what you're doing, because you're saving people's lives right around this country. Thank you.

Prime Minister

Australians deserve honest leadership, not a prime minister who repeatedly breaks his promise. First, he promised $275 off power bills. Then it was no changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing. He promised to support small businesses, and he also promised the arts sector a producer tax offset. He has failed to deliver on every one of these promises.

Australia's arts sector is a national treasure, creating jobs, attracting investment and telling our stories, yet Labor's failure to deliver its producer tax offset is pushing productions and opportunities offshore. Get this—despite this being a key election promise, not only have Labor failed to deliver it but instead chose to charge ahead with their $77 billion in new taxes that nobody voted for. As a result, we've seen award-winning Aussie producer Tom Blackwell forced to choose between filming his $30 million feature film here at home or sending all that investment, along with 1,000 jobs, straight over the ditch to New Zealand's more competitive industries.

In Senate estimates last night, we were told this legislation remains a priority, yet the Assistant Treasurer denies that, citing competing priorities. Treasury's had 30 opportunities to legislate this promise, yet nothing has been delivered. The government needs to start delivering the reforms it promised to keep our screen industry competitive and now.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

No-one would expect to see harmful content on their television, in print media or at the cinema. You'd never see deepfake news in the paper nor would you see instructions on how to commit suicide after the nightly news, but this vile stuff can be fed to you right now on your devices. Social media is unregulated. It's dangerous, and it's having a profound impact on our society.

Today, the House of Representatives has passed reasonable, sensible and important legislation which will put basic safety standards in place for digital media. This bill will require platforms to assess risks, prevent harm and give users over 16 real control over their feeds. This bill will keep Australians safe, and it builds on other world-leading reforms, like our under-16s social media ban. Australians have been asking for reform like this, and Labor is delivering it, but, inexplicably, the three right-wing parties opposed the sensible reforms today. They claim it's censorship. They cry that it's an attack on free speech. It's neither of those. They focus on what this bill is not about rather than what it is about. This bill is about protecting kids and adults from illegal and harmful content. This is about listening to parents, who tell me that they want this parliament to stand up to big tech and social media companies. Labor is listening to sensible parents, and it's time for the Senate to do so as well.

Economy

What doesn't the Treasurer understand? He said we'd turn the inflation corner—12 months on 16 rate hikes later and $30,000 in higher mortgage repayments and Australians are drowning in the Treasurer's inflation. Australians can't afford food, and the Treasurer says, 'Let them eat inflation.' Small businesses are collapsing, and the Treasurer says, 'Let them eat taxes.' Why? Because the government can't kick his spending addiction. The Reserve Bank has said his active inflation agenda is causing inflation, so is the IMF. Even his own backbenchers are now saying they need to throw the kitchen sink at cutting spending. That's how bad it is, and all the Treasurer has to offer is a series of broken records of spin and spending. Australians can't pay their mortgage with your excuses, Treasurer. You might have run out of ideas, but the coalition most certainly has not. A Taylor coalition government has found $31.3 billion in savings. We'll cut the waste. We'll cut the fraud. We'll cut the corruption wherever we find it. We will stop pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire by putting a speed limit on spending, and we'll restore hope for Australian small businesses and families so they can afford their homes, their mortgages and food at the supermarket.

Housing

One of the great legacies of this government is that we are backing first home buyers into their first home, because each and every year, at the moment, over 100,000 Australian households are buying their first home thanks to our first home buyers guarantee, which is over half of all first home buyers across the country. First home buyers know that it is only this side of the House that is there to support them in buying their first home. Every single Australian deserves to have a safe and secure home, and every single Australian knows that they would rather be paying off their mortgage than somebody else's.

One of the things that we can be proud of on this side of the House is that we are building the homes for Australians who need them, and in the year 2027-28, one in 10 homes built across this country will be built by our Housing Australia Future Fund. These are homes that go to Australians who need them, homes that go to key workers, homes that go to single parents and homes that go to people who desperately need a safe and secure home. When we think about the legacies of this government, we can be proud that we are backing first home buyers and we are— (Time expired)

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

MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements

I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. The Minister for Defence Industry will answer questions on his behalf. I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Ageing will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. The Minister for Aged Care and Seniors will answer questions on his behalf. I inform the House that the Minister for Communications and Sport will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. The Attorney-General will answer questions on her behalf.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy

My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year your treasurer boasted the worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us. Today inflation went up again to 4.3 per cent as Australians brace for a 17th interest rate increase under Labor. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge reality, accept his treasurer was wrong and admit Labor's out of control spending is forcing families and small businesses to pay more for everything?

Today's figures reflect what many Australians are feeling every day. They're experiencing the impact of the cost of living, and we certainly understand that that puts people under pressure. Just like in countries right around the world, the challenges that we face in our economy are serious. The reality is they're not going to be solved overnight, and that is why we're doing two things.

Firstly, we're delivering budgets grounded in responsible economic management and the look for sensible savings. Secondly is that, where we look towards providing cost of living relief to people who are under pressure, we always look at what can we do to make a difference and have an impact in the short term to make an immediate difference to those pressures but in a way that helps to build the longer term strength of the economy and of the nation. So, for example, what the changes that we've made in the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive do is make it cheaper, free. They just need their Medicare card when they go to a doctor, which makes an enormous difference, but it also strengthens Medicare in the long-term. The support for urgent care clinics means that people can get that access and take pressure off emergency departments. But at the same time, it helps to build a stronger healthcare system.

Cheaper medicines, whether it's the $7.70 for pensioners or the $25 for the general public for medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—what they do is take pressure off people. It means that they're turning up at the chemist and not having to make a choice of which medicine they will purchase and get the advice from their pharmacist. But it also helps because it produces a healthier society. If you get health care right in the first point, then it makes a difference.

We are always navigating the turbulence which the global economy is feeling right now but with our eye on the horizon of how do we build a stronger nation? Free TAFE boosts skills and wages now, but it helps to build a future workforce as well. We know there's more to do. These are tough economic times right around the world, and they're far from over. We have a plan to get through it, and the government that I lead will continue to do everything we can to shield Australians from the worst of the impact. (Time expired)

Cybersafety

My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the proposed digital duty of care help to protect children online, empower Australians and hold social media companies to account? Why is this reform so important for our nation?

I thank the fantastic member for Dickson for that question, and I thank her for the leadership that she continues to show for that fantastic part of the northern suburbs of Brisbane. Today, the House passed a digital duty of care. This is about holding social media companies to account. Now, the parliament must come together to deliver it. The bill does two things. Firstly, it makes social media companies accountable for what appears on their platforms, just like other elements of the media are accountable for what occurs, including in the comments section or things that are published, on their websites. Why is it that these big multinational companies should be in a privileged position compared with News.com.au or the Nine news sites or any other media site based here in Australia? They need to be held to account.

The second thing that it does is empowers Australians to have control of what they see on their algorithms. We know that the algorithms drive people towards more extreme positions, and we know this is having an impact on our society. The deliberate design of social media algorithms are designed to push people further and further down these rabbit holes and to change society for the worse. That's what we are seeing. Too many children are still suffering from online harm and poor mental health. Adults do not have the choice over their algorithms that they want, and, frankly, they deserve that choice. You see the impact and harm of social media right across our society, and Australians are sick of it. It is time that we call time on it. Today the House of Representatives did just that.

The onus to act on these harms should not be on children or on parents or on individuals. It should be on these multinational social media companies. This is not about limiting debate or criticism. It is about enabling decency, protecting children and giving them back a childhood. It is not about government control. It's about giving Australians control. Australian parents and the Australian people want the parliament to act on this, and this is our opportunity to deliver.

Economy

My question is to the Treasurer. The Reserve Bank has now confirmed in writing to a parliamentary committee that lower government spending would reduce inflationary pressure. Real government spending grew 4.3 per cent last financial year, nearly double the economy's growth. Why does the Treasurer keep asking Australian families to tighten their belts when he refuses to tighten his own?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that rare question from the shadow treasurer. The governor of the Reserve Bank has made a similar point that I've made on a number of occasions throughout the course of the year. The fact that public demand is part of total aggregate demand is not contested by anyone objective. I've made the same point myself on other occasions. The question is, what is responsible for the uptick in inflation that we've seen over the last 12 months or so? There are two reasons we've seen inflation come up. The first one, as Secretary Wilkinson said this morning at estimates, is that the recovery in the private economy was faster than was anticipated by the Treasury or by the Reserve Bank. That's the first point. The second point is that we have seen the biggest oil shock on record as a consequence of the war in the Middle East. One of the reasons the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition don't have any credibility here is that they refuse to acknowledge the impact of higher global oil prices on inflation, not just in Australia but indeed around the world. If you look at the inflation numbers today, the biggest driver was petrol prices—up by almost 10 per cent. Those opposite might want to pretend that's not happening, but it's a factor.

When it comes to public demand and private demand in our economy, for every $5 of demand in our economy, $4 is private and $1 is public. In fact, if you look at the last financial year compared to the year before, public demand growth in our economy halved—it eased—while private demand growth in our economy tripled. The fact that it happened at the same time that we have seen higher inflation than anyone would like tells objective observers of what's happening here that there are other factors at play, including global factors. So if the honourable member wants to refer to the Reserve Bank and comments from the governor, I will quote the governor during her appearance at estimates today, where she said: 'The conflict in the Middle East has escalated, and global energy prices are now much higher than had been assumed in the August forecast.' That's just a fact, whether those opposite acknowledge it or not.

Antisemitism

():  My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing in education and online to combat antisemitism and other forms of hate?

I thank my friend the capital member for Canberra for her question—see what I did there? You can tell I'm a dad! There's no place for antisemitism or any type of racism or any type of hate in Australia. I think we all know we've got a lot of work to do here, and part of that is the work we do in education. That's why we set up the Antisemitism Education Taskforce, led by the great David Gonski. David is a towering figure in Australia, somebody I know is admired, respected and loved by people right across the chamber. They are working on how we combat antisemitism right across the education system. Following the Bondi attack we said we would review the National Curriculum, and that will be considered by education ministers when we meet next week.

But that's not the end of the work we need to do here. The truth is that it's just the start, because kids aren't born racist; kids aren't born with hate in their heart. This is something that's learnt; it's something that's taught. And I think if we're honest with ourselves we've got to look at what we can do to stop racism and hate fomenting in all its noxious forms. Part of it is what kids are taught at school, what's on the curriculum. But part of it is what kids are taught when they go online. I think Peter Dutton got it right this week when he called it a 'lawless jungle'. I will give you just a couple of horrific examples: people using artificial intelligence to make antisemitic songs and videos directly targeting kids; a Pixar-style animation set in a concentration camp; and fake news segments denying the Holocaust. All this was designed with AI, put online and then, with algorithms, sent to our kids—force-feeding our kids all this sort of rubbish, serving up hate on a plate to our kids.

I think we all know, if we look deeply into ourselves and think about this, that we need to do something about it. This is part of what the digital duty of care legislation that passed the House of Representatives today is about—doing something to crack down on these algorithms that are having this obvious impact on our kids. And it's not just me saying this; it's not just the government saying it. It's also the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who recently said:

My hope is that a digital duty of care will make it harder for algorithms … to dish up this sort of content to Australians, particularly children.

I say to colleagues who voted against this today: it's not too late to change your mind and to vote for this when it gets to the Senate.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement

Before I call the member for New England, I'm pleased to advise the House of some guests in the gallery today, including, on the floor of the parliament, the Hon. Stephen Price MLA, the 32nd Speaker of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. He's joined by Mathew Bates, the Clerk of the WA Legislative Assembly, and Lucy Roberts, the Serjeant-at-Arms of the WA Legislative Assembly. I'm pleased to also welcome Victoria Cross recipient Dan Keighran VC as a guest of the member for Herbert. Also present in the gallery today are a group of foreign affairs advisers from other parliaments in South-East Asia and the Pacific. I'm also pleased to welcome retired Australian Army veteran Scott Harris OAM as a guest of the member for Dickson. Following 22 years of service in the ADF, Scott has dedicated his life to veteran advocacy, playing a pivotal role in establishing the independent veterans suicide register, championing the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and volunteering hundreds of hours each month to support veterans and their families as a compensation advocate, welfare officer and a mentor at the Bray Park Strathpine RSL. Welcome to you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water

My question is to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. Prime Minister, it's quite obvious that we have to reduce the size of government. So why don't we look at getting rid of the climate change department? There's $8.7 billion a year spent on it. It would loosen up 5,700 full-time equivalent positions, which would go through natural attrition. It's got absolutely no prospects whatsoever of changing the climate or anything like that, and getting rid of it would save us from jacking up taxes on capital gains tax for small business, taxing superannuation funds and taxing trusts.

There has been now decades of science and advice on climate change that it is real. I support responding to the science of climate change, which does represent a challenge but also represents an enormous opportunity, because where we are positioned in Australia is that, because of the transition that is occurring globally when it comes to climate action, we have the critical minerals and rare earths that will go into all of the products that will make a difference. We also have amongst the best solar resources in the sky. We also have the opportunity to act—because there is a cost of inaction as well. What we are seeing, not least in the great state of Queensland, which the member represented in the other place, is increasing numbers and frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Now, all of those—

Order! The member for Wide Bay will leave the chamber immediately. Swearing in the parliament is completely unacceptable and he will leave the chamber for three hours.

The member for Wide Bay then left the chamber.

Honestly, we will not allow this parliament to have that language. None of us will accept that. I won't accept it. Australia won't accept it.

We don't say—because Australia has always had extreme weather events—that you say every event is because of climate change. What you do say, though, is that the science told us they would be more frequent and be more intense, and that is happening. What you do say is that the temperature in the water around our island continent is also increasing, which is having an impact—as it did in South Australia most recently, which we had to deal with, with a cost. What we say is, if you take no action whatsoever on climate change, the cost to our economy will be more—

Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for New England on a point of order.

On relevance. Everything you say, I respect, but there's no chance that the $8.7 billion you spend is going to change the climate back, so why spend it?

That's a debating point, and the member is entitled to raise his point on relevance—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The question did cover a wide range of funding commitments, and the Prime Minister was challenged in the question about the use of that funding, so he is being directly relevant regarding his view and the government's view. I'll allow him to continue, but I'll make sure his remarks or any comments he's got are directly relevant to the issue of climate change that he was asked about.

When it comes to funding, a member in this place said:

The federal government has delivered millions of dollars of investment already for renewable energy generation right here on our doorstep in places like Inverell and Glen Innes.

That was the member for New England. He also said:

… in fact, we're one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Australia … I made sure it happened.

He was right then, and he's wrong now.

Trade with the European Union

My question is to the Prime Minister. How does Australia's free trade agreement with the European Union grow our economy, create jobs and boost investment in the industries of the future? Why is this deal in Australia's national interest?

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. The many agricultural producers in her beautiful South Coast electorate stand to benefit from the Australia-EU free trade agreement, because this is an agreement that delivers for Australia in Australia's national interest. It delivers for our future economic growth and for productivity—98 per cent of trade with the EU, tariff free, delivering $10 billion in additional economic growth and trade. It's building the productive industries and jobs of the future by eliminating tariffs on Australian critical minerals and energy. It's building on the one in four jobs in Australia that depend on trade, including the 338,000 jobs that rely on two-way trade with Europe.

The deal delivers growth for primary producers in the ag sector. It removes all tariffs on Australian wine into Europe. It removes tariffs on Australian fruits, vegetables and tree nuts. It removes 87 per cent of tariffs on Australian dairy exports. It delivers an eight-fold increase of Australia's beef exports. It delivers a five-fold increase in Australian sheep meat exports. It's a better deal for Australian red meat than the agreement between the EU and South American nations, at a time when free trade is under siege right around the world, something that we know will be emphasised when I meet with both President Trump and President Xi at the APEC meeting to be held in Shenzhen next month.

We know that the division which will be there in the debate is about whether we support trade or not—is it a good thing or not? Australia has been, since the 1980s, on the side of free and fair trade. That has been a bipartisan position. The deal tells the world that Australia backs free and fair trade. We want to see more of it because we know that working together with like-minded countries gets better result for every economy. We negotiated hard with Europe, with 27 European nations, across our government, the previous government and the government before that. The outcome is a deal that delivers for Australia and for our national interests. Senators must recognise this and must act to deliver for the Australian economy, for growth and for our national interest.

Economy

My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year the Prime Minister declared we have dealt with inflation, and he boasted about falling interest rates. This morning the ABS released inflation data showing that, under Labor, the price of bread is up 22 per cent, milk is up 29 per cent, rents are up 25 per cent, medical and hospital services are up 25 per cent, electricity is up 36 per cent, gas is up 42 per cent, insurance costs are up 44 per cent and interest rates are at their highest level in 15 years and rising. Why do Australians always pay the price because the Prime Minister can't ever admit he's made a mistake?

As I have said, today's figures will be received by the Australian public as being indicative of what they know is happening and what they know and are feeling. People are under pressure. Indeed, the RBA governor today said this in her opening statement to the supplementary budget estimates: 'The conflict in the Middle East'—

This is the RBA governor. Mr Speaker, I make this point. The groaning that occurs opposite—this is about the RBA governor. We should turn the temperature down, and maybe people could stop interjecting.

The House will come to order.

This is what the RBA governor has said:

The conflict in the Middle East has re-escalated and global energy prices are now much higher than had been assumed in the August forecasts.

…   …   …

In addition to the energy price shock, the AI boom and extreme weather events are contributing to upward pressure on a range of agricultural and technology-related prices.

…   …   …

We are not alone in being concerned about inflation—central banks in many other advanced economies are responding by increasing their policy rates or signalling they will do so if needed.

That was the Reserve Bank governor. I have respect for the RBA governor. We can't just wish away what has occurred, particularly since 28 February, which has been ongoing—a conflict that we were told would last for days or weeks and is indeed still going.

Trade with the European Union

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How is the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement, together with the government's critical minerals production tax incentive, helping Australia capture more jobs, investment and value from our critical minerals?

I thank the member for Swan for her question. She is a fantastic advocate for her community in Western Australia. The Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement is a landmark agreement for Australia's resources sector, opening new opportunities for our critical minerals industry at a time of growing demand for secure and reliable energy supply chains as well as increasing risks on overdependence on any one supplier. This agreement will remove all tariffs on Australian critical minerals exports to the European Union. Europe has an advanced manufacturing industry and is looking for reliable suppliers of critical minerals and processed materials from trusted partners, and Australia is that trusted partner. Yesterday, I was delighted to meet with officials and ministers from around the world, particularly from EU member states such as Germany, France and Finland, all of whom are seeking to invest further in Australia's critical minerals industries off the back of the elimination of tariffs on these exports under the European Union free trade agreement with this nation and on the basis of the trusted relationship that this free trade agreement will secure with one of the world's largest economic blocs, worth more than $30 trillion. Because of this, it is without doubt that the Australia-European Union free trade agreement will drive more investment and create more jobs in the critical minerals sector right around the country.

Importantly, this agreement will work hand-in-hand with a suite of policies of the Albanese Labor government to develop what will be a globally significant industry, and that includes the critical minerals production tax incentive, which helps attract investment into processing and refining critical minerals right here. Last night, the member for Goldstein set out his plans to scrap this critical support. Let's be clear what this would mean: it would send investment, jobs and processing opportunities offshore at a time when this government is working to bring them to Australia and make the most from our geology. In dismissing the need for these incentives, those opposite once again demonstrate their distinct lack of understanding of the challenges faced by an emerging part of our resources sector. The markets the critical minerals industry has to deal with are opaque, distorted by bans on exports and are subject to price manipulation. That is why the strategic support that this government has implemented is essential to secure that investment and to build processing capacity right here in Australia—right where it should be.

The critical minerals production tax incentive establishes the credibility of Australia on the world stage. We are taking this responsibility very seriously, while those opposite simply want to give away this opportunity and let others do the hard work.

Community Grants

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Last Thursday, the minister's own department confirmed to a Senate inquiry that Labor's $6 million grant to the Marrickville Golf Club was not to fix sewage flows. Then, on Sunday, the minister told Andrew Clennell on News24 that the $6 million grant was to fix sewage flows. Can the minister explain why her department said one thing to the Senate and she said something completely different to the Australian people?

As I said multiple times during that interview, I would have to check exactly what was being delivered through that grant, if you had actually listened to the interview. I understand that the Prime Minister addressed this issue in question time yesterday, but, to repeat: when this funding commitment was made in April 2025, part of the commitment included sewerage works.

Opposition members interjecting—

The minister is answering the question directly. She was asked a very specific question by the member for Monash. She's giving exactly that answer, and I'd like the member for Monash to hear the answer. I can't hear the answer because of this commentary—not interjections, commentary—that is just continual. The member for Monash was given respect, and the same respect is going to be shown to this minister. The minister will continue, and I'd like her to be heard in silence.

As I said, when this funding commitment was made in April 2025, part of the commitment included sewerage works. In September 2025, the New South Wales government stepped in to fund the sewerage related aspects of the club, as they were pressing. Last week, the Inner West Council confirmed that they are currently finalising the design of the entire project, including improvements to the clubhouse, stormwater harvesting and a new toilet and landscaping. These works, delivered through the program, will be complementary to those funded by the New South Wales government. The decision brief for this project, which we've released for transparency, shows that funding for this project was assessed by my department against the criteria publicly available and found to have value for money. Unlike those opposite, we are delivering our election commitments in a transparent way and not allowing Pauline Hanson to stand up and award people cheques in Rockhampton.

Has the minister concluded? I remind the minister to use correct titles for people in both places.

Economy

My question is to the Treasurer. What does today's new inflation data tell us about Australia's economy, and how does our experience compare with other countries? What does that mean for the government's economic agenda, including free trade?

Thanks to the honourable member for Aston for her work in our team and in her local community and also for the question. As we know, the new inflation numbers today show that inflation ticked up in September, and it is higher than anyone would like. We know that inflation has gone up in every major advanced economy, but we also know that that doesn't make it any easier for Australians who are facing these cost-of-living pressures. We acknowledge that, but we do more than acknowledge that: we're providing responsible cost-of-living relief and we're managing the budget and the economy in the most responsible way that we can.

You can see in these figures the very substantial impact on oil prices from the war in the Middle East. The single biggest driver of higher headline inflation was higher fuel prices. Automotive fuel rose 9.4 per cent in the month to be 23.6 per cent higher through the year, and we know that October was even more difficult on that front than what we saw in September. When you look at the data—overall, a number which is higher than we want it to be—it's also worth pointing out that, if you look at electricity prices measured by the CPI, they fell again in the month. In fact, they're down 2.4 per cent since the month of June.

All of this combination of challenges in our economy—global volatility, inflation here at home and the productivity challenge, which has been longstanding—makes the government's economic plan more important—an economic plan that includes fuel security, cost-of-living help and budget repair, finding $180 billion in savings, including a record amount of savings just in the budget in May, with more to come in the mid-year update. The productivity package is important in this regard, and tax reform is important too. We know that Australians are under pressure, and we are doing what we responsibly can to help, at the same time as we recognise the best development, from an economic point of view, would be an end to the war in the Middle East, in addition to everything that we are doing here at home.

When it comes to that economic plan, in addition to dealing with inflation in the near term and in addition to dealing with productivity in the medium term, there are some important measures before the parliament which should be passed in the interests of a stronger economy. The tax reform—the incentives for innovation and research and development—that I introduced to the parliament yesterday should be supported by this parliament, and anybody who cares about growing our economy the right way should be supporting the EU free trade agreement. This side of the House is for more trade with our trusted partners around the world in the interests of Australian jobs and the Australian economy, and, if those opposite supported those things, they'd vote for it too.

Prime Minister

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was forced to admit he was 'not correct' to claim his $6 million grant to Marrickville Golf Club was to fix sewerage flows. On what date did the Prime Minister become aware, and on what date did the Prime Minister's office become aware, that the $6 million grant was not to fix sewerage flows?

I thank the member for her question. I've said that part of the original commitment of the upgrade of Marrickville Golf Club was going to fix the long-running sewerage issue that was to be part of renovations. That isn't the case, because the state government have stepped in and announced funding in September 2025. That's a good thing.

I seek leave to table some documents: the Prime Minister's media release announcing the grant; GrantConnect grant information; the New South Wales government media release 'Marrickville Golf Club sewerage upgrade grant'; House of Representatives Hansard, Mr Pasin, 9 September 2026; House of Representatives Hansard, Dr M Ryan, 9 September 2026; House of Representatives Hansard, Mr Pasin, 10 September 2026; Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Hansard, 22 October 2026—'sewerage not in the scope'; Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Hansard, 22 October 2026—'MLCIP lists came from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet'; television interview transcript, Minister Catherine King, 25 October; and the FOI document 'PM plan to attend the golf course'.

Leave is not granted, but I have a point of order as well. Previous Speakers, at different times, have not allowed the attempted tabling of Hansard on the basis that it is ludicrous to be trying to put into the parliamentary record the parliamentary record. Secondly, the practice which has ordinarily been used in this place is there have been occasions where the person who was asked a question has sought to table a document that was referred to specifically in the question. We have a new practice, which has started in very recent times, where people who had nothing to do with the question are standing up and, effectively, using tabling as a debating point, which I would suggest is an abuse.

To the point of order—

The manager is going to remove that folder from the dispatch box. I know what you're trying to do. You've tried it all question time. It's not going to work. We're not going to have props. No-one's better than anyone else here. If we start that, everyone will start playing these games, and that's not what question time is about. Don't abuse question time with trying to do these tricks and stunts. I'm over it, and everyone's over it.

We were seeking to table those documents because we asked a very specific question of the Prime Minister about dates and times. The Prime Minister wasn't able to answer it, so we were trying to help him.

I want to deal with the leader's point of view. He was correct on going down the path of tabling Hansard. To put back into Hansard is, I think, a statement of the obvious. If the member for Durack felt that she had documents to back up her question, that may be appropriate. I don't want this war of tabling to continue on—or trying to use points to try and make extra points out of question time. If people want to table documents, they've got the right to do that, but just be reasonable and responsible.

Trade with the European Union

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How will Australia's free trade agreement with the European Union benefit farmers and ensure they can export more of their world-class products?

I do want to thank our fabulous member for Hunter. I know he's a proud champion of the farmers and producers in his electorate and he understands how important exports are to our farmers—as, of course, does our government. We have been backing our farmers to succeed and to seize the new opportunities to export more of their high-quality produce right across the globe, and that's what our Australia-European Union free trade agreement will actually deliver.

Our agriculture exports to the EU were valued at $4 billion in 2025, and this agreement will see that trade grow. It removes the vast majority of EU agricultural tariffs, including $17 million in tariff savings on wine alone, as well most dairy and rice products, nuts, horticulture, honey, grains, processed foods and seafood. It will deliver preferential, guaranteed access of 35,000 tonnes of beef, a 700 per cent increase, and a 430 per cent increase for our sheepmeat, as well as, of course, duty-free access of over 44,000 tonnes of raw sugar. AUSVEG has said that this agreement will benefit Australia's growers through the elimination of tariffs on Australian vegetables into Europe. Its CEO Michael Coote said last week:

Australian vegetable growers need every market opportunity they can get right now, and the European FTA is one of those rare, and possibly never-to-be-repeated opportunities.

In what are globally uncertain times, this agreement is all about providing more certainty for Australian farmers. It's about ensuring our farmers can continue to have reliable trading partners and that they continue to benefit from two way trade. It is important for our farmers, particularly given, as I've said in this place, we export 80 per cent of our agricultural production value each and every year—we also know that more trade is good for regional jobs and good for regional communities, and I encourage those opposite to back the EU FTA.

I am proud to say our world-class producers are in more demand than ever. Our agriculture, fisheries and forestry exports reached a record value of $83 billion last financial year, and not only was this a record, but it represents a 63 per cent increase since we came into government—a 63 per cent increase backed by our government's work to restore some of our most important trading relationships. Of course, we've now delivered over 300 trade wins for Australian farmers and producers. On this side of the House, we'll continue to stand up for our farmers.

Cybercrime

To the Prime Minister: a recent AI generated deepfake video targeting Senator Jacqui Lambie spread false statements in her name, resulting in increased threats to her. Sportsbet also did an illegal ad using AI generated images of real athletes without their consent. This technology is evolving fast. At a time of heightened concern for the safety and security of politicians, realistic deepfakes can damage reputations, inflame tensions and expose people to psychological harms and security risks. Will the government make the creation and dissemination of AI generated deepfakes illegal?

I thank the member for Warringah for her question, and I think she very accurately puts forward the characterisation of the impact of these deepfake videos. They did have an impact on Senator Lambie, encouraging the sorts of violent threats which we've seen become far too prevalent. One is one too many, it must be said. But we are seeing, across the political spectrum, increased threats, particularly towards women in this place, whether it be in the House or the Senate. I know that the member is so concerned about this, as are, I'm sure, members right across the spectrum. But, increasingly, as well, it must be said that it's not just about politicians, of course; it's people right across the board seeing these deepfakes, and it's hard. There are videos of people standing outside Parliament House making statements that aren't them, and that distorts fact from fiction, and that is a huge issue.

I take these issues very seriously and so does the government. The digital duty of care is, in part, aimed at addressing these issues. We need to make sure that new technology works in the interests of people and that it promotes or is at least as neutral on social cohesion—that it doesn't break down social cohesion and cause division and cause anger and cause disruption. I'll ask the Attorney-General, who's the Acting Minister for Communications, but I make this pledge to the member for Warringah and anyone else as well: I want to work across the parliament on these issues. I've had discussions, including with members opposite there. The member for Groom and I had an informal discussion yesterday about the impact of these new technologies. I know that this concerns people right across the parliament. The Attorney-General.

Thank you, Prime Minister, and I thank the member for Warringah. I note her proposed amendment this morning related to AI generated content in the debate on the digital duty of care. As the communications minister said, I can confirm that an AI generated image that causes serious harm, even if it's not of an intimate nature, can be defined as adult cyberabuse and can be taken down by the eSafety Commissioner under the Online Safety Act. Building on the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme and Image-Based Abuse Scheme, the duty will also require platforms to have systems in place to prevent this harm from occurring, and material or content that does not cause serious harm is not the content of this bill. Again, just to reiterate the Prime Minister's comments, this is a whole-of-government effort in responding to the safety needs here, and I look forward to continuing constructive discussions with the honourable member and anyone else in this place.

Trade with the European Union

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the Albanese Labor government's efforts to secure a free trade agreement with the European Union create new economic opportunities for regional Australia, particularly our farmers, producers and regional businesses?

I thank the member for Spence for the question. I acknowledge his tireless advocacy for his community and particularly those great areas that produce our wine, our food and, of course, our manufacturing. Stronger international trade relations can drive investment, expand market access and create new opportunities. The Australia-EU free trade agreement is a significant opportunity to open new markets, back our producers and create more jobs, particularly in our regions. The agreement opens doors for Australian farmers and producers to markets that have been difficult to access for decades. We've been trying to get this done for a long time.

It means that exporters will benefit from the elimination of EU tariffs. Almost 94 per cent of Australian agricultural exports by value will enter the EU duty free when the agreement takes effect, increasing to almost 95 per cent after seven years. This means new opportunities for our beef, sheepmeat, dairy, grains, horticultural seafood and wine products. For my home state of Victoria, this will make a big difference to small and large businesses alike, from dairy producers in Gippsland and south-west Victoria to winegrowers, farmers and food manufacturers across our regions.

Order! The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting.

It's about getting more Australian products into international markets and supporting the regional jobs that depend on them.

Order! I just asked the member for Gippsland to cease interjecting, and he keeps interjecting, so he'll have to leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Gippsland then left the chamber.

I'm trying to bring some order and decorum to this House. People are passionate about issues—I understand that—but that is not the way to handle yourself in the House. We've got to make sure we're doing better.

The agreement also delivers significant opportunities for Australian manufacturing and industry. From machinery and automotive components to advanced manufacturing and critical minerals, this agreement will help Australian businesses compete internationally. From Victoria's regional manufacturing centres, including Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo, stronger access to European markets means opportunities to grow, to diversify and to support local jobs in our hometowns. Regional Australia should not just produce the goods the world needs; it should share in the jobs, the investment and the growth that actually comes with them. That means stronger regional industries, more secure jobs and greater opportunities for the next generation.

While those opposite talk about supporting the regions, Labor is delivering real change, and the Australia-EU free trade agreement is proof of that. We're backing our farmers, our manufacturers and our exporters by reducing trade barriers and opening up access to new markets. That is what we have to do to grow those regional economies. We're strengthening Australia's international partnerships while supporting more investment here at home, and we're ensuring that regional Australia is ready to benefit from new investment in emerging industries and global demand, because, under this government, regional Australia won't be left behind. It is the centre of Australia's economic future and growth.

Taxation

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yet another Labor premier is fighting back against the Prime Minister's war on small business. Yesterday, embattled Victorian Premier Ben Carroll admitted Labor's small-business tax on trusts is 'undermining business confidence'. Why do Australians always pay the price because the Prime Minister can't ever admit he's made a mistake?

Labor has a number of initiatives that have assisted small business, whether they be in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland or Tasmania—wherever they are—and that is why there are an extra 265,000 small businesses since we took office, bringing it to a record 2.7 million now. Business registrations each month have risen since we've been in government to be almost 35 per cent higher than they were before we came to office and 250 per cent higher than they were under the Howard government.

There are a number of initiatives we made. One of the things we did was to make the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, and we've made the two-year loss carry-back permanent. Interestingly, the fact is these are both Labor initiatives. Labor first introduced the instant asset write-off in 2011. Labor also introduced the loss carry-back at that time. Those measures were unwound by the former government. It has taken another Labor government to make both these tax measures permanent.

Employment

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How are the Albanese Labor government's international trade relationships delivering for Australian workers?

I'd like to thank the member for Gellibrand for his question and for his commitment to boosting secure and well-paid jobs for Australian workers.

The Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to delivering opportunities so that more Australians can get good jobs. Our government has presided over the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years. On this side of the House, we want to see Australians in jobs, and one in four Australian jobs are supported by export trade, meaning the more we trade with other nations, the more jobs that are created for Australians. Our government also makes no apology for supporting Australians to get higher wages. Jobs in export trade industries pay on average nine per cent higher wages. As a country, if we want to see more jobs and higher wages, one of the areas we need to focus on is generating new trade and investment opportunities that deliver for Australian businesses and Australian workers. That is exactly what this government is doing.

The Minister for Trade and Tourism has demonstrated our commitment to job-creating opportunities in March, when he secured the Australian-European Union free trade agreement, a historic win for Australia. It is a deal that opens access to 27 countries and 450 million consumers—a significant opportunity for our producers, farmers, businesses, exporters and, of course, workers. Right now, trade with the EU supports over 340,000 Australian jobs. With better access to these new markets, we can help create the opportunities for thousands more well-paid jobs in this country. Of course, this includes more jobs in advanced manufacturing so Australia is at the forefront of global economic change; more jobs in mining, producing the critical minerals to power the world; more jobs in farming, growing fresh produce that travels from Australian soil to European dining tables; and, of course, more jobs in professional services that give Australian workers improved access to European markets.

Importantly, this free trade agreement reinforces Australia's commitment as a founding member of the International Labour Organization to protect workers rights. Of course, this has been supported by many people, including the Business Council of Australia's CEO, Bran Black, who, just yesterday, said that this agreement is 'critical to supporting jobs, investments and better living standards'. I urge every single member of this House to support this deal through the parliament. (Time expired)

Early Childhood Education and Care

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, early childhood education and care is facing a reckoning, with an epidemic of safety and quality concerns. In Brisbane, seven centres have shut down with just a day's notice, leaving families stranded. We wouldn't accept Australia's primary and secondary schools being run for profit and shutting on a whim. Isn't it time for the government to guarantee safe and high-quality early childhood education to all Australian families?

I thank the member for her question. You are absolutely right that our children deserve safe and high-quality early education and care. They deserve nothing less. I have been very blunt in this place that not enough has been done by any government of any stripe in this country to make sure that our kids are safe in early education and care, whether that's state or federal or Labor or Liberal. I've also been very determined that that change, and that is why, working with ministers right across the country, we have taken the action that we have.

That includes banning mobile phones in childcare centres. I don't think I need to remind members why we're doing that, but I should tell members that, of all the things we've done, that's the one that the Federal Police tell me is the most important. It's also why we've set up a national register so that we know who is working where and when they move from state to state, and some of the people arrested who are now rotting in jail are the reason for that. It's also why we've put in place national mandatory safety training. It is so everybody, from the CEO to the board, the person who works in the kitchen and the people who work on the floor, has the skills they need to spot a predator that might be hiding in plain sight, that might be grooming kids or might be grooming them. That's why we're also rolling out a trial of CCTV. I think some of the things that we saw on Four Corners on Monday night remind us why that is important as well. This will be the subject of further discussion, as it always is, when ministers meet next week.

I should tell you—to your point about centres closing and centres opening—that ministers are also very conscious that that is happening too. I think, on average, for every centre that closes two open. It is true that there are parts of the country where lots of centres open, and they are only half full. The coordination and organisation of where centres set up and operate is not well organised. We are discussing at the moment the proposal to set up an early education and care commission, something which would augment and expand upon the work that ACECQA does right now. One of the reasons for that is to drive reform to keep our kids safe in early education and care. But another reason for that is to make sure there is better coordination of where centres are so that we don't have centres that are half full, where there are five in one street and none in country towns or in the outer suburbs where they're desperately needed.

Trade with the European Union

My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How will the Albanese Labor government's free trade agreement with the European Union ensure Australia continues to build its reputation in tertiary education?

Thanks to my friend the member for Macquarie for her question and her fierce advocacy on behalf of her community, especially and including when it comes to trade and the benefits it can bring. I also thank the member for her support in locking in the next free TAFE agreement with New South Wales, signed last week, securing ongoing access to high-quality training for people in that great state.

The Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement builds on the critical work we've been doing to build our future and to ensure, importantly, that more Australians can benefit from this. Of course, this is the most comprehensive and the most progressive trade agreement ever concluded in Australia—a once-in-a-generation landmark deal that really opens up a huge market, something that will provide economy-wide benefits to Australia, to business, to communities and critically to Australian workers. Agriculture, another area where the member for Macquarie has been a real champion, is an example of a sector where we continue to punch above our weight as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has just outlined to the House and where we have so much to share with the world—including the skills that we are building here thanks to the Albanese Labor government's investment in skills and training.

I think about being at Richmond TAFE with the member, where we met students and teachers who will benefit from this deal and the gateway to the European market it opens up—people like Bridget studying a cert III in agriculture who'd already locked in graduate work and those fantastic teachers like Kate teaching the critical skills needed to grow that pipeline of workers that is needed, sharing world-class skills we have in our tertiary education system with the world and benefiting at the same time from the experience and the expertise of members right across the European Union.

It's really important to emphasise that the winners of this agreement aren't just our producers and exporters; they are apprentices, trainees, students and workers because this agreement supports good jobs for Australians, especially regional Australians. This trading relationship already supports over 340,000 jobs right across the country. Under this new agreement, we'll see more young Australians get that opportunity for secure, skilled jobs created by the deal. The Albanese Labor government's approach to skills and training through free TAFE, the National Skills Agreement, tertiary harmonisation and apprenticeship reforms positioned us to see the benefits flow to learners and to workers right around the country.

We are rightly internationally renowned for our tertiary education system, and this opens up real opportunities from the free trade agreement for those institutions and for Australian individuals too. We cannot let this pass us by—for Bridget, for Kate and for Australians right around our nation. Our free TAFE reforms have backed their skills, and this EU free trade agreement opens up even more opportunities for all of their futures.

Chalmers, Hon. Dr Jim

My question is to the Prime Minister. This treasurer has spent $120 billion more than he has saved, fuelling inflation and driving up mortgage repayments by more than $30,000 per year. On the Inside Politics podcast, the Treasurer said:

… for people who think we should cut much harder, they should nominate, I think, those areas that should be cut more substantially.

Prime Minister, by his own admission, this Treasurer is out of touch and out of ideas. When are you going to give the member for Parramatta a go?

On a day when this side of the House has raised inflation figures that came up today, the free trade agreement, the digital duty of care—I don't know what went on in their tactics room, but it is hard to take an alternative government seriously when the sort of questions that are asked go to a golf club. When it's called 'Royal Marrickville Golf Club', it's irony because it's actually this working class club. Sledges across the chamber, rather than serious questions about the economy—I'll tell you who takes the economy seriously. It's this treasurer.

Under this treasurer, average real annual spending growth is 1.5 per cent over the eight years to 2029-30, less than half the 30-year average and less than half of what it was under the former coalition government. This treasurer produced back-to-back surpluses. This treasurer returned 75 per cent of revenue upgrades to the bottom line. He's one of only nine treasurers or finance ministers around the world that have a AAA credit rating from all of the agencies. Under this treasurer, debt in 2025-26 is nearly $198 billion lower.

The Leader of the Opposition is going to stop yelling.

Order! You're going to stop yelling at me, or you'll be warned and you won't be here. This yelling is completely unacceptable. No Leader of the Opposition has behaved like that. The Prime Minister can assist by lowering the temperature as well with the language being used.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Everyone needs to—order! The volume of noise is too great. I'm just asking everyone to rise to this challenge. It's not business as usual. The Prime Minister, in continuation.

Under this treasurer, debt in 2025-26 is $198 billion lower than forecasted at the 2022 election, saving around, under this treasurer, $70 billion in interest costs over the decade. This is a treasurer who takes his responsibilities on the economy seriously, and it is hard to take those opposite seriously, given their performance today.

Economy

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Innovation. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering economic opportunity for Australian industry, including through a once-in-a-generation Australian-European Union free trade agreement?

I thank the member for Bendigo, a proud manufacturing region. The truth is that the Albanese government is a proud champion of Aussie industry and we're committed to rebuilding our industrial base, and we're delivering. Since we came to government, manufacturing exports have grown by a massive 43 per cent. Manufacturing investment is up by 35 per cent, and there are many more manufacturing firms. All of this supports good blue-collar jobs, especially in regional communities, and there are many more great opportunities on the way.

The Australia-EU free trade agreement is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen our trade relationships with one of the world's largest economies, valued at $30 trillion. This agreement will open up access to a market of 450 million people, adding $10 billion to the Australian economy, and it will help grow the more than 340,000 Aussie jobs across the economy that already rely on the two-way trade with Europe. This is a huge opportunity for our world-class producers, farmers, businesses, exporters and workers, and it's great for industry, including Aussie manufacturing in particular.

It's also great news for the defence industry, and the good news is that we're already exporting leading-edge defence technology to the world. For example, Rheinmetall Defence Australia is producing more than 100 Aussie made Boxer heavy weapons carrier vehicles for the German army in a contract worth more than $1 billion to the Aussie economy. There's no doubt that the Australian defence industry will go from strength to strength under this agreement, as will the broader Australian manufacturing sector.

The truth is that this agreement will create opportunities for businesses to access global supply chains. It will increase our exports and help to attract investment in our businesses that already employ hundreds of thousands of Australians, and it'll open the door for greater industrial collaboration. It'll also help strengthen cooperation already happening under the new EU-Australia security and defence partnership. This will deepen our relationships and increase collaboration, and this means more jobs in Australia, more jobs in Aussie manufacturing and more jobs in our regions.

All of our trade agreements have been supported on a bipartisan basis because they've been in the Australian national interest. Sadly, the decades-long Australian bipartisan approach to trade policy is under threat because of those opposite. The truth is that, if you're pro jobs, you need to be pro the EU free trade agreement. And if you're opposed to the Australia-EU Free Trade agreement, you're anti jobs in this economy. So as we face trade winds globally, get behind this EU free trade agreement because it's good for jobs and it's good for Aussie manufacturing.

Fuel

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. When fuel prices spiked this year, Australians were told it was because of the war. But Australia's two refineries are making super profits. Ampol's profits from the Lytton refinery increased tenfold, and Viva Energy's earnings are up 150 per cent, despite selling only one per cent more fuel. Australians pay for those margins at the bowser and in the price of everything transported. Taxpayers subsidise these refineries in lean years. Why shouldn't they get a share of the windfall when refineries profit from a crisis?

I thank the honourable member for her question. Indeed, the fuel prices are a result of the war in the Middle East. There's no question about that. But, of course, the government has been focused very much on fuel security over the last seven months, ensuring our immediate fuel security, and, despite the fact that others called for rationing and others predicted rationing, we have ensured by working with those refineries and our trading partners that our fuel security has been very solid over that time. But we've also been working on our longer term fuel security, building the Australian strategic fuel reserve announced in the budget, as well as increasing the minimum stock obligation.

The honourable member refers to the Fuel Security Services Payment, which was a payment introduced by the previous government after four refineries shut between 2013 and 2022. We lost 25 billion litres a year worth of production. The member for Hume, when he had my job, introduced the Fuel Security Services Payment, which does support the operation of those two refineries and does provide payments when prices are low. I have recently announced that I would begin consultation on a new fuel security services payment for the post 2030 arrangements, because we will not see those two refineries shut.

But the honourable member is essentially correct. One of the things in the consultation paper that I released on the new regime said:

Consideration will be given to risk-sharing between government and industry, including whether mechanisms for government to capture a share of excess profits during favourable market conditions are appropriate, and how any shared value could be reinvested to support fuel security outcomes.

So we do think it's appropriate to ensure that, while government will ensure the refineries remain open, when there are increased profits the taxpayer can share in that, and that is a conversation that we will have with the industry between now and the end of the year, and I will make further announcements when those arrangements are finalised. But building our fuel security has been absolutely essential, and ensuring that Australians can benefit when profits are high from those arrangements with refineries is perfectly appropriate. That's why we've flagged that. It's also appropriate that we continue our four point plan for fuel security, which involves working with states on feasibility studies for more refining capacity, increasing the minimum stock obligation and the Australian fuel security reserve, developing a low carbon fuels industry for Australia which is great for farmers, as well as improving fuel security and supporting the choices of Australians in electrification because every 100,000 new electric vehicles adds three days' worth of fuel supply for Australia.

Trade with the European Union

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How will our free trade agreement with the European Union help support regional and rural communities?

Thanks to the member for Leichhardt, a real advocate for Australian produce going worldwide. Our negotiations with the EU on this free trade agreement have concluded, and the outcome sends a clear signal to regional and rural Australia that the Albanese government has their back. This agreement eliminates the vast majority of EU tariffs on agricultural products, and it will provide Aussie farmers and producers with new opportunities to access a market that has effectively been closed for decades. With this deal, we're backing Aussie producers, farmers and, more importantly, regional communities. Export success is good for local jobs, and it's good for regional economies like the wine industry in the Hunter, the pineapple growers of North Queensland, the seafood industry of the Spencer Gulf and the critical minerals sector in the WA Mid West.

I want to commend the Minister for Trade and Tourism in the other place and the entire negotiating team for getting this agreement across the line. This has been hard fought, and it will get more Aussie produce into the massive market of Europe. Under this agreement, market access for beef will rise 700 per cent to 35,000 tonnes, and sheepmeat will rise 430 per cent to 30,000 tonnes. We'll have these volumes reviewed in five years time. This agreement will support Aussie farmers and regional communities by eliminating tariffs, and it will help make our regional exports more competitive while supporting local employment because regional jobs rely on global demand for our products.

Let me break it down a little bit for those opposite. Cherry festivals and growers are part of what is becoming a booming agritourism industry in Australia. It supports whole towns and jobs as a result. Through this deal, we'll see more cherries exported around the world, and that will mean more local jobs, additional local tourism and a big win for local economies. These are the real-world consequences of our approach to free and fair trade and highlight why this agreement is good for regional and rural communities. So I encourage those opposite to support the European free trade agreement. It's good for regional communities. It's good for regional economies. Unlike those opposite, I won't talk down the importance of cherry festivals in places like Young. They are just as important to towns like that as any other form of tourism. Agritourism is super important, and on this side of the House we understand that.

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

DOCUMENTS Presentation

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

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy

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

The Government's addiction to spending, forcing higher inflation and interest rates, families to pay more on their mortgages and at the supermarket checkout.

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—

Today's news around inflation is devastating for Australian families. So many families are already going into the supermarket, and they're getting to the end, where they're scanning the items through into their red basket or their trolley, and they're having to put items back on the shelf. They're looking at the bill and how much they're paying, and they're paying more and getting less. This is the legacy of the active inflation agenda of the Albanese government. Not only are they experiencing it at the supermarket; across every single bill in their lives, nothing is going down—insurance, basic goods, electricity prices and, of course, what is always the biggest chunk of most families' household budgets, their mortgage. In fact, we now know that there's been an increase in the average mortgage of $30,000 over an entire year.

When they look to this parliament and they look to this government and see whether there's any empathy, whether there's any understanding about the pressure and the pain that families or small businesses are experiencing—well, we just heard it in question time. Not only couldn't the Prime Minister and the Treasurer give two hoots about the consequences of inflation on Australian households; more importantly, they couldn't even care about the consequences of what is driving it. We saw this from the Prime Minister, who loved to quote the Reserve Bank governor in his remarks. There's just one thing. He forgot some of the other details that came out of the Reserve Bank governor's statement to the Senate estimates process. The Reserve Bank governor said—importantly, though, it is a cherrypicking festival of quotes from the Reserve Bank governor. She said:

Importantly though, it's not just these global pressures that are driving inflation in Australia—

Oh my gosh!

While they are certainly compounding the inflation problem, we still see inflation arising from domestic capacity pressures …

She continued:

… continued weak productivity growth means the economy cannot grow strongly without putting pressure on inflation. This is a fundamental challenge for the Australian economy and for everyone's real spending power over the next few years.

We know that in response to inquiries from the House of Representatives Economics Committee the Reserve Bank governor said, 'Yes, government spending is a key driver of why Australians are experiencing higher inflation'—and of course therefore experiencing higher interest rates and paying more at the supermarket and getting less.

You just need to look at the international comparisons, which is one of the things the Prime Minister and the Treasurer like to refer to. They look to like look at the global picture and say, 'We're no different; it's all international pressure, and so many other countries are experiencing the same pain.' There's just one problem: the government actively stoked inflation by spending too much in the lead-up to an international crisis. That's why they've left Australia exposed and vulnerable. And they have not just left our nation exposed and vulnerable; they have left Australian households exposed and vulnerable and left small businesses exposed and vulnerable. And their answer to those families who can't afford to put food on their table: let them eat inflation. And what's their answer to the small businesses that can't afford to keep their doors open? Let them eat taxes. This government has no empathy, no interest.

The compounding of these factors shows when you look at international comparisons: Japan's headline inflation rate, 2.1 per cent; their underlying inflation rate, 2.1 per cent. What's Australia's? Headline inflation: 4.3 per cent—more than double Japan's. What's our underlying inflation rate? It is 3.6 per cent. Let's look at France. They've got riots on the street, with people saying that their futures have been sold away by their government and they cannot afford basic services or a decent standard of living. Their headline inflation rate: 3.1 percent. We've got 4.3. Their underlying inflation rate: 1½ per cent. Australia's, under this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, is 3.6. The UK: headline, 3.45; underlying, 2.8. The US: headline, 3.7; underlying, 2.6—while we remain at 4.3 and 3.6.

This is the problem. The government has no empathy and no understanding of the contribution they are making. This government is spending more than any government over the past 40 years excluding the pandemic years. And their solution is to project out into the future 40 years of deficit spending, making sure we're borrowing from tomorrow to feed today and contributing to inflation pressure that Australians will continue to endure. The reality and the consequences of that are real. Not only have we crossed the threshold of $1 trillion of debt but taxpayers are now forking out a record $27 billion a year to pay the interest on that very debt—

And rising!

And rising, as the Leader of the Opposition correctly outlines And these taxes are not to go towards schools, not towards benefits, not towards education but just to finance debt.

Think about the last federal budget and how vulnerable this government is leaving Australians. In the last federal budget, 10-year bond yields were assumed to be only 4.8 per cent. They're already up at around 5.3 per cent, and they will continue to rise, and with that the cost of servicing debt will continue to rise as well. Why? Because this Treasurer cannot kick his inflation addiction. We have underlying inflation running hot—too hot—for 14 straight months. It has been above the target band in 15 of the 18 quarters since Labor was elected. And despite how much they might want to turn around and blame international events, the facts and evidence simply do not back them up. When did underlying inflation go above the RBA's target band? The first bomb landed in Tehran at the end of February 2026. Underlying inflation went above the RBA's target band in July 2025. I don't know about you, but that sure as hell is a lot of shrapnel, all the way back to seven months ago. That is the reality. This government has been actively stoking inflation, and that is why Australians are getting poorer.

Australians desperately need hope, particularly those in small businesses, who are dealing with the consequences of record small-business insolvencies. They're dealing with the consequence of record numbers of Australians who are simply closing their doors because they can't keep their business operating or closing their business because they've got no-one to sell to. Unemployment is rising, inflation is rising, interest rates are rising and it just seems to be something that's accidentally happened to this government. Having an interest rate rise 16 times is not an accident. It might soon be 17 times—four times, 'accidentally', this year and possibly five soon. It is punishing and destroying so many Australians who simply want to keep their head above financial water. There is a reality, and there's a reckoning. This government has waved the white flag on inflation. They have surrendered to the inflation that they have stoked, and they have no pathway out.

The member for Moreton only a few weeks ago was out here in this chamber saying, 'What are you going to cut?' as though it was some sort of brilliant rhetorical device and then was out the doors at the front of this chamber only a few days ago saying: 'We've got to throw the kitchen sink at cutting spending. It's such a big problem now.' The member for Moreton is right. Somebody needs a plan. The Treasurer has run out of ideas. There's one good thing. This team, this opposition, this coalition alternative does have a plan. We have put forward $33.3 billion worth of savings, scrapping housing bureaucracies that don't build a bloody home, a climate bureaucracy—

Withdraw that comment.

that doesn't go on and cut emissions.

Member for Goldstein, withdraw the swearing.

I withdraw, because the reality is we can't withdraw the inflation pressure Australians are living with. We would scrap housing bureaucracies that don't build homes, climate bureaucracies that don't cut emissions, corporate welfare that feeds the friends of the government and welfare for future noncitizens, which means we can get our budget back on a sustainable footing to actually advance the national interest and advance the interests of Australians first, as well as making sure we cut down the organised crime that feeds off illicit tobacco and is a lived experience of the Laffer Curve. We have organised crime coming in and enjoying super profits, and the only answer we're getting from this government is to protect the organised crime. There is a chance. There is hope, but it comes from a change of government and certainly a change of this treasurer.

It's all ambition, no ammunition. As Richard Ackland once said of the shadow treasurer, 'I had the sound off, so I could understand him perfectly.' If anyone was listening to that misfortune of 10 wasted minutes, they will have seen the confected outrage from the shadow treasurer but a complete lack of policy solutions.

Let's just take a moment to imagine what Australia would look like today and what the cost-of-living pressures would be like on Australian families if Australia was governed by a Liberal-National-One Nation coalition. The minimum wage would be lower. Student debt would be higher. Fewer students would be able to access free TAFE. Fewer parents would be able to access affordable child care. Home buyers wouldn't have access to Help to Buy. The government would be building fewer homes. Fewer Australians would have home batteries putting downward pressure on their energy bills. Income taxes would be higher. Government debt would be higher. Medicines would cost more. Visits to the GP would cost more. Multinationals would be paying less tax. Our competition laws would be weaker. The penalties for breaking competition laws would be, at their maximum, a tenth of what they are today.

The fact is that the world is facing an inflation challenge. The IMF's October outlook projects global inflation rising to 4.7 per cent this year. The simple reason for that is the war in Iran, which this government has urged the US and Israeli governments to bring to an end, their stated objectives having been achieved. The war in Iran has sharply driven up the price of a barrel of oil, which started the year at about US$75 a barrel and has now gone above US$90 a barrel, as supply disruptions and geopolitical tensions have tightened. Here in Australia, we've had inflation figures out today which report that petrol prices rose 9.4 per cent, driven by higher world oil prices. That is the principal driver of inflation today. The Australian budget doesn't set the world oil price.

We are seeing these challenges around the world. In the United States in September, inflation rose 0.3 per cent. In Britain, inflation rose 0.4 per cent, and, in Germany, inflation rose 0.4 per cent. In Canada, inflation rose 0.1 per cent. Across the euro area, it rose, on average, 0.6 per cent in September. In France, inflation rose 0.8 per cent, Italy 0.9 per cent. In Spain, it was up 0.4 per cent. Of the European Union's 27 countries, 23 recorded an increase in their annual inflation rate in September. This is a challenge which countries are facing around the world.

The government account for $1 in $5 of additional demand, and we are doing our part in order to work with the Reserve Bank in placing downward pressure on inflation. Average spending growth under this government is less than half the rate it was under the previous government. Since coming to office, we've identified approximately $180 billion in savings, closing loopholes, stronger tax compliance, reducing poorly targeted concessions and reprioritising spending. Under the former government, we had sports rorts, car park rorts—all manner of rorts—reined in by our government since coming to office, and we still have measures before the parliament that would deliver savings, including our changes to the private health insurance rebate so it is means tested not age tested. That savings measure is opposed by those opposite—a savings measure which would assist in the significant task this government is engaged in.

Over the last 15 years, only one Treasurer has delivered a surplus. It is Treasurer Chalmers who has delivered two surpluses. That reflects the important work that our government did. Those opposite printed the 'back in black' mugs but never delivered the budget into the black. The fact is—

I would love one, former deputy prime minister! I could definitely use a 'back in black' prop to pull out, because the fact is it would remind Australians of how fiscally profligate the former government was. Before the COVID pandemic hit, they had already doubled the debt. They doubled the deficit on coming into office, and they continued to significantly spend such that, now, two-thirds of government debt is that accrued under the former coalition government. Under Labor, we have delivered the most significant tax reforms in 25 years, delivering reforms that go back to the Asprey report of 1975. I pay tribute to Treasurer Chalmers for picking up the recommendations of experts such as the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, e61 and the Grattan Institute, which, for decades, have been urging upon this government reforms on capital gains taxation, negative gearing and trusts. This treasurer, Treasurer Chalmers, has delivered all three.

Just as tax reform was fought by conservatives under the Hawke and Keating governments, it has been no surprise this year that we have seen the conservative parties backing the status quo rather than a fairer deal for homebuyers in Australia, but we on this side of the House have supported significant tax reforms. We have also put in place the most significant competition reforms of the last generation, reforming Australia's merger laws so there is more expeditious passage of low-risk mergers and greater scrutiny of high-risk mergers. We have increased penalties for anti-competitive conduct and anti-consumer conduct. We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, a measure opposed by those opposite, and it's backed now, under us, by strong penalties. We're tackling shrinkflation through reforms to strengthen the Unit Pricing Code. We've made supermarket price gouging illegal. We've funded CHOICE to give shoppers more information about supermarket prices, and we're addressing commercial planning and zoning through national competition policy to reduce the barriers to entry in the supermarket sector. We've increased funding to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and we are seeing results to that reform. Earlier this year, in proceedings brought by the ACCC, the Federal Court found that Coles had made false or misleading representations about its 'Down, Down' discount, and a separate judgement in a case against Woolworths is pending. Our reforms are delivering economy-wide protections.

In the area of noncompete clauses, we have announced that we are scrapping noncompetes for everyone earning below the Fair Work high-income earner threshold, currently $190,100. This ensures that Australians can move to a better job. At a time when wages are under pressure, scrapping noncompete clauses allows wages to grow. The experts say that the benefits are something in the order of $2,500 for the one in five Australian workers constrained by a noncompete. That means wages will be higher, productivity will be higher and business start-ups will benefit, because, in an economy in which the unemployment rate is below five per cent, start-up business will be looking to hire from incumbent businesses. Scrapping noncompetes is good for productivity, good for innovation and good for freedom. Workers should have the freedom to move to a better job, and under this Albanese government we will deliver that outcome.

We have come to a deal with the European Union on a free trade agreement which will see significant increases to the amount of red meat which flows to the European Union—increases in lamb meat exports, increases in beef meat exports. This is a significant market, and Labor's free trade agreement is the kind of free trade agreement that would have been agreed to by the coalition in decades gone by. Negotiations were started by Malcolm Turnbull and Steven Ciobo, with then prime minister Turnbull describing it as 'a great day for Australia'. It contains no clauses on climate that the European Union and Australia haven't been signing up to in agreements of the past, including agreements signed by the former coalition government. They are so opposed to action on climate that they will make Australian consumers and Australian farmers suffer because of their ideological objections. Labor is the only true small-l liberal party standing in Australia. Labor is supporting free trade as those opposite once would.

This is a matter-of-public-importance debate on the Albanese government's addiction to spending, forcing higher inflation and higher interest rates, with families paying the price on their mortgages and at the supermarket checkout. I listened very carefully to the member for Fenner's contribution, and he knows in his heart of hearts that he cannot keep defending the Treasurer; in fact, he should be the Treasurer, and he absolutely knows it. He's an economist, he's written books on this and he's very learned on the subject. But if the member for Fenner's commentary about the economy is true, then why oh why, everywhere you go, everywhere anyone goes in Australia, are people doing it so tough? Why is small business in freefall? Why are there 30 small businesses closing their doors each and every day? Why was last year a record year, so sadly, so tragically, for insolvencies? Why, every time you go to the fuel station, are you paying more and more at the bowser? Why are you going to the supermarket and getting less in your trolley and paying more at the register? Why, every time people are opening their power bills, are the costs going north? It's just too much.

The member for Fenner talks about the EU trade deal. We have to have a trade deal that is in Australia's national interest, not just in the European Union's interest—in both interests. But this deal does nothing for Australian farmers. If I'm mistaken, then why is the NFF coming out so hard against it? Why are farmers per se pillorying the deal? The coalition does not support the Australia-EU free trade agreement in its current form. It fails to deliver meaningful export access. What it is is a back door through which to give up our sovereignty over climate policy. We cannot sign a deal on behalf of our farmers and on behalf of our miners that is going to be a bad deal and not as good a deal as it should have been. This is the whole thing about Labor. In March, when Labor was going to go back to the negotiating table, it came out with a deal which is no better than what it was months and months ago. So why sign up to it?

If everything is so pink and rosy in Australia, why does this government have to continually bail out every enterprise, every manufacturer, that is using a lot of energy? Why is the country's largest aluminium smelter costing taxpayers $2½ billion, with the New South Wales and federal governments going to split the bill down the middle? The member for Newcastle—sorry, I mean the member for Hunter. You're the member for Newcastle, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. I won't verbal you; you're in the chair. The member for Hunter—I'll just verbal him!—knows full well that the government has had to come in and bail out an industry that should be standing up on its own two feet and that should be thriving. Aluminium and the smelter—everything should be going absolutely full bore. Instead, because of the failings of the Labor government, we have to put in a bailout—

The state government—it's another Labor government! You can talk about the state government all you like.

Order, Member for Hunter and Member for Riverina! I know you invited the interjection, Member for Riverina, but please don't respond. Let's get back to the debate.

And then there's Whyalla, yet another industry which requires bailing out, not to mention SunRice. SunRice is an amazing organisation doing so much good for so many people in Finley, in Deniliquin, in Leeton, right across the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area—right across the Riverina. And yet, because of water buyback policy and because the government says that it needs to take more and more water out of the system, the government has to step in with a $14 million bailout for SunRice.

It just can't continue like this. The government can't keep propping up the industry because of its own failed policies. There's good spending and bad spending. I realise that. This government needs to stop spending money upwards of $30 million on pre-COP conferences. It needs to stop spending money on water buybacks. It has to get back to first principles—that is, making sure that everyday, ordinary Australians and small businesses can operate fairly and effectively in this economy.

If those opposite want to talk spending, let's talk spending, and let's get some facts on the table. When we came to government, we inherited $900 billion in debt, and 70 per cent of that debt was accrued by those opposite. Let's get those facts on the table while we talk spending.

I want to make it interesting for everyone in the chamber today; I'm going to add a bit of a backing track to my speech. Just have playing in the back of your head Shirley Bassey's 'Big Spender'. That is the song that comes to mind whenever Australians hear lecturing from those opposite about fiscal discipline. Have you got the tune in your head? I hope you've got it in there, because I'm going to take you through the five greatest hits of wasteful spending by those opposite.

Let's start with No. 5, car park rorts. Six hundred and sixty million dollars was spent on car parks, some of which were never even delivered. The Auditor-General said it was not transparent and not based on need—a terrible waste of money.

Now we move on to No. 4, French submarines. How could we forget! Prime Minister Turnbull signed the deal, then Prime Minister Morrison cancelled the deal—$2.4 billion in taxpayer money spent, with not a single submarine as a result. In fact, it ruined our relationship with the French, with the French president openly calling the former prime minister a liar.

We go to No. 3. This one was a doozy—the NBN redesign. Abbott ripped up the original plan. He promised cheaper, faster internet. Instead, Australians got slower speeds and we got a massive cost blowout—$27 billion wasted.

We're moving into some really wasteful spending now. No. 2 is JobKeeper design failures. It was a great idea. We supported JobKeeper; it's important to keep and support Australian workers. But the design flaws were enormous. In fact, those opposite gave $13 billion to profitable companies, companies whose revenue went up during the COVID pandemic because there were no clawback provisions.

Okay, we're going to go to No. 1. Are you ready for it? No. 1 for most wasteful spending is robodebt. It's the worst of the lot because, let's remember, the original intent of that policy was to save us money. It was supposed to save us $1.5 billion. What did it do? It ended up costing us money—$1.8 billion. I cannot think of a worse policy. It was unlawful, it ruined thousands of lives, and it ended up costing us money. So let's have a debate about spending. I'm ready to do it. It's important that we get the facts about what those opposite achieved on the record. We inherited that mess. We inherited that wasteful spending, that debt, and we also inherited their inflation challenge. It started under them at more than six per cent.

Let's move into part 2 of this speech. I'm going to give you a new song here—'Takin' Care of Business'. Have you got that in the back of your head? We are facing some real challenges. Inflation is higher than we would hope, it is sticking around longer than we would hope, and higher oil prices are adding to that. This conflict cannot end soon enough. We acknowledge that inflation is presenting difficulties and challenges to households. High interest rates are challenging. They're seeing it at the supermarket check-out. They're seeing it at the petrol bowser. We acknowledge that. But what we have done as a government, in every single budget, is find savings measures, and that has meant $180 billion in savings, which has meant we have avoided $70 billion in interest costs. We've delivered back-to-back surpluses. Were those opposite ever able to ever do that? Were they ever able to deliver just one surplus in their time in government? Never. We've made difficult decisions to make sure that we can make our budget sustainable.

I think we can all agree that Australians are doing it tough. The price of everything is up, and they are regularly hearing from the Reserve Bank that their mortgage and interest rates are going to go up as well. Today, in question time, I made two observations. The first was that the Prime Minister's demeanour suggested that he was a little angry, upset—I might even say concerned. It wouldn't take a body language expert to see that. It was pretty clear from where I sat. There was a second part of question time that was instructive too, and that was the question that the member for Bowman put to the Prime Minister. But I'll get to that in a minute.

I thought to myself during question time, 'Why is the PM upset?' And I think I've worked it out. Australians have worked out who they need to blame for the situation they find themselves in. They've finally worked it out. They've worked out that the challenges they face, born of inflation, are being driven out of Canberra. For a long time, those opposite have sought to point the finger in other directions, and Australians, as fair minded people, have said, 'Yes, fair enough, we can understand those things.' But the last interest rate increase in this country suggested a different attitude from Australians. Australians have now finally worked out that there is a direct causal link between public expenditure emanating out of this place and interest rates. It's driving up prices, it's driving up interest rates and it's causing real grief for Australians.

Of course, the Prime Minister's upset because the person who's in charge of selling that message to Australians and suggesting that the challenges are elsewhere is his embattled Treasurer. But the Treasurer, unfortunately, isn't able to shield the Prime Minister any longer. Australians have worked it out, and they're angry and disappointed. It's the reason he can't go to the footy, because he gets booed. We know that the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is strained.

That leads me to the question that was posed by the member for Bowman. It was not the question that was instructive but the answer from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, when asked about the performance of his Treasurer, was glowing in his praise. He was glowing in his praise for the Treasurer. The speech could have been summarised as 'Australians have never had it better'. But, you see, that's the problem. We've got a prime minister with a tin ear, and Aussies know it. He comes in here and points to the performance of the Treasurer and says: 'The Treasurer is doing such a fantastic job. Look at all the things I've saved you from.' But Australians are sitting back at their kitchen table, opening another bill, be it an electricity bill, the annual insurance bill or other bills, looking at their credit card statement, grocery bills and other things and saying: 'But I'm really hurting, and your job is to protect us. Your job is to usher the Australian economy.'

Aggregate demand, which is what is driving up inflation and interest rates in this country, is made up of two elements. There's private demand and public demand. Private demand is hard to control. There's 24, 25, 26 or 27 million Australians. It's quite hard to reach into the budgets of Australians and make them make different decisions, although interest rates are doing that. But there is one element of aggregate demand over which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, in particular, have very direct responsibility and control, and that's public demand. We've got a Treasurer, in the middle of an inflation crisis where Australians are being whacked month after month with higher interest rates, who has taken government spending to 26.9 per cent of GDP, the highest level in 40 years outside of the pandemic. Treasurer, tighten your belt because, when you don't, Australians are forced to. They've had enough of you and your prime minister.

Australians do not need anyone in this parliament to tell them that many households are under pressure with their budgets. I know people across my electorate of Hasluck, when they go past the bowser, when they head into the shopping centre and go to the checkout or when their rent or mortgage payments are due, are finding it challenging. We are in a cost-of-living crisis that's being shared internationally. We've never resiled from that. But we can't just wish away a conflict that we were told would only take a matter of days or weeks to resolve and that is still going today.

No-one should seek to minimise the pressure that some households are under. But, equally, we can't be caught up by the narrative that the coalition are trying to run—that they would in some way be doing a better job when they are so clearly, as we've just heard from the member for Barker, completely bereft of any policies. We know, based on their voting record, that the only thing that they have to offer is indiscriminate cuts. When I think about what those cuts would mean, they would mean they would cut the tax relief that will put more money back into the pockets of our hardworking Australians and those of my people, the working people of Hasluck. They would cut the very cost-of-living measures that are actually helping families to meet the mortgage, fuel the car and put food on the table. They would cut the health, housing and opportunities for people in Hasluck and in every electorate across the country.

I'll spell this out even more plainly. The coalition would never have provided the historic bulk-billing support that is helping patients in my electorate right now as I speak. They would never have created the 137 urgent care clinics around Australia, which have seen three million—or more now—presentations since 2023. They would never have subsidised the cheaper medicines, and they certainly ran a mile from 60-day scripts. The coalition would cut Medicare in Hasluck. This means putting at risk cheaper medicines, bulk-billing and Medicare urgent care clinics that are serving families in Midland, in Ellenbrook and in Morley. These are the services my community use and they are the services people in my community value. People in Hasluck have already saved more than $11.5 million since 2022 through our cheaper medicines policies. These are real cost-of-living supports for real people in my electorate, and they would all be at risk in the face of coalition cuts.

The coalition would cut housing support in Hasluck. We know this because, when Labor established the Housing Australia Future Fund, the coalition opposed it. For people in Hasluck, the HAFF means homes. I have 535 affordable and social homes being built right now in Bassendean, in Midland, in Woodbridge, in Ellenbrook and in Lockridge. These investments actually really matter because the housing pressure is real. Families are struggling with rents and mortgages, which are an enormous challenge at any time but particularly for those who are trying to get into their first home. Labor's response is to build; the coalition's response is to cut. We are delivering increases in Commonwealth rent assistance. We're helping first home buyers get into the market with five per cent deposits. In Hasluck so far, in fact, that's over 2,700 first home buyers who have accessed that. None of this would be happening under a coalition government. If they get the chance, they'll cut those exact programs. They would cut housing in a housing crisis. That is the coalition, which failed even to have a housing minister between 2013 and 2018. It's not like this is a new issue. It's been an ongoing issue and is a legacy that we are now working to fix.

The coalition would cut support for working families in Hasluck. We have backed higher wages. We have backed pay rises for people who educate our children and care for our parents. We have expanded paid parental leave. These aren't numbers on a spreadsheet. These are Hasluck families trying to pay the mortgage, the rent, the electricity bill and the grocery bill. Where is the coalition when we back higher wages for workers who need them? Nowhere—just crickets. The coalition would cut opportunities for people in Hasluck. Free TAFE, paid placements, student debt relief and real money back in young people's pockets are all examples of the kinds of initiatives that the Albanese Labor government is working towards and has delivered in support of families in my electorate and in electorates across the whole country. The coalition is purely a risk to health, housing and opportunity.

In March last year, the Treasurer told Australians that the Australian economy had 'turned a corner'. Well, this morning we found out which way it turned. Today inflation has a four in front of it and is rising. Prices are up 4.3 per cent over the year to September, which is up from four per cent in August. In South Australia, inflation is running at five per cent. The Treasurer did not turn a corner; he took a U-turn.

After the 2025 election, the Treasurer declared a shift in Labor's priorities. He said:

The first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity. The second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation.

Treasurer, how is that going? Inflation had a two in front of it when you said we had turned a corner. Today it starts with a four and is galloping. On productivity, the Reserve Bank governor said just last month:

Productivity is doing nothing.

Treasurer, you promised not to forget either one. Instead, you have failed on both. Now the Treasurer says a big driver of inflation comes from the Middle East, but, as said by the Reserve Bank governor, inflation 'has been driven by domestic capacity pressures', with the Middle East 'in addition to this'. She says:

… we are consuming more than we can supply as an economy.

Prices set here at home are up 4.5 per cent. Australia's inflation woes are home grown, and Labor keeps feeding them. In France right now, people are rioting because of inflation, and it's lower than here. Government spending has blown out to almost 27 per cent of GDP, the highest in 40 years outside of the pandemic. In just four years, Labor has lifted annual spending by $170 billion. Spending grew 4.3 per cent in real terms last financial year, double the growth of the economy, yet the Treasurer recently spoke on a podcast and said he was not prepared to put a specific number on the optimal spending as a share of GDP. While the Treasurer will not put a number on spending, families have had to put a number on everything. They put a number on the weekly shop. Since Labor was elected, food has gone up 19 per cent. Eggs are up 39 per cent, milk 28 per cent and bread 22 per cent. They put a number on the power bill. Labor promised 275 bucks off, yet electricity is up 40 per cent. The only things Labor have cut are their promises. Ahead of the Melbourne Cup, Labor's inflation has told interest rates to giddy up. The markets have a 17th interest rate rise as the odds as favourite. Average Aussie mortgage holders, who are already paying about 31 grand a year more in interest under Labor, are set to lose yet again. The Treasurer keeps backing the same horse—more spending—and families keep paying for it.

How do you bring down inflation? You stop pouring fuel on the inflation inferno. The coalition has found $31 billion in savings. People ask what we will cut, and I'm more than happy to share—$9.4 billion from ending Labor's climate bureaucracy; $7.3 billion from ending corporate welfare, Labor's corporate mates; $4.3 billion from scrapping Labor's failed housing schemes; and $7.9 billion from breaking the illicit tobacco business model. We will cut Labor's waste, cut Labor's taxes and cut Labor's red tape. These savings more than pay for our tax-back guarantee while leaving the budget $22 billion better off over the four years.

Every family in Grey knows you cannot keep spending more than you bring in. You cannot spend your way out of a spending problem. Families have spent four years tightening their belts under Labor. It's about time this government tightened its own. Labor is addicted to spending, and Australians are left paying.

I think we can all agree in this House that households are struggling. This is a tough time for a lot of people. Driving past the fuel station, they see those prices have skyrocketed, approaching $3, and thinking how they're possibly going to pay for that and all the other expenses they have to cover in the week. But what most Australians know is fuel costs have been driven by a global oil shock. There are lots of drivers of inflation. It's true. We've got a persistent set of capacity constraints in our economy, which is largely service driven now. We've had global cost pressures, and we've had an increase in aggregate demand, or total demand.

The member for Barker is quite right—that consists of private sector demand as well as government demand. Where we've seen the big uptick is in private demand. He's also right in that what we have more control of is government spending, and that's why we've taken serious decisions to find savings in the budget and reduce those demand drivers as much as we responsibly can. But we know that, when we recalibrate a budget, it has real human consequences in our community. When you cut social programs, families suffer and household suffer in communities like those we all represent. So these decisions have to be taken very seriously. Cavalier lines about slashing and cutting are easy and that you don't have to think too much about it are simply irresponsible. Careful, responsible, considered decisions have to be made, and we haven't walked away from that.

Earlier today the Treasurer was speaking about how more savings measures will be announced in MYEFO, coming up very soon, and you've seen across all budgets delivered by this government that savings have been found budget after budget. Then, when we've had upward revisions in revenue, they've been mostly banked because we know that paying down debt is really important at this point in time, because the more debt we leave undealt with higher the interest costs that we find ourselves spending.

We're also dealing with the challenge of higher global bond yields. That often has two effects. The first is that it means a lot more of a budget has to be put towards paying debt. It also means that there's often a competing force that sees a pressure on interest rates as well. You almost never see a bond rate higher—in fact, I've never seen a bond rate higher—than the bond yield. So you've never seen interest rates lower than the bond yield. That has a significant effect as well. That goes to global confidence and various drivers in the global economy. So a lot of very considered and serious decisions have to be made at this point in time.

I noticed one of the earlier speakers spoke of the member for Moreton talking about the need to throw the kitchen sink at spending. She was absolutely right to say that. Of course we are looking at government spending, and we are taking very tough decisions. The private health insurance rebate, removing the age based loading, was a very significant decision. It was a difficult one. It affected people in all of our communities, but it was a taxpayer funded spend, which is not well targeted and not well calibrated towards need. There were other ways that that money could be redeployed to assist with aged care, which is chronic and serious in our community. These are not easy decisions. They're not consequence free. You don't have decisions in these matters where no-one suffers or it's not challenging. We don't take them lightly, but this is a time when we do have to make tough calls.

Criticising every spending reduction is not being part of the solution to this very serious set of economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. As a government, we do have to respond to the fiscal and economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. So, when I saw the MPI today, where the shadow treasurer was talking about inflation faced by businesses and families in Australia and didn't even mention the global fuel crisis, didn't even mention productivity and opportunities to increase the productive capacity of our economy, didn't mention the investments in manufacturing and in supply chain resilience in this country as a necessary foundation for our economy going forward—global shocks, not only economically but politically, mean that we do have to be ready to look after ourselves in times of crisis. We need to be making very serious calls. What we've seen is a little bit of theatre from the other side, hoping to pin all the blame on one factor or another. The truth is these things are complex, so we do need to deal with the nuanced complexity.

If you don't understand the basis upon which we have inflation, then we are not going to be able to have realistic expectations. One thing we know about inflation is that inflation expectations are themselves a driver of inflation. So, if we're not having a real conversation and if we're not talking about all the facts, we can find ourselves in a very misguided set of conversations which can themselves have an economic effect. What I would ask, when we have these very serious conversations, is that we get all the facts on the table. We can have debates about where the best parts in the budget are where we should recalibrate or taper out spending. That's entirely reasonable. We can have reasonable disagreements on that. But to suggest that this is some kind of a spending addiction or a deliberate inflation is just nonsense, and they know that. Let's have a real debate about policy. Let's have a chat about those tough decisions that need to be made. Let's carefully critique all the numbers being presented.

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance today as raised by the shadow treasurer in relation to the government's addiction to spending, to forcing higher inflation and interest rates and to the consequences associated with that. I'll say that it is refreshing that there are some members of the Labor backbench who are prepared to break rank from the Labor leadership and actually agree with something that the coalition has been saying for a long time: government spending does need to be reduced. We've just heard it from the member for Deakin. We've heard it from the member for Moreton. This is after months of her saying: 'Oh, where are you going to cut? What are you going to do for the opposition?' Then more recently this week, she's turned around and said, 'Oh, yes, we need to throw everything we can as a government at reducing government expenditure.' It would be good counsel for them to have a chat to the Treasurer or to the Prime Minister, who don't seem to align with those views in their actions.

There was a lot of talk today and in the lead-up to today by members opposite who seem to talk about the events overseas. I think there's no-one who's denying that the events overseas have relevance, but what we are denying is the fact that they are entirely the cause of this inflation mess that Australia is in. We have had 16 interest rate rises. Inflation is now at 4.3 per cent as of today. We are seeing the consequences every single day across our electorates. And I'd hate to be a member of the Labor government right now, especially a backbench member, going and speaking to their constituents, because if they're genuinely engaging with their constituents, if they're genuinely engaging with small businesses, I'm sure the feedback is not positive.

A whole heap of questions were put to the Treasurer and to the Prime Minister today in question time, and in every single response to those questions—which were related to this inflation mess fuelled by the government's addiction to spending—the Prime Minister or the Treasurer spoke about the fact that there are things happening overseas and that this is part of a broader issue. But if you look at Australia, if you look at where our inflation sits—and I did say it's 4.3 per cent as of today; it's gone up again—we're actually somewhat of an outlier compared with the rest of the world. If you look at countries like Japan, 2.1 per cent is actually 2.2 percentage points down. Singapore is at 2.2 per cent, South Korea at 2.9, France at 3.1 and Canada at 3.1. So we are an outlier. That's not to say that those countries are not going through the same international events that we are. But it does say that there is something homegrown about this inflation crisis, and the Treasurer and those opposite would do well to admit that and to act upon it.

We've had the Reserve Bank of Australia actually say there is a domestic link. The Reserve Bank governor said, 'Inflation has been driven by domestic capacity pressures.' And they said that the Middle East is in addition to those domestic capacity pressures. They've said that domestic spending and investment have been stronger than expected and that we are consuming more than we can supply as an economy. One in every four dollars that is spent in this economy is spent by the government. That is concerning on so many different levels. On Sunday the Reserve Bank's Sarah Hunter said that government spending is definitely part of the picture.

There is an alternative view. The coalition this week outlined a number of different measures we would take to the next election. These are things this government can actually address now in terms of a budget savings package, which would save the Australian taxpayer $31.3 billion in total. Those opposite said we can have a discussion about what we want to cut. Well, here we go. We've been speaking about it. We're yet to hear whether the government is actually going to engage in this. We've got climate and net zero programs at $9.4 billion. We've got corporate subsidies and industry incentives at $7.3 billion. There are the failed housing programs and incentives, at $4.7 billion. Some of the welfare and NDIS eligibility changes would be $2 billion. And in illicit tobacco enforcement there's some projected additional revenue for another $7.9 billion if the government came to the table. But it's also about growing the economy. Something we have seen is that this government is not working for the people to generate the conditions, to generate wealth and in doing so support more government revenue.

Everybody acknowledges that a lot of Australian families are having a really tough time at the moment, what that added pressure means and what it means for their day-to-day existence. To counteract that, to try to have a non-inflationary impact while reducing the cost of living, you have to get creative. You have to do things that matter to the everyday—things like tripling the GP Medicare rebate to allow more doctors to bulk-bill so people can get in and know that they're going to the doctor for free, or the $25 medicines so people aren't having to make those decisions at the end of the month: Do we eat? Do I take my meds? What if a bill comes? Do the kids need school shoes? Those are things that are important. Then there is fee-free TAFE, to give people who maybe missed out on their opportunity early in life to live their dreams—nurses, for example or carpenters—to give them that extra shot at it, to go in without having to put more money on the table to do the job that they want to do, to get into the industries that we need. If you look at Australia as a whole, inflation is a problem. We know that; everyone is happy to acknowledge that. But so is housing. We know we need more skilled labour, and fee-free TAFE is a big part of that.

It has to be a holistic approach. Everything we do has to be a holistic approach. Any clown can point at a problem and yell at it. That is not a solution. You identify one thing, yell, yell, yell and make noise. That's not going to get you anywhere. What you need is to understand every single aspect that you're living in and that you're working in. But what we're seeing from the opposition at the moment is an inward-facing conversation with a constant check over their right shoulder to see what's coming up the other way. We saw it when the member from New England had his question today in question time regarding abolishing anything to do with climate change. And then, at the end of the shadow treasurer's MPI, he belled the cat and went straight for climate change and straight for housing. We knew this was going to happen. It's inward looking again, in that the party that is so into trade, so into business, is going to stand in the way of a free trade agreement—44,000 tonnes of sugar. That's a lot of sugar.

It's sweet.

It's very sweet. Thank you, Member for Hunter. We're doing puns. The sugar industry is struggling at the moment. It needs a boost. An extra 44,000 tonnes being able to be exported out to Europe is a boost. An ethanol mandate which is currently being discussed about the cleaner fuels would be a boost. Is the opposition getting behind that? No. Would that lower fuel prices? Yes. Is that a holistic approach to a larger problem? Indeed it is.

When they talk about the housing and they talk about the climate, those are the No. 1 things that they're going to cut—and ideologically cut, no less. Cutting climate change initiatives is a really bad idea, not just on an economic level but on a national security level. We have done so much work to re-engage with the South Pacific. The South Pacific expects us as a leader in our region to stand up. We hear this: 'Oh, it's only one per cent.' Every time an athlete comes into this place, everyone gets really silly and tries to get something autographed or get a shirt with their name on the back. You would think, with the amount of people supporting sport, they would have heard about the one percenters. If you get enough one percenters, you win. Thirty-six per cent of the world's emissions are produced by countries who produce, on average, less than one per cent total emissions. Total it up. Everybody has a job to do here. This is this inward looking that I keep talking about. They're not looking externally. They're not understanding.

The time for this debate has sadly expired.

BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026; Second Reading Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026

Trusts are used for asset protection, succession planning and commercial arrangements. We should not assume every small-business owner using a trust is engaged in aggressive tax avoidance. Many established their structures years ago on professional advice. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, along with the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026, introduces a minimum 30 per cent tax on relevant discretionary trust income from 1 July 2028, subject to exclusions. The trustee pays the minimum tax; eligible non-corporate beneficiaries receive a non-refundable offset for their share. Corporate beneficiaries do not receive that offset, and ordinary company tax continues to apply to distributions they receive. That matters to businesses using bucket companies. The government says denying corporate beneficiaries the offset addresses arrangements used to deter tax for underlying shareholders.

Whatever the policy intention, this is not a minor adjustment for affected businesses. Consider a family operating a wholesale business through a trust with a company as the beneficiary. They have stock to buy and equipment to maintain, and customers do not always pay promptly. They need advice about retaining their structure, changing distributions, restructuring or considering the alternative election regime. The outcome depends on the circumstances, but the uncertainty is immediate. The answer cannot simply be, 'Speak to your accountant or talk to your lawyer.' Professional advice matters, but it costs money. These questions arise because the government is changing the rules.

The non-refundable offset also deserves scrutiny. A lower-income beneficiary may not be able to use the full offset. Any excess is not simply refunded. The government must explain that clearly. Families need to understand the difference between credit they can use and money they can get back.

Treasury estimates the trust measures in schedules 1 to 3 will increase regulatory costs by an average of approximately $141.5 million annually over 10 years. That is separate from the tax payable. Behind that figure are appointments, paperwork, revised documents and decisions about business structures. In a family business, there's usually no compliance department. It is the same person ordering supplies, serving customers, managing staff and checking the accounts at night.

The No. 3 bill provides transitional rollover relief for eligible restructures involving transfers from 1 July 2027 to 30 June 2030. I acknowledge that relief, but rollover relief does not mean cost-free restructuring. It generally defers eligible income tax consequences. It does not permanently erase accrued gains or remove liabilities under other laws. GST, fringe benefits tax and state and territory duties continue to operate.

The impact analysis estimates average restructuring costs at around $11,000. They also record stakeholder estimates, including a range of $15,000 to $50,000 reported by COSBOA. Not every business will face those costs, but they show why owners are concerned.

The relief also has conditions. Generally, required assets must be transferred within the transitional period. The explanatory memorandum gives an example where retaining a substantial property asset that is not excluded makes relief unavailable for the restructure's transfers. There are also continuing requirements, and certain changes can reverse previously claimed relief. Businesses need practical guidance before making decisions, not after discovering they have lost the relief.

That brings me to R&D under the No. 4 bill. Schedule 2 increases offset rates and will raise the turnover threshold relevant to refundable support, but it also raises the general minimum expenditure threshold from $20,000 to $50,000, limits refundability by reference to business history and removes the separate category of supporting R&D activities. A higher rate does not help if your expenditure no longer qualifies. Everyone would agree that R&D is vital for Australia's future economic prosperity. It is the foundation for strengthening existing industries and growing new enterprises that can compete in the global marketplace amid astonishing technological change. If we don't get R&D right, we are in trouble, and, to get it right, we need to listen closely to people who are at the cutting edge.

I received feedback from Josh Jeffress at Design Anthology, drawing on his experience of helping Australian businesses develop physical products. His message is straightforward:

Don't cut the bottom out of Australia's innovation pipeline.

He said developing a product involves more than a single experiment. Businesses investigate existing technology, prepare components, build experimental equipment and develop prototypes or test rigs. They collect data, identify failures, make changes and test again. That preparation can make experimentation possible.

The No. 4 bill makes it clear that an activity does not qualify merely because it supports eligible R&D. It allows additional integral activities to be prescribed. Some activities may qualify independently or under a future instrument. But businesses need certainty before committing money. Finding out early that an idea will not work can prevent much greater expenditure on something technically unviable. That is not wasted effort; it is informed decision-making.

Josh also warns that development costs and delays can slow commercialisation, giving overseas competitors time to make the first move. Not every commercial activity should attract an R&D concession, but necessary experimental work should not fall through a gap because the rules fail to reflect how products are developed.

There's another issue—the proposed time limits on refundable support. The reforms generally limit access to the refundable offset to a company's first 10 years, with an extended 15-year window for eligible therapeutic goods research. Developing a medicine can take 10 to 20 years from discovery through development and approval. As we often say, overnight success can take more than two decades. What happens when a company reaches the eligibility limit while still undertaking trials and making genuine scientific progress but is years away from a marketable treatment? The clock is linked to business history, not a fresh 15-year window for every treatment. The government must explain why that cut-off appropriately reflects medical research timelines and what assessment it has made of the funding consequences. We should expect accountability for public support, but we should not assume a company's age tells us whether its research still needs support. These are the precise questions the parliament needs time to examine.

Across these bills, people need rules they can understand before making decisions. For the trust measures, I want clear examples, accessible support and meaningful engagement with business owners and advisers about how corporate beneficiaries and existing arrangements work. For R&D, I ask the government to reconsider removing supporting activities and explain how necessary experimental work will remain supported. The government should answer these questions directly and in detail in this chamber. A cognate debate should not become a shortcut for that scrutiny.

The owners at the Fowler business forum deserve more than an assurance that the reform will improve fairness. They deserve to know what it means for their business. Think of a mum and dad at the laundromat, a mechanic or a family with a few restaurants. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking to be treated fairly, to know the rules in advance and to be allowed to build something for the next generation. A fair tax system should collect the revenue we need while treating people reasonably. It should recognise the time, money and risk involved in running a business and give people a practical opportunity to turn good ideas into successful Australian products.

Small businesses are not just taxpayers; they are employers whose staff also pay taxes. If we make it harder for them to survive, invest and grow, the government should consider the question that business owners ask me: where will the taxes come from if we make it so hard for them to work, run a business and employ people? So I again say to the government: please pause, listen and take these changes to the people.

A young Australian starting their first job gets a pay slip, and on the pay slip are the hours they work, their hourly rate, maybe their earnings, their superannuation and their tax. They can't decide that part of their salary should be taxed at somebody else's rate, and they can't divide their wages between family members when they're submitting their tax returns. They earn income. They pay the tax required. They contribute to our shared society. Australians should be able to expect that the tax system treats their work fairly, and they should be able to expect that access to sophisticated financial arrangements does not do not determine how much responsibility someone carries for our shared future. They should be able to expect that, when advantage in the system becomes difficult to justify, governments have the courage to act and to examine it.

That's why we're reforming the minimum tax on discretionary trusts. The central principle is straightforward: the structure through which income flows should not provide an open-ended advantage to one Australian over another. The consequences reach beyond this year's tax return. They go to the opportunities that we leave the next generation. They go to whether Australians believe effort will be rewarded. They go to whether our public finances can support the services and investments that future generations will rely on.

Let's be clear about what discretionary trusts do. A trust holds an asset. It might be money. It might be property. They do that for the benefit of a beneficiary, who's just simply a person or an entity. It's always made up of persons who are entitled to receive the assets. In a discretionary trust, the trustee generally has flexibility to determine which eligible beneficiaries receive the income and in what proportions.

That flexibility can serve legitimate purposes. Families are using trusts for succession planning. Businesses may be using them as part of asset protection arrangements. People perhaps use them to manage complicated family and financial circumstances. We should acknowledge those legitimate purposes, but we have to ask whether the rules themselves remain fair. An arrangement can be lawful and still deserve reform.

One of the advantages available through discretionary trusts is income splitting: distributing income among beneficiaries with different tax positions. Where income goes to beneficiaries facing lower marginal tax rates, the overall tax can therefore be lower. The budget explanation of this reform identifies that flexibility as an advantage is generally unavailable to people receiving wages and salaries. Consider this: two households have comparable financial resources. In one, income mainly comes in through employment. People doing their work are taxed on their earnings. In the other there's a bit of that, but income may also come through a discretionary trust, allowing distribution to be allocated among eligible family members. Depending on the circumstances, the second household may achieve a lower overall tax bill.

The difference need not reflect greater effort, a more productive investment or a greater contribution to the community. It simply reflects the legal structure through which income is received, and that is the fairness problem. A progressive tax system is intended to recognise a person's capacity to contribute. Its credibility is weakened when comparable economic circumstances can produce sustainably different outcomes because one household has access to greater flexibility than another. We want people to build successful businesses, and we want all Australians to save and invest, but we also want success to rest on creating value, providing services, employing people and taking on productive risks. Our tax rules should support those activities without making financial structuring a substitute for economic contribution.

Under the proposal, a 30 per cent minimum tax will apply to taxable income on discretionary trusts covered by the measures from 1 July 2028, and the trustee will pay. Beneficiaries will continue to declare their trust income, with beneficiaries other than companies receiving non-refundable offsets recognising the trustee's tax payments. There are two important words in that statement. The first is 'minimum'. It's a floor. There are many variables at play here, so a final tax rate can vary from that 30 per cent. The second is 'non-refundable'. For income covered by the measure, allocating a distribution to someone with a low tax liability will not ordinarily allow the trustee's minimum tax payment to be refunded through the beneficiary. That is central to reducing the income-splitting advantage. It changes the incentives created by the current rules. It makes it harder to use the flexibility of discretionary distributions to push tax on covered income below the proposed floor. We should explain that accurately.

Workers do not all pay an average tax rate of 30 per cent. Australia has a progressive personal income tax system; we all know that. The case for reform does not depend on pretending otherwise. The case is that discretionary arrangements can create tax advantages unavailable to most workers and a minimum tax can reduce those advantages. That's a strong enough argument without exaggeration. Why does this matter, though, for intergenerational fairness? That's something I mentioned earlier. It matters because every generation inherits more than the financial assets left behind by its parents. It inherits public institutions. It inherits infrastructure. It inherits education systems, health systems, the condition of the environment, the strength of public finances and more. It inherits the rules that determine who gets ahead.

If those rules consistently favour people who already have assets or can access a specialised advantage—maybe they can access specialist advice—each advantage can continuously reinforce itself. A lower tax bill can leave more net earnings that can then be invested. The investments can create future returns, the returns help finance another asset, and on and on it goes.

The policy question here is whether the tax system should provide an additional advantage that is much less accessible to families who mainly live on wages—the majority of Australian households. A young person cannot choose the financial arrangements into which they're born, they cannot choose whether their family has investment assets, and they cannot choose whether their parents can help with deposits. They should be able to expect, though, that the system is fair, and that means examining rules which allow established financial advantage to compound through preferential tax outcomes. Intergenerational fairness requires more than telling young people and young Australians to work hard. It requires asking whether the system gives work a fair chance.

This is not a contest between young people and old people either. Plenty of older Australians have spent their lives earning wages, paying taxes and raising families without a discretionary trust. Many now worry deeply about the opportunities available to their children and grandchildren. The question is how we share responsibility across different sources of income and different levels of financial opportunity. A fairer settlement, I think, can unite generations. It can honour the contribution of people who have worked all their lives while improving the prospects of those just beginning.

We should continually examine whether the balance between taxing work and taxing other income remains fair, and that's the principle behind this part of the bill, and we should be prepared to change that balance when arrangements have outgrown the justification, but supporting the principle does not mean ignoring the practical questions either. There's been a lot of consultation around the practical implications here. Some affected people will be running genuine family businesses. Some will have modest incomes. Some will have established their arrangements many, many years ago based on professional advice and probably based on, I gather, the law as it stood at the time. They deserve a workable transition. A reform can have a sound objective and still impose unnecessary costs if implementation is poorly designed, and that's why proposed transition arrangements matter.

Expanded rollover relief will be available for three years from 1 July 2027 for eligible taxpayers restructuring out of a discretionary trust. The legislation also offers an option under which trusts can be exempt from the minimum tax while continuing to distribute income, according to an upfront nomination of beneficiaries and their shares. These options recognise an important distinction. People may wish to retain their trust for legitimate family or commercial purposes, and we should listen when there are some genuine compliance problems. Concerns about administration, cash flow and restructuring should be tested against the legislation and addressed where necessary.

The proposal also contains some important exclusions. These include fixed trusts, charitable trusts, special disability trusts and superannuation funds. Primary production income and certain income related to vulnerable minors are excluded, alongside deceased estates and discretionary testamentary trusts established for genuine testamentary purposes. Legitimate deductions, properly designed business concessions and incentives that serve a clear public purpose all have a place in the tax system, and the aim is to reduce particular structural advantage while maintaining appropriate arrangements for genuine activity and genuine need.

The other elements of the tax reform package deliver on its commitment to strengthen innovation, investment and long-term economic growth. Innovation in particular is really important to many businesses in my electorate. As part of a broader economic reform agenda that includes support for first home buyers, further tax cuts and a fairer tax system, this bill provides businesses with greater incentives to invest, to innovate and to expand. The reforms are built on a $3.8 billion business tax relief and concessions, providing greater certainty for investors. They are designed to help Australians build wealth, support entrepreneurship and drive private sector led economic growth.

The one of the key measures are the new innovative business capital gains tax concession, which provides eligible founders, employees and investors with a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount on equity investments in innovation businesses. This will encourage early-stage investment and strengthen Australia's start-up and venture capital industries. The bill also reforms the research and development tax incentive, increasing support for genuine innovation. Changes include the higher research and development tax offset rates and increase in the refundable offset turnover threshold, lower R&D intensity thresholds and expanded eligibility for biotech and medical technology firms.

Access to the refundable tax offset will generally be limited to companies that have operated for less than 10 years. However, the higher $50 million turnover threshold will enable successful firms to continue receiving support for longer as they grow in scale. Eligible biotech and medical tech companies will be able to access the refundable offset now for up to 15 years. These reforms are expected to increase research and development investment by young firms by around $400 million annually—not a small amount. Additional measures expand the venture capital tax incentives and provide businesses with more flexibility to pay PAYG instalments monthly and strengthen compliance for consistent non-payers. Finally, the bill updates the electric vehicle tax concessions to ensure they remain sustainable while continuing to support EV uptake, which is a big part of our push to net zero.

Australians understand that everyone's circumstances are different. They don't expect every household to pay the same amount of tax. They are entitled to an explanation as to why people with comparable resources can face different obligations. 'Because one family could arrange its affairs more effectively through a legal structure' is not always a sufficient answer, especially when another family has little flexibility beyond taking another shift, working overtime or finding a second job. A nurse finishing a night shift should know that their contribution is respected, an apprentice should know that earning a living through a trade is valued, small business owners should know that success comes from serving customers and building a strong business rather than having to compete through increasingly elaborate tax structures, and a young Australian should know that the government is willing to examine advantages that have become entrenched in our systems.

We recognise legitimate uses of trusts, but we also recognise that we still need to reform taxation. We can support enterprise and still insist on fair contributions. We can respect families' desires to help their children while ensuring public policy also creates an opportunity for children whose families have less to give. Labor's proposed minimum tax is a step towards that balance. It addresses specific advantage and rebalances the tax system to be fairer to working Australians. It provides time and options to adjust, and it asks us to take seriously the relationship between today's tax choices and tomorrow's opportunities, because intergenerational fairness is built into the decisions made today. The rules we preserve, the advantages we reform and the responsibilities we share all shape the future of Australia. Our children should inherit a country where effort has value, public service has strength and opportunity is fairly available to all Australians.

Small businesses should be backed, not billed. Changing the goalposts will absolutely decimate small businesses around the country. We will see people being forced to shut their doors. I just do not think that that is right. I've heard from multiple speakers, and I've had some discussions with people, around how much tax people pay or how much tax businesses pay. I'm not a small business operator, but I can tell you now that, if I could minimise how much tax I pay because I know where this Labor government spends it, I would. It's wasteful. They spend more. Right now, they're punching down on businesses and those that are just having a go and trying their best. They're punching down on those that have trusts because somehow this Labor government doesn't understand how it works.

It is unbelievable that we're talking about small businesses—many of whom don't take a wage and who barely survive but who do things that they love—and that this government would try and impose more red tape, more regulation, shift the goalposts. This is all for, like the previous speaker said, somehow, equality. It's just not. We have a taxaholic treasurer that just goes after small business, goes after those battlers that are just trying to make it and trying to provide a future for themselves and their families. No-one here, no business, has asked for this. No small business woke up and went: 'This is a great idea, Treasurer. This is exactly what you should do.' The role of government is to listen, work and deliver, not shift the goalposts for a tax grab, not to punish small business. But that's exactly what's happening here.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our community. They are where young Australians get their first job and a foothold on the ladder of economic opportunity. Small businesses employ people. It's not like we've got some small businesses out here just somehow trying to avoid paying tax. But I can tell you now, if they're trying to minimise paying tax, more power to them, because they see what this government does with their money. Labor's tax on trusts pulls up the ladder. The tradie, the travel agent, the local cafe, the family farm—that's who Labor's war on small business is aimed at. That's who's being targeted. These are tradies who are just having a go. They've finished an apprenticeship and started their own business. They're moving forward, moving in the right direction. This is who's going to be punished through this. The family farm that we rely on from the paddock to the plate and that fills this country's bellies, feeds the nation and feeds other nations through exports is who is going to be punished.

If you talk about the businesses in your own electorate that run through a trust, every one of them now has to sit down and work out what to do under Labor's tax—'Do I continue to operate? Do I take a hit and somehow try to restructure? Do I have to lay off staff, which will affect their livelihoods? Or do we fold?' Part of me thinks that the government wants small businesses to fold.

Well, this is the tax that you're doing. No small business in Bennelong asked you for this, did they? You can interject as much as you like, and I'm happy to take it, but I look forward to your speech where you can name the small business that said to you: 'Member for Bennelong, this is exactly what we asked for. Please move the goalposts. Please attack the family trusts.' I guarantee they didn't.

A trust is simple enough. The business earns the money, it goes into the trust and, each year, the trustee decides who in the family gets that. From 1 July 2028, Labor makes the trustee hand over 30c in every dollar of the trust's net income before anyone in the family sees it. That's schedules 1 to 3. The rates bill sets the rate. That's why we oppose both bills.

Schedules 4 to 6 are a different story. They keep trusts set up in wills and the income of vulnerable children out of Labor's other 30 per cent tax, the minimum tax on capital gains. They also define what a new home is for negative gearing and give workers a year's grace on the super cap now that payday super has started. Labor has bundled those fixes in with its trust tax. We support schedule 6, and we don't oppose schedules 4 and 5 because they pick up fixes that the coalition has called for, even if they don't finish the job. That's why we're moving to split them off—so the small business tax on trusts gets voted on by itself. Labor still hasn't finished the job. Schedule 4 leaves the divorce and death capital gains tax problem to a later bill. Schedule 5's definition of a new home shuts out granny flats.

Option 1 is to pay Labor's new 30 per cent tax. Option 2 is to restructure into a company. The bill waives the income tax on the move but not stamp duty. State stamp duty can still apply to the move, on land and, in some states, on the business itself. The Treasurer hasn't fixed that part. Option 3 is to lock the family into fixed shares for life in a one-off election in 2028-29. Nobody new can be added unless they inherit from someone on the list. The Financial Review's guide to all this calls it picking the least bad option. That's the best Labor is offering our small business—pick the best bad option. Get taxed twice, up to 60c in the dollar. If trusts income goes to a person, they get a credit for the tax the trustee has already paid. If it goes to a company, they get nothing. That's in Labor's own explanatory memorandum at paragraph 1.63. So, the same dollar cops 30 per cent at the trust and up to 30 per cent again at the company, up to 60c in the dollar. That's the government's own numbers, not ours. That's a lot. Treasury looked at giving every beneficiary a credit and said no.

Being locked in for life—Labor's workaround for the backlash is a one-shot election. Trusts that exists on 1 July 2028 get one chance in 2028-29 to name their beneficiaries and the share each one gets. Then it's locked in for life. Labor's birth tax is still in the bill. Shares only change on a death or relationship breakdown, not for a child born after 1 July 2028, not for a child left off as a minor and not for a new spouse. That doesn't really reflect the Australia that we now know. If there was a breakdown in relationship or if a new child was born, they would be left off. Depart from the list once and Labor taxes that year's income at the top marginal rate plus the Medicare levy. After that, the minimum tax applies for good. There's no second election. The Tax Office can let you off only for an error or a genuinely exceptional event. The explanatory memorandum own example is a trustee falling ill before 30 June.

The old saying is, 'there are three guarantees in life: birth, death and taxes'. This treasurer has turned it into birth taxes, life taxes and death taxes. The Treasurer still hasn't fixed the stamp duty, and I think that is a problem. Labor's own impact analysis quotes the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—$36,590 to $55,000 of stamp duty on a $1 million transfer. There are two ways out of the tax: make the election or move the business into a company. New South Wales has promised stamp duty relief only for the election and, on that route, the Treasurer says duty is not accepted now.

Farms are not exempt. It doesn't matter whatever spin gets told. Labor says a farm's income is exempt. But if you read the bill, it exempts primary production income, and, in the explanatory memorandum, it says that broadly means cultivating plants, maintaining animals and fishing. Contract shearing, mustering, harvesting and crop dusting aren't covered. Neither is the income from a farm bed and breakfast, a wedding venue or the rent from powerlines for the farm. Plenty of farms have one trust holding the land and a separate business running the farm. Labor's taxes tax the rent paid on the land trust. I would hate to see our country become a country where our farmers are punished, where our farmers feel like they don't have any way out of this. If farms stop producing, we will have to import produce instead of having it provided by our cattle farmers, our sheep farmers and all those that provide essential nutrients and services to many Australians, as well as all the other primary produce. We need to be giving them more support, not changing things at the last minute.

I have farms around the electorate of Herbert, which is in Townsville. And many who sit on the opposition bench in the coalition are farmers. I haven't heard a farmer say a good thing about this part of the bill—quite the opposite: they feel let down, continually. Whether it's more taxes, whether it's more of this government going after your hard-earned money or changing the goalposts when you're set up, when you're operating, all for some sort of tax grab—it just shouldn't occur. We should be providing more support to those primary producers, more support to those who make this nation turn, who make sure this nation is fed—from the paddock to the plate. We should be backing in our farmers.

And we should be backing in our small businesses—those with trusts. We should be backing in those who work hard, who want to have a go—and do have a go—and put it all on the line. They risk a lot. And now they're seeing lots of changes happen—not going into an election, not before an election but halfway through a term. That's what we've seen continually from this government. They don't take bad policy like this to the election; they do it halfway through. And halfway through, they're trying to use smoke and mirrors so the Australian people won't remember come election time. But they do remember.

I've said it a few times in here: there's a reason people in the communities have lost faith in politicians and don't trust them. It's because of tricky accounting, or changing things, or because of those who can't tell the truth in this parliament. We've seen that from the Prime Minister. We've seen it from other members of the government. And we now get bills rushed through this place that are going to hurt Australians, that are going to hurt small businesses, that are going to hurt farmers. That's why the coalition will continue to stand up for small businesses, because we have small-business operators on the opposition benches. We have a small-business operator as the Deputy Speaker in the chair—Deputy Speaker Boyce. We have the small-business operators who come in here every single day and say, 'We're not going to be pushed around by the government making a mistake'—because they don't have small-business operators, because they don't have those who have run a small business sitting in their cabinet. I would like to hear government members being honest and saying, 'This will hurt small businesses, this will hurt farmers and we should have taken that into consideration, and we haven't.'

I rise as a former small-business operator. I worked in one for 15 years with my family. I understand the needs of small business, and I'm proud to be part of this government that has delivered for small business since we came to office in 2022. I wholeheartedly support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, because members of my electorate of Bennelong—from small businesses to wage earners to the multinationals in Macquarie Park—have told me that this government needs to be bold on tax reform. The 2025-26 budget has delivered on that: tax reform to make it easier for people to buy their first home and tax reform to make our taxation system fairer. And this bill delivers on our commitments delivered in the 2025-26 budget.

It's a shame that the member for Herbert is leaving the chamber, because he just said he wants to hear from a small-business owner. He said he wants to listen to a small-business owner. Well, here I am. I'm going to give you my perspective, as a former small-business owner, as to why I support this bill and the schedules within it, because I see firsthand exactly what small-business enterprise and hard work look like when I walk through the streets of Bennelong. We have a long and proud history of commercial enterprise, stretching from the bustling retail strips of Eastwood, Ryde, Gladesville and Lane Cove right through to that world-class innovation district of Macquarie Park, which is Australia's eighth largest economy. Just as my family did and just as I did in my small business, Bennelong's local business owners take on immense personal risk. They employ local residents, they buy from local suppliers and they give our suburban communities their vibrant local character. Whenever I meet with them now in my capacity as a federal member or met with them in my former capacity as mayor—

Member for Herbert?

Under standing order 66A, I would ask the member if he is willing to give way.

I'll just have to take some direction from the Clerk. For the benefit of the member for Bennelong and for the House's information, per standing order 66A, to give way is the opportunity for the member for Herbert to make a short statement. Do you agree?

I do not agree. I respectfully sat and listened to the member for Herbert for 15 minutes. If you can't get your point across in 15 minutes, you shouldn't be in this job, right? So I'll gladly continue on with my speech. Whenever I meet with small businesses in my electorate in my current capacity as a federal MP, or met with them in my former capacity as councillor and mayor, there is a pretty consistent message from businesses in my electorate to successive federal governments. They want governments to back business, they want government to continue to work to simplify compliance, and they want targeted support so that their businesses can grow. Despite the groans from those opposite, that's precisely what this government has been doing and what this legislation delivers today.

Our government has already delivered for small business by making the $20,000 instant asset write-off a permanent feature of the tax code. This instant asset write-off was created in 2011, and now it's being made permanent by Labor in 2026. It was the Rudd-Gillard government that created it back in 2011. The permanency is a pretty big deal. It's one that's often glossed over by those opposite, but it's important to provide certainty for small business. Prior to making this permanent, this measure operated on an annual basis and more recently was subject to some shenanigans in the Senate. Instead of simply passing this TLAB each and every year, the opposition often delayed it and delayed it to a point where business didn't have that certainty to invest because the bill hadn't passed. Then, when the bills did pass, businesses were only left with a couple of weeks to make a really important decision to spend up to $20,000 on improving their plant and equipment. So, by making this— (Quorum formed)

As I was saying, we've made the instant asset write-off permanent, giving businesses the tools they need to invest in more productive plant and equipment, which helps productivity. We've also reintroduced the loss carry-back provisions for medium and growing companies with an annual turnover up to $1 billion. This helps small businesses with cash flows in years following a loss.

This bill is an important extension to support we've provided to small businesses. It contains the measures in the next key tranche of tax reform that we announced in our budget. It builds on that solid foundation I was just talking about by incentivising new investment, slashing red tape and reducing compliance burdens so that we can continue our economic momentum. It contains five distinct schedules, and I'll touch briefly on a couple before focusing the conclusion of my remarks on schedules 4 and 5, which impact directly on small businesses.

Schedule 1 establishes the innovative business capital gains tax concession commencing on 1 July 2027. Under this schedule, startup founders, participating employees and early-stage investors will receive a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount on new equity investments in eligible innovative Australian firms. To qualify, companies must be actively trading unlisted Australian tax residents incorporated under 15 years and maintain aggregated annual turnover below $50 million. This 15-year eligibility window specifically recognises that deep tech and advanced science ventures, many of which are based in my electorate in Bennelong, often require extended development cycles to commercialise innovation successfully. Eligible investors will have the flexibility to select either the 50 per cent CGT discount or the traditional cost-base indexation alongside the 30 per cent minimum tax framework. This makes good our promise to consult with the sector as we developed a truly innovative CGT discount, ensuring that investment still flows in to startups and innovative companies.

Schedule 2 significantly enhances and targets the research and development tax incentive starting from 1 July 2028. It builds directly upon key recommendations of the landmark Ambitious Australia report. Core R&D tax offset premium rates will increase by up to 50 per cent, which is important, and the turnover threshold for the higher refundable R&D offset will increase from a $150 million cap to a $200 million cap. This R&D tax incentive is crucial for businesses just like Cochlear based in my electorate. Reviewing this cap has been something they've been calling on so that they can keep their R&D here onshore in Bennelong. I think over 60 per cent of Cochlear's global workforce operate out of their two offices in my electorate, and I know they'll make good use of this R&D offset to ensure that more jobs and more research and development are done right here in Australia. Biotech and medical firms developing complex therapeutic goods will be granted extended access to that refundable R&D offset for up to 15 years as well—again, recognising that clinical trials and approval pathways often take longer than the standard 10 years.

Importantly also, this bill establishes ongoing consultation in regard to important definitions of core and supporting activities when it comes to R&D tax offsets, and that's something I know that the biotech and pharmaceutical innovators in my electorate have been raising with Treasury, with the Treasurer and also with members like me. Treasury modelling estimates these reforms will generate roughly 20 per cent more commercial business R&D investment per dollar of offset provided, boosting start-up research by $400 million annually, and that is a good thing. Schedule 3 increases key investment cap thresholds for venture capital partnerships and early-stage venture capital limited partnerships. That's important too.

I'll touch a little bit on schedule 4, which is primarily about cash flow for small businesses. Having run one myself, as the member for Herbert now knows, I know how important cash flow is. You've got your rent, your staff wages and your inputs coming in on fixed and rigid dates, but, sometimes, your receivables are a little bit slow. They take a little bit longer to get in. Quarterly tax compliance obligations come—you can see them coming in the future, and it's a large expense at the end of a quarter. Whereas this schedule will allow businesses voluntarily to opt-in to a monthly tax obligation remittance rather than quarterly. That will help with cash flow so that, when revenues are high in that month, they'll have the cash flow to be able to pay it, and, when revenues are low, they'll be able to pay that lower amount monthly as well. That's a really important cash flow measure, which I support wholeheartedly in this bill and which I know will benefit small businesses right across Australia. Schedule 4 also provides those 'pay as you go' instalment cycles, as I just touched on, and that's an important addition to this bill.

Schedule 5 is some reforms to fringe benefits tax on electric vehicles. It's important to acknowledge how successful this EV tax incentive has been. It's also important to acknowledge that the market is really doing its job. People are going out there and buying EVs. Over 50 per cent of vehicles sold in recent months have been electrified vehicles—25 per cent of those are fully battery electric. We heard today from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, for every, I think, 100,000 electric vehicles on the road, it would give us an extra three days worth of fuel reserves, so it's great to see this EV tax incentive not only being so successful but responsibly being managed down by this government. People are now actively making the choice to go to electric vehicle, and that FBT discount will reduce down to 25 per cent over the coming years. I'd encourage everyone just to keep an eye on those dates, because that's an important decision-making step, as you look to switch to electric vehicles.

Lastly and in my 12 seconds, I don't have much to add to this, but I would commend the changes to discretionary trust and thank the NSW government for their cooperation with this Labor government on stamp duty exemptions.

I rise to oppose the government's minimum tax on discretionary trusts and the associated tax reform legislation before the House. These bills raise a fundamental question about our economic future: do we want a country that encourages Australians to work, save, invest and build businesses? Treasury estimates around 350,000 active small businesses operate through discretionary trusts, with some 130,000 expected to require significant advice about restructuring on making an election, yet the government has chosen to fundamentally change the taxation of these arrangements.

A family trust is not a tax loophole. It's a legal structure, and the existence of a trust is not evidence of tax avoidance. Across Lyne, families use trusts to operate businesses, hold assets, manage investments and plan for future generations. For many, establishing a trust is not primarily about minimising income tax. It's about asset protection, risk management and succession planning. Consider a family running a building business. Construction involves significant commercial risk, contractual disputes, unexpected liabilities, insolvencies elsewhere in the supply chain and fluctuations in cash flow. A properly structured trust, often alongside a company, can help separate certain family assets from commercial risks. That protection is not absolute, but managing risks through appropriate legal structures is sound commercial practice.

Trusts also allow families to respond to changing circumstances. One child might work in the family business, another might have a disability and another might experience financial difficulty or marriage breakdown. The flexibility of a discretionary trust allows the trustee to respond to those circumstances while preserving the underlying assets. That is not tax avoidance; that is responsible financial planning. Indeed, the government's own explanatory memorandum acknowledges that trusts are used for asset protection, succession planning and legitimate commercial arrangements. Yet, from 1 July 2028, the government proposes to subject relevant discretionary trust income to a minimum tax of 30 per cent. The Treasurer argues that that is necessary to align the taxation of income from capital more closely with income earned from work.

But there is a fundamental difference between wages and returns generated from savings or investment and the assumption of financial risk. When someone earns wages, they are compensated for their labour. When someone invests capital in a business, that capital is at risk. They may lose their investment, work for years without drawing a proper salary or inject more personal savings just to keep the business operating—and often those savings come from income on which tax has already been paid. Of course investment returns should be appropriately taxed, but it does not follow that income from capital should always be taxed at precisely the same rate as wages.

On this point, the Treasurer might benefit from revisiting the work of former Treasury secretary Dr Ken Henry. In October 2009, while leading the comprehensive review of Australia's taxation system under the Rudd Labor government, Dr Henry delivered a speech titled 'Towards a better taxation of savings'. He explained why taxing investment returns in the same way as wages could produce very different economic outcomes. Part of an investment return compensates for inflation rather than representing a genuine increase in purchasing power. Dr Henry demonstrated that a nominal tax rate of 30 per cent could produce an effective tax rate of approximately 51 per cent on real investment returns under his illustrative assumptions. He also discussed economic research, questioning whether identical rates of taxation on capital and labour were optimal. This was a Treasury secretary leading one of Australia's most comprehensive taxation reviews under a Labor government. Henry was not arguing that capital should escape taxation; he was explaining that taxation has consequences for savings, investment and future economic growth. The Treasurer and this government have conveniently ignored the advice of Dr Henry, instead gaslighting Australians with this perverted version of economic theory.

There is another flaw in the government's argument: a marginal tax rate is not the same as an average effective tax rate. A worker earning $80,000 does not pay 30 per cent on every dollar; they benefit from the tax free threshold and progressive tax brackets. Yet relevant trust income would face a 30 per cent minimum, even where the ultimate individual beneficiary would otherwise have a substantially lower effective tax rate. The proposed nonrefundable offsets do not necessarily restore that benefit. The problem becomes more serious with corporate beneficiaries. Where trust income is distributed to an individual, a tax offset can recognise tax already paid by the trustee, but corporate beneficiaries do not receive the same offset. That creates the potential for the same income to face taxation at the trust level and again in the company, producing a combined impost of up to 60 per cent in some arrangements. Tax should not multiply simply because income passes through legitimate business structures.

The government offers affected businesses three alternatives—pay the minimum tax, restructure into another entity or elect to restrict the flexibility of their family trust. Restructuring may qualify for Commonwealth income tax rollover relief, but that does not automatically remove state stamp duty. The government's impact analysis cites estimates of between $36,590 and $55,000 in duty on a $1 million transfer, depending on the jurisdiction. Master Builders have also warned of substantial additional tax liabilities and restructuring costs for family construction businesses. At a time when Australia desperately needs more homes, imposing additional costs and uncertainty on the businesses building them makes little economic sense.

Then there is the government's alternative—what is called an excluded election trust. An eligible existing trust can avoid minimum tax by nominating beneficiaries and specifying the proportions of income and relevant earnings each is to receive, but those proportions must then be followed in future years to preserve the exemption. A family making this election in 2028 is effectively being asked to decide how trust income will be allocated in 2038, 2048 and potentially beyond. What about children who are not yet born? What about grandchildren who may one day need support? What happens when a child develops a disability, experiences serious illness or encounters financial hardship? There are limited provisions allowing nominated beneficiaries to change following death or relationship breakdown but no general freedom to revisit allocations simply because a family's circumstances change.

The inconsistency in the government's approach to fairness is remarkable. When defending its decision to reduce the private health insurance rebate for Australians over 65, health minister Mark Butler argued that two neighbours on the same income should receive the same rebate regardless of age. The government says that is intergenerational fairness. Yet imagine two siblings. One is born before the family trust election is made and included as a beneficiary; the other is born several years later. Under the proposed rules, that younger child cannot simply be added to the nominated allocation on equal terms without potentially jeopardising the election. When it comes to private health insurance, Labor says age should not determine how people are treated, but, when it comes to family trusts, the timing of a child's birth can affect their family's ability to provide for them. Where is the consistency in that?

The consequences of departing from the election are severe. The trustee can become liable for the top marginal tax rate plus the Medicare levy on the trust's net income for that year. The 30 per cent minimum regime then applies in subsequent years, and the election cannot simply be made again. A concession that requires families to sacrifice their capacity to respond to future generations is no meaningful substitute for a genuine discretionary trust.

Estate planning lawyers have also raised concerns about existing wills. Many testamentary trusts have been drafted to include broad classes of possible beneficiaries, allowing families to respond to circumstances after someone dies. But, under this legislation, a testamentary trust established from 1 July 2028 may lose its exemption if its beneficiaries include companies or other trusts, even where those entities never receive a distribution. What happens to someone who has developed dementia and no longer has the capacity to amend their will? Tax reform should not leave families wondering whether arrangements established in good faith will still protect their children after they are gone.

The government also points to its exemption for primary production income, but that is not an exemption for every business associated with agriculture. Contract harvesting, shearing services, farm accommodation and certain rental income may fall outside the exemption. Regional families who diversify to manage commercial risk deserve clarity about how their arrangements will be treated.

Treasury estimates average additional regulatory costs of $141.5 million annually over 10 years. That money is diverted into compliance, accounting advice and restructuring rather than productive investment, and significant administrative and integrity provisions remain to be settled. Businesses are being asked to make long-term decisions without having the complete rules before them.

Now, alongside these measures, the government brings forward the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026. This legislation exposes another contradiction in the Treasury's approach. Having removed the general 50 per cent capital gains discount for most assets, the government now proposes to restore that discount for investors in certain qualifying innovative businesses. Why? Because it recognises that startup investment is risky, entrepreneurs need capital and higher capital gains taxation can discourage investment. But those same economic principles apply to the family builder, the regional manufacturer and the small-business owner who has invested everything in their enterprise. Why should the incentive to take commercial risk depend on whether a business satisfies a government definition of innovation?

The proposed concession is confined to qualifying young companies. It involves an innovation test and additional compliance obligations. Treasury estimates the resulting regulatory costs at $17.2 million annually. I support innovation, research and development and the availability of venture capital, but investment incentives should be designed around sound economic principles, not an increasingly complicated collection of selective exemptions. The Treasurer is trying to repair some of the consequences of his broader capital gains tax changes for a narrow class of businesses while leaving others exposed.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill also retains a partial fringe benefits tax concession for eligible electric vehicles. The government's own review has identified increasing costs and benefits concentrated among higher income earners. The coalition's position is to end these concessions rather than continue subsidising particular vehicle choices through the tax system.

There is also a broader issue about how tax policy is being developed. The government provided just 23 days for consultation on the trust proposals in July and 15 days in September. The draft Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill was also subject to a shortened consultation period. Parliament is being asked to consider complex changes with substantial consequences for business structures and investment. What justifies this haste? The trust tax is not scheduled to commence until July 2028. The coalition will seek to separate the trust tax from the other measures in Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill so parliament can vote on it independently.

We support the transitional superannuation relief in schedule 6 and do not oppose the corrective measures in schedules 4 and 5, notwithstanding their remaining shortcomings. We oppose the trust tax and will seek a 12-month delay if the government refuses to withdraw it. We also oppose the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill because of the broader capital gains tax framework it seeks to patch and unresolved problems within the bill. The coalition has committed to repealing the discretionary trust minimum tax if it becomes law.

I believe in a fair and progressive tax system. I support effective action against artificial arrangements designed to avoid legitimate tax obligations. But Australia already has extensive anti-avoidance provisions. Where deficiencies exist, they should be addressed directly. The answer to inappropriate tax avoidance is to target inappropriate tax avoidance, not to penalise legitimate business structures because some taxpayers misuse them. There is a fundamental difference between closing a tax loophole and penalising a legitimate business structure. Small business should be backed, not billed. For those reasons, I oppose these bills and urge the House to reject them.

(Quorum formed)

One of my predecessors in Werriwa, Gough Whitlam, made many memorable contributions to public debate over the course of his life. I'm sure we can all rattle off some of them, but one that resonates with me and is pertinent to today's debate is the words that he said in 1957 at the Chifley memorial lecture. On the occasion, Gough noted:

The way of the reformer is hard in Australia.

Those on this side of the chamber know the truth of those words only too well. In terms of reform, it is something that Labor governments do, and obviously it doesn't get any tougher than tax reform. Everybody talks about it, but very few do anything about it, because it's just too big and there are so many moving parts and vested interests. The history of modern-day tax reform is littered with reports, from the Asprey report in 1975 to the Henry review in 2010 and then the coalition's tax white paper in 2015. Forests of paper and newsprint have been devoted to the subject of tax reform, with curiously very little being achieved along the way.

In terms of that reform, the Albanese Labor government has already achieved a great deal. In June this year, the legislation for the first tranche passed, giving 13 million Australian workers a tax cut. Further, this legislation limited negative gearing to new builds to encourage new supply. In August, the Albanese Labor government acted again with a second tranche of reforms, this time locking in a permanent instant $20,000 tax write-off for small businesses and loss carry-backs for companies who have a turnover of up to $1 billion. Now, in October, the third tranche of reforms outlined in this year's budget is before the House. At its heart, this suite of reforms relates to the introduction of a minimum tax for discretionary trusts and further legislation to implement reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements.

Schedules 1 to 3 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 introduce a minimum tax of 30 per cent on the taxable income of discretionary trusts. This change will take effect from 1 July 2028 and is about delivering a fairer tax system. It does this by helping fund tax cuts for workers and better aligning the tax rate on trust income with the tax rate paid by workers. Those opposite, who have no genuine interest in fairness and equity, let alone the average worker, will be interested in digesting a few facts on discretionary trusts. Firstly, discretionary trusts have more than doubled over the past 20 years. Secondly, Australia now has over a million trusts, around 80 per cent of which are discretionary. Third, the majority of trust income flows to the top 10 per cent of families, and approximately 90 per cent of total trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households. Fourthly, analysis shows families with discretionary trusts in 2022-23 faced an average tax rate about four per cent lower compared with families with similar incomes who did not use a trust. Finally, 95 per cent of tax filers and more than 90 per cent of small businesses will not be affected by the proposed changes.

There are legitimate reasons to use a trust. These include succession planning and asset protection. However, as analysis has proven, the huge increase in the number of trusts has resulted in a different tax outcome for people with similar levels of income. The Treasurer and the Treasury have consulted widely on the matter. As a result, the government has made it clear that a range of trust types will be excluded from these changes. The exclusions include fixed trusts, charitable trusts, special disability trusts and superannuation funds. In addition, primary production income and certain income relating to vulnerable children will also be excluded. Further, deceased estates and all discretionary testamentary trusts established for genuine testamentary purposes will be excluded, as will all distributions from trusts to registered charities and deductible gift recipients.

Schedules 4 and 5 of this bill implement the reforms to the capital gains tax and negative gearing that were announced in this year's budget. It is expected that the reforms of this schedule will help an estimated 75,000 first home buyers into the market over the next decade. This is a tremendous outcome for a government that is serious about tackling housing supply and will help to reverse a worrying trend over the past decade. Further, these reforms will also preserve the gains investors have made and support investment into the new housing supply.

Regarding CGT adjustments, the legislation builds on the core legislation passed in June, addressing a number of more complex issues and ensuring the change is appropriately applied to a range of specific taxpayer circumstances and structures. Regarding negative gearing, this legislation includes the definition of a new residential dwelling and types of housing investment exempt from the limits on negative gearing.

Finally, schedule 6 relates to payday super transitional relief. It is now law that it is a requirement for employers to pay their employees' super at the same time as their salary and wages. This measure will strengthen our superannuation system and will help deliver a more secure retirement for millions of Australian workers. Often in my office, I have to speak to people who have not had their superannuation paid by their employers, leaving them without the retirement that they thought they were going to receive, and, sometimes, these are people in quite significant financial hardship. It is really important that this is something the government did. Employees will benefit from more frequent and earlier super contributions, which will grow and compound over their working life. This is a great win for workers.

The amendments in this bill provide transitional relief where the timing of contributions in the first year impacts an employee's concessional contribution caps. This will mean that individuals will not be adversely impacted by their employer transitioning to a payday super contribution frequency. Labor built Australia's world-class super system, and we will always protect it and seek to make it better, and this is just another example of doing that.

I began my remarks today by quoting my predecessor in Werriwa on the difficulty of reform, so it would be full circle to quote him again at the conclusion of my contribution. In 2002, Gough said:

Throughout my public life, I have tried to apply an overarching principle and a unifying theme to all my work. It can be stated in two words: contemporary relevance.

The measures contained in this bill speak to that very objective for our taxation system—to make it relevant for a contemporary Australian society and economy. The content of this bill has been subject to much debate and consultation. What is before us, then, is a measured and balanced piece of legislation. It gets the details right as it addresses contemporary needs and challenges, and I thank the Treasurer for this legislation and commend it to the House.

I want to put my objections to the process on the record at the start. I understand the pressure the government has to pass these reforms this year, but, yesterday, we were asked to debate and pass a bill in the same day that it was introduced. The government has given us another 24 hours, but this is a small concession. This is treating the House and those people who sent us here with contempt, and the government is making it a habit. I'd now like to turn to the substance of the bill.

Rebalancing our tax system was an overdue debate left in the too-hard basket by generations of Labor and coalition governments. I give the government credit for taking it on. It's hard and it takes guts. The government has acted to try and increase homeownership, and I support that, but, looking at the packages before this parliament, I have two significant concerns. First, the government is not lowering income tax rates. That has, honestly, been the entire point of the work that I've been doing on personal income tax. Problems with trusts and CGT discounts would be significantly reduced if the top marginal tax rate was lower. Whether the government is saving this for an election or is wary of inflation, the $77 billion left unallocated in this year's budget because of these tax changes should have been committed in legislation to lowering marginal tax rates, even if they came in after a number of years. Secondly, the package the government has put forward in previous bills and in this bill fail on innovation and business investment, particularly because of CGT. They are delivering the opposite. I hear from people in my electorate about investments falling apart and entrepreneurs leaving the country because of the CGT changes. And while the IBCC that is included in this bill makes it better, this is not a fix. The government must do better.

Let me take these bills in reverse order. Tax reform No. 4 will introduce an innovative business CGT concession allowing qualifying companies to retain a 50 per cent discount. It will, secondly, reform the R&D tax incentive in line with the Denholm review and, thirdly, enhance venture capital investment vehicles. Fourthly, it will make FBT less generous for electric vehicles. I support the venture capital changes, and I have been pushing them. I support making FBT less generous for electric vehicles, and I think the government could potentially go further on this because of the great uptake in electric vehicles driven by the Iran war. But unfortunately the things that particularly are there to drive investment are overshadowed by the CGT changes. I want to put on the record that I remain deeply concerned by the government's indexation approach to the CGT discount when it is applied to businesses and shares. Its proposed fix for innovative businesses, the IBCC, is I think better than nothing but far short of what it needs to be.

I am on the record as someone who supports changing the CGT concessions. I am on the record so visibly. If it is driving reductions in marginal tax rates, that is the point. I think this is important, and I think these messages need to be sent, because we tax people the most heavily when they are least able to pay. That is indicated by two types of household, one over the age of 65 and one of working age. The working-age household pays, on average, twice the tax when their two householders are earning 100 grand compared with the retired household. That makes no sense, given that the working-age household probably has HECS debts, probably doesn't own their own home or has a big mortgage, and is maybe paying childcare costs.

We need to rebalance the system, because young people are being left behind. We have seen in the decade up until 2016 that the wealth of older households grew by around 50 per cent and the wealth of younger households flatlined. That is a problem, and it's a structural problem. And we have a structural problem with an ageing population. We used to have, in the 1980s, around six people of working age for every person over 65; now it's down to four, and in the future it's going to be down to under three. These are the reasons we do need to rebalance the system.

But I want to come back to the fact that I think changing the CGT model through indexation is wrong, because it is focused on fairness, which I support, but it is not doing what it needs to do on prosperity, and I think it is genuinely hampering the prosperity that we need to grow in this country. The Treasurer has acknowledged the indexation limitations for high-growth, low-capital companies, both in his budget papers and in his second reading speech on tax reform No. 1. And I think it is relevant that only one other major economy, and that is Israel, uses this methodology. But it has a top marginal tax rate on capital of around 30 per cent, not around 47 per cent. I know the government is trying to fix this, and I know the government has done genuine consultation on the IBCC and has responded to feedback on this.

But let's be honest: the IBCC doesn't fix all the problems here. Even in its current form, the IBCC proposal is complex. It is still administratively onerous. It doesn't work for genesis kinds of innovations, such as biotech. With those time limits it may not be appropriate. It doesn't work for publicly listed companies that are very innovative or taking high risks, such as minerals exploration and, again, some biotech. I think those reasons alone say that the IBCC itself should be better. But the problem is that even if we fix those challenges with the IBCC on those specifics, the IBCC and the indexation model are still not right for businesses and for shares. For one, they are complex, and that is an issue when it comes to tax. Adam Smith said simplicity should be part of the ambition for any tax system, and he, hundreds of years ago, was absolutely right. It is unfair. You don't have to be innovative to take enormous risk to start and grow a business. Many businesses in our economy are low capital and so are particularly disadvantaged by indexation but would not fall under this innovative sort of definition. It's just not fair. We do not want to penalise people who are taking risks who don't fit a government definition of innovation. We need to recognise that there is enormous uncertainty in starting and growing a business. That is why it deserves a discount.

Finally, this is internationally uncompetitive. We have businesses in this country that could be subjected to tax rates on CGT well into the 40s, compared to other countries. It's uncompetitive. We don't have to have the lowest CGT rates in the world, but we do have to be in the zone of competition or we will lose some of our best and brightest overseas. I think the government's current proposal could do that.

I am going to put forward a different proposal because I do believe there is a chance for the government to make substantial changes here that could make a difference. What I've been trying to do is ask, 'What could the government do, given the legislation that has passed, given the legislation that's in front of the parliament at the moment, to try and fix this?' I'm arguing that the government should, for businesses and shares, go back to a flat discount, and I'm arguing that we should use the 'active asset' definition—which is currently well established and well understood—from various CGT concessions, with some small modifications, and make that discount 40 per cent instead of 50 per cent. That would raise about the same amount of revenue, according to the PBO analysis that I have done, but it would be substantially superior.

These are the arguments why. Firstly, it would ensure that any company, regardless of its innovation potential, would get a guaranteed flat 40 per cent discount instead of indexation, and it would keep our top capital gains tax rate at around 28 per cent, which is competitive internationally. It's not the lowest, but nor is it the highest. It is in the zone of play. It would allow the government to keep indexation on housing, which I think is appropriate. I accept that there are some very good reasons there. The businesspeople I talk to have a wide variety of views in terms of how we should tax capital. But where I do think many of them are united is in saying that taxing at 40 per cent across the board on active assets, which would also benefit risk-taking in shares, is a better outcome than trying to do the 50 per cent only through the IBCC and have everybody else subject to indexation. I think the government really should look at this.

Finally, this bill reforms the R&D tax incentive based on the Ambitious Australia report. Again, I'd say that the intention is worthy. I recognise that the government has done some very good things here, including the higher offset rates for core R&D. But I'll be honest: I'm concerned on two fronts. One is about removing support of R&D. We know that they've expanded the definition of core R&D through the offsets, but we don't think they will be completely offset. The second thing is the time limit in relation to these R&D tax incentives. I understand where the government's coming from here, but I still think, particularly for biotech or deep tech, that 15 years isn't enough. I met Dr Julian Freitag today, whose company, Magellan Stem Cells, is 17 years old and in Phase III trials. It's exactly that sort of company that would not be able to get this important R&D tax credit under the current changes. So I'm urging the government to reconsider this.

I'll turn to Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No.3) Bill 2026. This bill delivers the budget commitment to a minimum 30 per cent tax rate on trust distributions. It includes rollover relief for those structuring out of a discretionary trust and a new electable regime, the excluded election trust. It also clarifies how CGT applies to trusts and defines 'new residential dwelling' for the CGT and negative gearing changes already passed. It's been a really hard time for small businesses and restructuring is one more thing to deal with. I think the timing of trying to get businesses to restructure is wrong. Certainly, while I support principles of managing trusts in a more effective way, I've never thought we should actually deal with the trusts directly because of the complexity of restructuring. Regardless of this, I do believe we should be working towards a tax system on the principle where, if money is earned, the tax rate that is applied is pretty consistent, regardless of the structure that you individually are able to use.

I want to admit that there are very many genuine reasons for trusts, including managing succession in family businesses—and my own family has those trusts in place—but it is very clear also that trusts have really ballooned in recent times for reasons outside of business succession and through income splitting in different ways. I don't blame anyone using these structures. I keep on coming back to the fact that we need to cut the top marginal tax rates, when the incentives to use these sorts of structures would be significantly reduced, which would be beneficial to the overall economy. I recognise that many people in my electorate use these structures for things that really matter to them, like helping their young people through uni or topping up an older parent's income. I take the point that these are really positive things, but I recognise that they aren't open to everyone, and therefore I think it is appropriate to consider these restructures, though I have to say I'm really concerned by aspects around stamp duty, because the states haven't guaranteed that they're going to waive stamp duty, and I think that is a really significant challenge with this piece of legislation.

I'm going to finish off with some broad observations on tax reform. Tax reform is essential in this economy—and, I think, with low productivity and real challenges on housing and opportunities for young people to get ahead, it's critical. But we need to be clear on the why and clear on the principles on which you judge a reform. We need all the taxes on the table and we need a transparent process that allows us to properly manage the trade-offs and build community support. And I do not believe that the government has delivered any of these effectively in this bill. In the green paper I first did on tax, I outlined six objectives for tax reform that I think are still relevant: lower income taxes, rebalance the tax settings in favour of homeownership, which I agree the government has done, boost productivity and growth, stabilise our revenue base so that it can endure changes to demographics and consumption patterns, support the energy transition through better tax settings, and implement institutional reform. There are also six principles which build on Adam Smith's principles of efficiency, fairness, simplicity and adequacy which are important to the tax system. One, tax reform should encourage economic productivity and growth. Two, it should raise revenue with the least cost to society by minimising distortions in the way we work, consume, save and invest. Three, it should encourage behaviours that benefit individuals, society and the environment. Four, it should treat people and organisations with the same capacity to pay in the same way and raise more tax from those with greater capacity to pay. Five, it should be easy to understand and simple and cost-effective to comply with. Six, it should provide a stable tax base over time given changes in the economy and society.

There are always trade-offs against these objectives and against these principles, but I still think they stand the test of time. And I think that this is where we need to go from here, because the tax reform that is in front of the parliament at the moment should be better, but it also should not be the last word. We have minerals that are undertaxed. We have stamp duty that taxes mobility. We have no credible way of pricing emissions. We have communities worried about jobs and AI, yet we tax people who employ people. These things don't make sense. We need to drive better outcomes across our society. The tax system is a critical part of this, and that is why we need broader tax reform but with principles and with purpose that are clearer than where we are today.

I thank the member for Wentworth. A lot was covered off by her there, but I want to recognise that she's done a mighty lot of work in talking with people that we both know and have great regard for when it comes to building a stronger economy by thinking differently, coming up with new ideas and being able to convert those ideas into commercial practice. Again, I think these contributions are really important. If there's anything this parliament can do with more of, it is thinking about how we generate new enterprises and how to grow them and make them much more solid, particularly enterprises that are trying to change the nature of the economy.

The reality is our world faces three big issues in particular. We have the impact of global warming, the rise of artificial intelligence and the breakdown of the international rules based order that deals with those things. When it comes to global warming, for a country like ours that has been dependent on resources for so long and made so much money, particularly from fossil fuels, as the world starts pivoting away and we start seeing lower demand, what will happen is that we will earn less money off those things as a nation.

That requires us to think differently about how we make our income and about the jobs that we create, and it does require us to think really deeply about the economic complexity of the nation. We have too many eggs in a few baskets. The parliament, as I said before, needs to think about the types of firms that emerge, but the parliament also needs to think about the face, shape, operations and the economy not just in an election cycle but for many years ahead—dare I say, decades ahead.

On top of those three things that I mentioned, there will be things that come out of the blue, that are unexpected and that also challenge and pressure economies. We lived through it. A once-in-a-generation pandemic really highlighted for this nation how dependent we were on just one country for all our goods and services. We recognised that we were vulnerable to dysfunctional supply chains. We realised that so much of the stuff we took for granted required importation. The things we needed the most weren't there when we needed them most, and we said, particularly as an incoming government, that we would reimagine what we do so that we can ensure that, on those key things—those national priorities and the goods that are really important to us—we'll able to do a lot more of that work ourselves.

These things are very big. They're big, hairy problems that are very difficult to solve. To do that, we need ideas. We need people to think differently about how to solve those problems. For instance, if we want to reimagine how we reduce our dependency on overseas supply chains and how we make more of our own goods, how we do so, when others have perfected the production process and we haven't got that ourselves, requires smart people—researchers and scientists—to start thinking of the ways to get this done. It also requires entrepreneurs to join with that effort to convert an idea from a lab benchtop into a production process and turn that into a commercial reality. We need a lot of people to do it.

In any nation, the key to all that I'm describing is having a healthy base of research and development. In Australia, we often celebrate really smart people who have done incredible things. We are, for example, right on the cusp of curing one of the most terrible conditions that has affected women: cervical cancer. We are now immunising young women from cervical cancer using Gardasil. Gardasil was created—it came out of an Australian mind in Dr Ian Frazer, and we owe him a big healthy dose of gratitude for what he's done to transform the lives of women and prevent them dying early from cervical cancer. It was an Australian who did it, but it was an overseas company that made the products and took all the gains.

We see this time and again, and I am so frustrated that an idea that began in an Australian mind is finished with hands on another side of the planet. We can do this work, and we can make it happen here, but R&D is critical as part of that process. In this country, as much as we have some really great minds, we've got a really bad way of supporting those great minds. If you look at R&D investment, it fell from 2.24 per cent of gross domestic product to 1.69 per cent in just 15 years.

In the OECD, we performed terribly on R&D. We have got to do better, but it's not an easy thing to fix. In the last term, as an industry minister, I pushed a number of times. It may come as a big surprise, but I can be a bit persistent! I did continue to badger my way into making sure we got a review of R&D in this country, and it ended up being called the Strategic Examination of Research and Development. It was designed to maximise the value of public investment in research. It was looking at harnessing and growing business investment in R&D. It looked to leverage our scientific strength to help address national priorities and, importantly, to foster new industries.

This is really important. As I said earlier, we have too many eggs in one basket. Our economy is not complex enough. We need to come up with new industries that make money. I'll give you an example. We can do this. People in this chamber would probably be unaware that we export a product that earns more money than some agricultural products that we currently ship overseas. There'd be very few people in this place that would think that software licensing is creating a lot of export dollars for us, but it's actually doing much better than most agricultural products in this country. Australians are coming up with software that is being bought by other people overseas, but that takes a lot of work, and we can't just have a few of those examples. But we are creating those new sectors in this country.

The SERD, as it became known, was headed up by Robyn Denholm, a terrific Australian, who is now chair of Tesla internationally. She came from the western suburbs of Sydney, made her way through different jobs and has been recognised for great business acumen, particularly in a company that has had to rely heavily on R&D, to change the way we drive cars and produce them. We had Professor Ian Chubb, former chief scientist, on there. We had Fiona Wood from WA, who was the instrumental person in the development of spray-on skin, which was critical when we had victims of the Bali bombing who had suffered terrible burns. She was able to help them repair their skin. We put her on the SERD panel. Someone who I've got great admiration for is Kate Cornick, who headed up LaunchVic and has been involved in helping start-ups in Victoria for many, many years. A great mind, she is now involved as the CEO of the Tech Council of Australia.

I want to formally, on the record, thank those people for their work. Their work has been absolutely critical in outlining how we can improve the way in which we invest in R&D in this country. To be completely frank, I would much prefer a much more developed and detailed response to SERD than a sporadic attempt to deal with some of those things. The review has been mentioned a number of times in terms of underpinning the changes that are being debated in this amendment today, but we do need to have a much more comprehensive response. I imagine the panel is keen to do it, and they've done a mighty job for this nation with the work that they've done, but it is critical work to think about how we invest more in this process.

The government has done a lot here to try and think this through. I know that there's been a focus on core R&D. Core R&D is important, but so is the supporting effort as well, particularly if you're developing hardware. Hardware does require the translation of a concept in the core phase, where you think of an idea, you think it might work, but when you go from a prototype you realise it may not actually stack up commercially and no-one will buy the product in the way that it's being put forward. Supporting R&D takes the time to do that. It's why, for example, the idea of capping—how long it takes or how long you can claim the R&DTI—has had such resistance, particularly in areas of biotech. But I also think of people in the climate tech space who are helping us reduce emissions with new hardware. It takes them ages to get that sorted, so we do need to see a bit of flexibility around that.

There are a lot of changes in here. I know there are people in the startup sector who've reached out to me who are happy with the level of engagement that the Treasurer and Treasury have undertaken, but they still have some concerns. Obviously, we are trying to work through some of that moving forward.

But I do get tired, I have to say; it took me a while to get the SERD up. When it comes to R&D, it's not the first time that there have been moves to change it. Under the former government, there was a move to cut $2.4 billion out of R&D—and before then, when we were last in government, there was a move to change the capital gains tax arrangements on employee share ownership, which, frankly, was disastrous. We get the advice from the same two departments. It doesn't matter, as I keep saying, who is on this side of the House; we get advised by the same people—the hive mind that is built between the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance—that do not look at Australian R&D as an investment. They see it as a cost and they see it as a way to cut, and they always put forward these types of ideas to cut costs. We can't afford that in this country. Treasury in particular have made public statements where they believe that it's better for us to just adapt someone else's technology than to develop here in this country. This is selling out our country terribly—absolutely awful.

We need those people who are stuck in ideological permafrost to recognise that, if we want to get the economy ready for the long-term, if we want to learn the lessons of the pandemic, if we want to ensure that not all our eggs are in one basket, if we want to not be dependent on vulnerable supply chains, we need to back R&D. But if we listen to Treasury and we listen to Finance, they're always going to be looking for a quick save—and we can't have it, because they don't have faith in Australian innovation. Like I said, when we were last in office it was they that suggested we tax unrealised gains in employee share ownership—terrible for start-ups, and we backed the last government in fixing it. The last government had a revolt in its own ranks about changes to R&D that were pushed, and I have to congratulate Senator Hume in leading that charge in government to convince the Morrison government not to go ahead with massive cuts to R&D. But now we've had to deal with proposals yet again by Treasury and Finance that we make these changes to R&D—terrible.

If we want the country to be stronger longer term, on its own two feet, in a changing world, we need to not only back our scientists and researchers; we absolutely have to back those start-ups, those early-stage companies, to make sure that they can succeed in the best possible way. There are a lot of good changes in here, and I'm glad that a lot of work's been done, but we can absolutely do better into the future. The parliament needs to take the time to learn a lot more about the work of start-ups and the contribution they make to this great nation of ours.

I move:

That Mr Husic be granted an extension of time.

Question negatived.

Small businesses are where big Australian dreams begin, where families put everything on the line to turn hard work into opportunity. As the shadow minister for women, I know that, for many women, starting a business is about so much more than making money; it's about independence, freedom and having control over their future, for a mum juggling work and children, a woman trying to rebuild her life after family violence while untangling her finances and trying to restructure a family business or someone trying to secure her retirement after years of caring for others. Women are already starting from behind—less savings, greater barriers to owning a home and, for women approaching retirement, an average of $86,000 less in superannuation than men. Starting a business doesn't automatically put women on equal footing. The Gender Index Australia in 2026 found that women lead 42 per cent of sole-trader businesses but just 15 per cent of incorporated companies and seven per cent of large companies. The last thing they need is another tax standing in their way, yet that's exactly what the Albanese government is proposing.

From July 2028, around 350,000 small businesses operating through discretionary trusts face a new 30 per cent minimum tax. A family trust isn't complicated. The business earns some money, it goes into the trust and, each year, the family can decide how that income is shared. Treasury says around 350,000 small businesses operate through trusts, and, by its own figures, around 210,000 could face extra tax or be forced to restructure. Treasury admits the damage won't be evenly spread. Some sectors, like construction and property, could be hit harder, and Master Builders and the Property Council are already raising the alarm. Imagine working your whole life to build a family business, only for Labor to hand you three rotten choices: pay a new 30 per cent tax; restructure into a company and potentially cop a hefty stamp duty bill; or lock your family into fixed shares for life, with no-one else allowed in.

And here's where Labor really twists the knife. If the trust pays income into a company, Labor can tax the same dollar twice—up to 60c in every dollar, on the government's own figures. Experts warn it could reach as high as 77c. Did Labor remember to tell Australians about this before the election? No. Labor promised more than 50 times not to raise taxes, then gave hardworking Australians just 23 days in July and 15 days in September to have their say. The government's own Office of Impact Analysis says 30 days is the minimum and small businesses need longer. Treasury received 595 submissions. How many has it published? None.

That's why the coalition is drawing a line. We will split the trust tax from the other measures, seek a 12-month delay and repeal it in government. The coalition opposes both bills—but not the sensible measures the coalition previously called for. These include protecting trusts established through wills and income for vulnerable children from Labor's separate 30 per cent minimum tax on capital gains. Those measures also clarify that what counts as a new home for negative gearing and provide temporary relief from superannuation tax penalties as payday super begins. We support the superannuation measure and won't oppose the other changes, even if they don't finish the job. We're moving to split them off so the small-business tax on trusts gets voted on by itself.

Labor still hasn't fixed the capital gains tax problems arising from divorce or death or from including granny flats in its definition of new homes for negative gearing. If Labor is serious about backing small businesses, it should work with us to stop taxing ambition and give hardworking Australians a fighting chance in the cost-of-doing-business crisis it has created.

You have to hand it to this treasurer. Every time you think he's reached peak absurdity, he finds another level. Take Labor's so-called solution to the backlash. Family trusts that exist on 1 July 2028 get one chance, in 2028-29, to nominate who receives their income and how much. Then those shares are locked in for life. Only death or relationship breakdown allows them to change. Break the rules and that year's income is taxed at the top marginal rate plus the Medicare levy. After that, the 30 per cent minimum tax applies permanently. Seriously! If a trustee gets sick before 30 June, they might get special consideration, but, if a family member has another baby? Bad luck! Want to remarry? Too late! What planet is the Treasurer living on? Children are born, people fall in love, marriages end, women escape violent relationships, mothers start over—life happens.

And then there's stamp duty. The government's own analysis cites estimates of $36,590 to $55,000 in stamp duty on a $1 million business transfer. The Commonwealth waives income tax on restructuring into a company, but not one state has offered stamp duty relief. Imagine how many jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities that money could have created.

And Labor's promise to protect farmers? Well, read the fine print. Primary production income is exempt, but contract shearing, mustering, harvesting and crop dusting aren't covered, and neither is income from farm accommodation, wedding venues or rent from powerlines. Where one trust owns a farm and another business operates the farm, rent paid to the landholding trust can be caught by the tax.

Labor isn't just taxing small businesses; it's making them pay through the nose to figure out the paperwork. Treasury estimates that it will cost small businesses $141½ million a year over a decade, plus another $939 million in one-off costs. That's not the tax. That's the cost of working out the tax. Master Builders warns a family building business earning $400,000 in taxable income could face a tax bill up to 70 per cent higher. Add another $82,000 to $175,000 in restructuring costs. Who ultimately pays? First home buyers, single mums struggling to keep a roof over their children's heads and older women already facing housing insecurity. Builders pass these costs on through higher home prices. For cafes and tradies, it's more money for accountants and lawyers and less for workers, apprenticeships and for the growth of the business.

And we need granny flats. We're for them. Backyard granny flats are a vital housing solution for multiple generational families where they're helping young adults save or keeping ageing parents close. But under Labor's negative gearing rules, a newly built secondary dwelling doesn't count as a new home unless it has its own title. While this technically hurts all families, it creates a much bigger crisis for older women. As the fastest growing demographic facing homelessness in Australia, a backyard build is often their only practical path to long-term safety. In established suburbs where older women want to age in place near community ties, granny flats are the most realistic way to add supply. The Housing Industry Association asked the Senate to fix this definition on 5 June, but did Labor listen? No. We're desperately short of housing, older women are at risk of homelessness and Labor is standing in the way of homes families could actually build. Even Australian charities are in the firing line. The Greens want Labor's charity exemption removed, which lawyer Mark Fowler warns could cost $1.3 billion in donations over five years. Will Labor stand up for Australian charities or cave into the Greens?

The government says more than 95 per cent of taxpayers don't receive trust income. But what about the 350,000 small businesses that do operate through trusts? Labor says this tax helps fund tax cuts for 13 million workers. But why should hardworking family businesses have to foot the bill? The coalition wants a small business act that gives businesses the right to be heard before regulators make decisions affecting them, not Labor's approach of acting first and leaving small businesses to pay the price. The Treasurer still has a chance to listen to small businesses and get this right. If he won't, he should have the humility to check his work.

Women are already fighting an uphill battle to build financial independence. The last thing they need is a government making that climb even steeper. Australian families are working harder, risking more and struggling just to stay afloat. They need a government that backs small businesses, not one that keeps knocking them down. Labor doesn't have to get this wrong. We're offering to help get it right.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026. I'll start with the minimum tax on discretionary trusts, then turn to the changes to capital gains tax and the R&D tax incentive. Last month I spoke in this parliament about the pressures on small businesses in Curtin. Rent, insurance, wages and super are all rising, and many owners are squeezed between rising costs on one side and customers with less to spend on the other. I understand why many will look at this bill and see one more cost. Many family businesses set up a discretionary trust years ago on their accountant's advice for legitimate reasons like asset protection, succession planning and keeping the business in the family, and they have followed the rules as they found them. But I need to weigh their concerns against what's fair for the whole community and for the generations coming after us.

On balance, I support the broad intent of this bill, and I'll move amendments to improve it. My guiding principle is simple: income should be taxed in a broadly similar way whether it comes from work or from wealth. At the moment, this isn't the case. A nurse or an electrician on an ordinary wage pays 30c in tax on every dollar they earn. They can't split that income with anyone. In contrast, a man earning $200,000 through a family trust could split that income across his family, who could pay an average tax rate of only 12 per cent on that income, less than half of the nurse or the electrician.

There are now more than a million trusts in Australia. That's about 40 trusts for every 1,000 people, 20 times as many per person as in the UK and four times as many per person as in the US. About 840,000 of them are discretionary trusts. Most trust income flows to the top 10 per cent of earning families. This is an intergenerational issue. Our tax system leans heavily on taxing work, and that load falls hardest on younger Australians trying to buy a home and build a life. Every time we put this in the too-hard basket, we pass the problem onto our kids. This bill says that income flowing through a discretionary trust should be taxed at no less than 30 per cent. It doesn't abolish trusts. Where trust income already goes to people paying 30 per cent or more, nothing changes. Where things will change is where trust income goes to family members on lower tax rates. In that case, the trust will pay a top-up, so the income is taxed at 30 per cent.

Small-business owners told me that no-one is looking at how all these changes add up for them. I take this seriously, and, before deciding my position on this bill, I went through the government's impact analysis carefully, looking at the estimated impacts and costs. Around 85 per cent of small businesses don't use a discretionary trust at all, and more than 90 per cent won't be affected in any given year. This bill has also been improved since it was first announced. Existing trusts can elect to fix their beneficiaries and stay outside the minimum tax without restructuring or triggering stamp duty. Businesses that would rather restructure get three years of rollover relief. Where businesses do choose to restructure, they can be hit with state stamp duty, and the federal rollover relief does nothing about that. In WA, duty can apply to a business's goodwill, plant and equipment, not just its property. I'm calling on the Treasurer to work with the states, particularly the WA government, on duty relief for restructures made because of this reform.

Estimates of restructuring costs vary widely, from Treasury's average of about $11,000 to COSBOA's $15,000 to $50,000 before stamp duty. No-one knows how many trusts will restructure, elect or simply pay the tax, and those decisions must be made before rollover relief closes in June 2030. This uncertainty could be addressed through two reviews I'm proposing as amendments in consideration in detail. First, the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman would report by March 2030 on how small businesses are managing the transition while there's still time to extend the deadlines. Second, an independent review would start by January 2031 to test whether the bill has actually worked, whether it's brought the tax on trust income closer to the tax on income from work and what it has really cost small business. Both of these reports would be tabled in parliament.

I've also circulated a second reading amendment on testamentary trusts, which are trusts set up under a will. The bill includes an exclusion for genuine testamentary trusts, and I support that intent, but concerns have been raised with me about two flaws in how this exclusion is drafted. First, new conditions apply to testamentary trusts established on or after 1 July 2028, but the bill doesn't actually say what 'established' means. Administering an estate can take years, so a will signed decades ago by someone who dies before 2028 could still be caught, and someone who has lost capacity can't update their will at all. Second, the test asks, 'Who can benefit under the will?' For years, wills have included broad beneficiary classes, including companies and other trusts. Under this bill, naming just one of those entities could remove the exclusion for all of the trust's income, even if that entity never receives a cent. My second reading amendment calls on the government to apply the new rules only to wills made or changed after 1 July 2028, so people know where they stand. It also asks that one ineligible beneficiary named in a will not affect the tax treatment of everyone else. That keeps the integrity of the measure while stopping an unused clause in a will from unravelling plans made by families often years earlier.

To the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026, the first schedule in this bill is the innovative business CGT concession. This is a carve-out from the new capital gains tax rules for innovative businesses, particularly startups. I've been calling for a carve-out for startups and early-stage businesses since the day after the budget. Without one, start-ups would pay a huge amount of capital gains tax, and this would put a significant drag on some of the most productive and innovative businesses in the country. I'm pleased that the government has acted on this, but I'm very concerned with the current shape of the proposed carve-out. The innovative business CGT concession is narrow, complex and ambiguous. It creates a company age limit of 15 years, which is too short for many of our most innovative companies, particularly in biotech and medtech. This is why I seconded the member for Wentworth's second reading amendment. It also only applies to companies listed on the stock exchange. While the intention is to isolate the concessions strictly for risky assets, there are industries for which listed markets provide an important source of early stage capital, particularly biotech and mineral exploration. This is better than nothing, but it's not really good enough. Productivity growth is essential to rising living standards, and, while I support the government's broad approach to tax reform—lowering taxes on work paid for by higher taxes on asset investments—this cannot have a disproportionately negative impact on our most productive, innovative businesses and sectors. Otherwise, this will come at the cost of Australia's future prosperity.

I want to focus in particular on the schedule 2 changes to the research and development tax incentive. I support better targeting of the incentive, and I acknowledge the government has listened to the sector by raising the company age limit it first proposed for therapeutic goods R&D from 10 to 15 years. For companies that aren't yet making a profit, the incentive comes as a cash refund, and that money goes straight back into research and helps bridge the gap between capital raisings. But a 15-year age limit on that cash refund will hit the companies doing the long, expensive work of bringing new medicines and medical technologies to patients the hardest. Medical innovation runs on long timelines. The government's own Department of Health, Disability and Ageing puts the average time to develop a new medicine at 17 years. Products must go through preclinical work and several phases of clinical trials, manufacturing and regulatory approval before they even earn a dollar. The cut-off will often fall in the middle of late-stage clinical trials, the most expensive stage of all. These are not slow or lazy companies. AusBiotech tells me that 30 per cent of its member companies doing R&D are 15 years or older. In one sample of 27 companies, 11 were older than 15 years, and 10 of those were in or preparing for clinical trials.

This matches what I'm hearing directly in my electorate of Curtin. Argenica Therapeutics grew out of research at the University of WA and the Perron Institute and is developing a treatment for stroke. It's already run a trial with 92 stroke patients across 10 Australian hospitals, and it's planning a 400-patient trial across Australia and the United States. Argenica was founded in 2019. If everything goes exactly to plan, it expects its first revenue in 2034, right at the 15-year mark. One setback in a trial and it would lose the cash refund just as it reaches the finish line. The same drug is also being developed for traumatic brain injury, which isn't expected to earn revenue until 2037. This exposes another flaw in the company based age limit. It assumes innovation stops after the first product. Argenica is also a listed company, meaning its investors will not be eligible for the CGT discount under the innovative business CGT concession. The combined effect of these two measures is a double hit on the same company at the same moment. Just as Argenica would lose its R&D cash refund, it would also lose the investor incentive that might have helped replace that money.

WA is home to more than 40 biotech and pharmaceutical companies and more than 50 medical technology and digital health companies. The WA government has invested heavily in clinical trial infrastructure in our hospitals. Clinical trials do more than create jobs. For Australians with cancer or a disease with no effective treatment currently available, a trial is often how they get early access to new therapies, and industry funds $1.3 billion of the $1.6 billion spent on clinical trials in Australia. If support ends partway through development, the trials and the manufacturing and jobs that come with them will go where the support is available. AusBiotech tells me one Australian medical technology company has already begun hiring 60 R&D staff in Singapore instead of Australia.

The government's own review of the R&D system, Ambitious Australia, found the R&D tax incentive must be globally competitive, it must keep R&D intensive firms here and it must extend support to commercialisation. It didn't recommend an age limit. In fact, Robyn Denholm, who chaired that review, said today that time limits should be removed altogether because long-term R&D is critical to progress in many industries, not just medical technology. That's why I'm proposing a second reading amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill calling on the government to remove the age limit on the R&D tax incentive for companies developing new medicines and medical technologies. Many of these products take more than 15 years to reach market and, without that change, we risk pushing medical research, clinical trials and the jobs that come with them offshore.

These bills move us towards a fairer tax system, but fairness should not come at the cost of families, estate plans or the research and innovation on which our future prosperity depends. I commend the bills to the House, but I move:

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

(b) the bill applies a beneficiary test to testamentary trusts 'established' on or after 1 July 2028, but does not say whether a testamentary trust is established when the will is made, when the will-maker dies, or when estate assets pass to the trustee;

(c) as a result, Australians making or reviewing a will cannot know whether the trust it creates will be covered by the new rules; and

(2) calls on the Government to amend the bill so that:

(b) the beneficiary test applies only where a testamentary trust is established under will or codicil provisions made or varied on or after 1 July 2028, under a court order made on or after that date, or on an intestacy where the deceased died on or after that date; and

(c) the exclusion applies to income derived for the benefit of an individual, an exempt entity or the trustee of a special disability trust, so that naming an ineligible beneficiary in a will does not affect the treatment of the trust's other income".

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and the accompanying Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026. Our tax system needs to be fairer, simpler and more sustainable for all Australians. This must be at the forefront of our minds when considering these bills. I recognise the government's objective with this legislation of reducing inappropriate income splitting through discretionary trusts, particularly where these arrangements allow wealthy individuals to minimise their tax obligations in ways that are not available to ordinary wage earners. There is a legitimate fairness issue here, and I support efforts to address it. But we must ensure that, in seeking to close tax loopholes, we do not inadvertently penalise small businesses, family enterprises and start-ups that are the backbone of our economy. Fairness is not just about the rate of tax that people pay; it's also about ensuring that the rules are proportionate, practical and do not impose unreasonable burdens on those who are working hard and doing the right thing.

These two bills work together to introduce a minimum 30 per cent tax on the net income of discretionary trusts from 1 July 2028. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill establishes the framework for the new tax, including exemptions, transitional arrangements and mechanisms allowing trusts to restructure or elect alternative arrangements. The accompanying Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill establishes the minimum 30 per cent tax rate itself. The Treasury laws amendment bill also includes further provisions relating to the government's capital gains tax and negative gearing reforms.

I want to make an important distinction right at the outset. I've supported reform of capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing where they relate to residential investment property because we urgently need to improve housing affordability and intergenerational equity. This is one of the most pressing and common issues that people all across Mackellar raise with me. For too long, our tax settings have encouraged investment in existing housing in ways that have contributed to younger Australians being priced out of homeownership, but changing the tax treatment of residential property investment is a very different matter from fundamentally changing how discretionary trusts are taxed. Discretionary trusts are used across the economy for a wide range of legitimate purposes, including by family businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups. These reforms are a substantial change to the tax treatment of business and family structures.

I acknowledge that the government has listened to some concerns raised during consultation and has made important improvements to the original proposals. These changes are welcome. The legislation now provides a number of pathways for discretionary trusts to avoid the new minimum tax. One option is to restructure into a company or another eligible structure, supported by a three-year Commonwealth income tax rollover relief period commencing on 1 July 2027. Another is the excluded election trust arrangement, which allows eligible trusts to avoid the minimum tax by electing to distribute income to nominated beneficiaries in fixed proportions. Exemptions have also been expanded for particular types of trusts and income, including genuine testamentary trusts, charitable trusts, special disability trusts, primary production income and certain income relating to vulnerable minors. These are significant improvements, and I acknowledge the work that has gone into responding to stakeholder feedback.

But, while this bill is better than the original proposal, the central question remains: will these changes improve fairness without placing an unreasonable burden on Australian families and small businesses? Small-business owners are already operating in an extraordinarily challenging environment. They are dealing with higher operating costs, insurance premiums, rents, energy prices, workforce pressures and an increasingly complex regulatory environment. They are often doing so without large accounting departments, legal teams or substantial financial reserves. As the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has stressed, the mechanism chosen to address tax avoidance must be proportionate to the problem and respectful of the legitimate structures through which hundreds of thousands of Australian small businesses operate.

For those businesses that are affected, the financial and administrative consequences could be significant. CPA Australia, a professional accounting body, has estimated that the professional advice required for trust owners to determine how to respond to the proposals could cost the country between $2 billion and $2.8 billion. The government's own estimates identify substantial one-off implementation costs and additional ongoing compliance costs. These are not insignificant figures. Every dollar a small business spends navigating complicated tax arrangements is a dollar that cannot be invested in new equipment, innovation, hiring staff or growing the business.

I've heard directly from constituents in Mackellar who are deeply concerned about these changes. One constituent is a co-founder of a technology startup established in 2024. They left full-time employment to pursue their business and invested considerable money in professional advice to establish a discretionary family trust to hold their startup shares. They did so for legitimate reasons, including asset protection, managing the uncertainty of income during the early stages of building a business and providing flexibility for their family's future. They were taking a significant personal and financial risk to create something new. This is precisely the kind of entrepreneurial activity we should be encouraging here in Australia. We need more people willing to start businesses, commercialise ideas, develop new technologies and create the jobs of the future. But these reforms raise uncertainty for founders who have organised their affairs in good faith under longstanding tax arrangements.

Discretionary trusts are not exclusively vehicles for the wealthy. They are also widely used by everyday Australians, family businesses and startup founders to provide asset protection, manage changing family circumstances and support business succession. Another constituent from Mackellar has shared the experience of their single-income family, which operates two discretionary trusts. The family wanted to protect assets for their two daughters and future generations, particularly in the event of relationship breakdowns, and, with modest superannuation savings and no expectation of qualifying for the age pension, they were seeking to provide for their own retirement and reduce their future reliance on government support. Importantly, this constituent points to the higher income tax burden they face as a single-income household compared with a dual-income household earning the same combined income. For this family, the proposed changes feel like the goalposts are being moved after years of prudent financial planning.

Their concerns go well beyond the tax rate itself. Restructuring out of a discretionary trust could mean losing the asset protection arrangements they deliberately established for their children. It could also require the consent of their bank to transfer existing finance to a new legal entity, consent that lenders are under no obligation to provide. This constituent's experience raises an important question: how do we ensure that reforms aimed at preventing tax avoidance do not penalise families who have worked hard, lived within their means and made responsible financial decisions to provide for their children and their retirement? These are precisely the kinds of unintended consequences that we cannot ignore.

One of my particular concerns is the practical operation of the excluded election trust regime. On paper, this provides a way for trusts to avoid the 30 per cent minimum tax without having to restructure, but, for family businesses, fixing distribution proportions can create real difficulties. Families are not static. Children grow up and become involved in a business. Grandchildren are born. Relationships change. People experience illness, disability, divorce or bereavement. An arrangement that makes sense for a family in 2028 may no longer be appropriate in 2035. Professional bodies have raised concerns that revoking an election or changing beneficiary proportions outside the permitted rules could expose the trust's income to taxation at the highest marginal rate. That creates a potentially severe consequence for what may simply be a genuine change in family circumstances.

A second concern is restructuring. The Commonwealth has provided capital gains tax rollover relief, but the Commonwealth does not control state and territory stamp duties. A business transferring assets into a new structure may still face substantial transfer duty liabilities, thus making restructuring not commercially viable. Businesses and families are being asked to make complex, potentially irreversible decisions without having the full set of rules in front of them.

We also need greater transparency and independent assessment about the cumulative impact of government policy on small businesses. Government policy decisions that introduce tax, regulatory and reporting measures like the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax on these trusts are too often assessed individually without adequately considering their cumulative impact on small businesses. Added to this, the existing impact analysis framework does not require dedicated, independent small-business impact statements for all major policy decisions across portfolios. We must mandate publicly available small-business impact statements for all major policy decisions materially affecting small businesses, prepared or independently assessed by a strengthened and adequately resourced Office of Impact Analysis. Ministers must be required to publicly explain how small-business impacts have been addressed and, importantly, what measures have been taken to minimise regulatory and compliance burdens on small business. They are simply drowning under red tape already. I will move an amendment, circulated in my name, to this effect.

I want to finish by returning to the principle of fairness. It is fair to expect wealthy Australians to pay their fair share of tax, but it is also fair to expect that people who have built businesses, invested their hardworking savings and taken commercial risks should not be exposed to disproportionate costs and uncertainty. We need a tax system that rewards enterprise, encourages investment and supports innovation. We need more startups, more successful family businesses and more Australian owned companies growing and employing Australians, and we need to make sure our pursuit of tax integrity does not undermine those objectives. The real-world consequences of this legislation for hardworking families and small businesses present a real risk. That's why I won't be supporting the bills today in their current form, but I encourage the House to support the amendment circulated in my name. I move:

That the following words be added after paragraph (2) (c):

(a) small and family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy, supporting employment, investment, innovation and local communities;

(b) small businesses face growing cost pressures from the cumulative impact of taxation, reporting and regulation across government portfolios;

(c) government policy decisions, like the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts, are too often assessed individually, without adequately considering their cumulative impact on small businesses; and

(d) the existing Impact Analysis Framework does not require dedicated, independent Small Business Impact Statements for all major policy decisions across portfolios; and

(4) calls on the Government to:

(a) mandate publicly available Small Business Impact Statements for all major policy decisions materially affecting small businesses, prepared or independently assessed by a strengthened and adequately resourced Office of Impact Analysis; and

(b) require ministers to publicly explain how small business impacts have been addressed and what measures have been taken to minimise regulatory and compliance burdens".

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Let's be really clear. This bill—or three bills combined, because this government are not only gagging debate but combining multiple issues—is a betrayal of the Australian people. Every Labor member that votes for this bill, which they'll be forced to do, will have broken their word to their communities, because they did not take these changes to the last election, so their communities can no longer trust anything that any Labor member says.

You can always tell when they're uncomfortable with changes and they're forced to follow orders from the Prime Minister and this hapless treasurer, because we only had, out of 94 members, seven backbenchers speak on this legislation. Six had to sort of try and defend it and defend the undefendable, but the member for Chifley was also on that list. He wasn't as complimentary as his six colleagues that decided to try and defend the undefendable. He was very critical. Although I will give the member for Chifley credit, he technically—and I don't want a verbal him—did not criticise the Treasurer or the Minister for Finance or the Prime Minister at all, but he was very critical of the RDTI changes, and he was very critical of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance, so I will be fair to the member for Chifley.

Although everyone in this House knows that a good minister runs their department, they don't get run by the department. Given the member for Chifley was criticising the Department of the Treasury, I'll let everyone decide whether the Treasurer is getting run by his department or he is running the department. Either way, clearly, the member for Chifley was right to criticise these R&D tax incentive changes, and he knows that this treasurer is not up to it, and this treasurer's decisions are hurting the Australian people. They're hurting Australian businesses today, and they will hurt the Australian people into the future.

Let me explain why these research development tax incentive changes are so damaging. There's an admission actually, I should say, from the Treasurer, because the Treasurer said he's going to consult on these RDTI changes for the next six months, so he broke his word at the budget, but then said he would consult. He's now rushed through more legislation, and so we're now going to have consultation on the consultation on the broken promise on another broken promise. What a disaster from this Treasurer who is so far out of his depth.

This is actually a serious discussion, when it comes to the RDTI, because, particularly for medtech and biotech companies, they rely on that funding to become viable. Let me share the story of one company that I've spoken to, but this could be many biotech companies. Let's be clear at 15 years for a medtech-biotech company, you lose access to the RDTI, but this company is 17 years old. It is currently in the middle of a $40 million stage 3 trial. These changes will cost this company $4 million to $5 million in cash flow, and this company is not profitable. That's why they still qualify under this refundable method today. For this company to continue these trials, they will need capital. They will need to go out to the market to get capital to continue to invest in a product that will save lives here in Australia. However, that journey has just got harder as well, because now, when people and investors are looking to invest in this company, they have to allow for this government clawing 47 per cent of that capital gain back through taxes, so it is a double hit for this business. This business is looking to solve a health challenge that is on the national health priority list for our country. This is a business that has invested in advanced manufacturing in Australia to make sure they can do the stage 3 trial and that would continue to invest in Australia. But this business and every medtech and biotech company in our country is now having to have the discussion about whether they will continue to invest in Australia or look to move offshore. Any company, particularly one that's not profitable, that's losing $4 million to $5 million in revenue, would be negligent if they didn't explore other opportunities. The Treasurer, as he always does, talked about consultation. Well, consultation's only valuable, Treasurer, if you listen and you actually make a change. If it's fake consultation where nothing changes, what's the point of it?

What has AusBiotech CEO Rebekah Cassidy said today about these changes? She said capping R&DTI refund eligibility at 15 years 'remains unrealistic'. She said:

Therapies for complex diseases can take well in excess of 15 years to research and develop due to the intensive nature of R&D and clinical trials required. When these companies stay in Australia, they can invest in advanced manufacturing to support their late-stage trials.

Australia has long wanted these late-stage clinical trials and advanced manufacturing to happen onshore.

She said they are concerned that:

If the legislation is passed in its current form, the new 15-year time limit risks encouraging early-stage research in Australia while pushing more later-stage R&D including clinical trials and associated manufacturing activities offshore.

That's the AusBiotech CEO confirming that these changes will make it harder for late-stage clinical trials and advanced manufacturing in our country.

Kate Cornick, who is the chief executive of the Tech Council, is also concerned. To be clear, it's a 15-year time cliff for medtech and biotech. It's 10 years for any other business. Kate Cornick said:

… the removal of supporting R&D and introduction of a general 10-year age limit on refundable offsets remained serious problems for tech firms.

That's the Tech Council representing start-ups across this country.

The Treasurer had the gall to stand up in question time and talk about how he's consulted on these changes. Well, two of the largest industry bodies representing start-ups in this country and biotech medical companies that are literally solving cancers have criticised these changes and said they shouldn't happen. But those on the other side say: 'We don't care about you. We're going to follow this Treasurer off a cliff.'

These R&D tax incentives will hurt Australia today and they will hurt our country in five years, in 10 years and for generations to come. It is a disgrace that this Treasurer has broken his word and is pretending that these changes are going to help innovation. He either doesn't understand what he is doing or is deliberately misleading the Australian people. Either way, it is unacceptable for a Treasurer to be so far out of his depth that the impact will be felt for generations to come.

I'll move to another issue when it comes to this Treasurer and broken promises—trusts. We hear the rhetoric from the Treasurer about how this is about wealthy people. It's about their ideology of targeting the one per cent. Let's be clear. If you're in the top one per cent and you're using trusts, as soon as these laws come in, you'll have the means and ability to restructure and change to minimise tax no matter what. But who this is going to impact the most is small businesses and family businesses that have set up trusts to protect their personal assets. It will be tradies and cafe owners in Casey. All across the country, small business will cop it in the neck again.

Let me read a letter from a constituent, a business owner. I could read hundreds of these, but, again, this government's gagged debate, so I can't read them all. They said: 'Over the years we've experienced multiple builders going into liquidation and consequently have had to borrow against our house to keep meeting our business commitments. Even when money does not come in, wages, suppliers, superannuation and tax still must be paid. I find it upsetting and frustrating when discussion in parliament and in the media portrays families using trusts as wealthy people trying to avoid paying their fair share of tax. This does not reflect our experience. Our trust structure is not solely about tax. It also forms part of how we manage business risk and seek to protect our family's assets and financial security. After more than 20 years building the business, protecting what we have worked for matters to us, particularly given the financial exposure we carry.' That could have been from thousands of my community. I'm sure it's the same for you, Deputy Speaker Boyce.

This government doesn't understand and doesn't care about the small and family businesses of our country that are wanting to have a go, get ahead and support their communities but want to make sure that, if it goes wrong, their personal assets—their house and a little bit for the future and for their children—are actually protected. This is a government that has never understood, and doesn't seek to understand, small business. That's why the coalition has been really clear. We will repeal these taxes and support the Australian people. Not only will we do that; we will back every Australian through our tax-back guarantee. That means, every time you get a pay rise, you don't have to pay more tax. What happens with inflation is your business wants to give you that pay rise because everything's more expensive. That puts you into a higher tax bracket, and then you automatically pay more tax when you go into the higher tax bracket.

That's the secret of this treasurer. It's why the Treasurer promises a tax cut in a budget and then actually delivers it into your bank account the next year—12 to 18 months later. It's because, by the time he's given you that tax cut, you've already paid for it four times over through increased income tax. But indexing the brackets means that, when inflation goes up, the bracket will go up, and you will stay on the same tax rate. That will give you, on average, $250 in year 1, $500 in year 2, $750 in year 3 and a thousand dollars in year 4. It will grow to $1,250 in year 5 et cetera—real reform and real tax relief for the Australian people.

If those opposite want to talk about how they want to support the Australian people, why won't they support the tax-back guarantee? The reason they won't is that the Treasurer relies on you paying more income tax so he can get ahead and spend it on wasteful ideas. This government doesn't get it, and small-business owners know it. A small-business owner spoke to me. He offered me the Albanese coffee. The Albanese coffee was an interesting coffee, Member for Bowman. It was offered at $25 because everything is so much more expensive and he's got taxes to pay.

Must be a big coffee.

No, it's just a regular-sized coffee, but there's a trick to this coffee that this small-business owner offered me for $25. When you actually get it, there's 47 per cent missing. That 47 per cent is missing because the Prime Minister has already taken it. I ordered the Albanese coffee. It's a long-black coffee—very bitter, with no style at all and 47 per cent missing. Then, when you actually get it, it's a tea. It's an Earl Grey tea. It doesn't even deliver on what it promised. I'll tell you what, I couldn't have thought of a better description from this small-business owner because the Australian people have worked out this prime minister.

This is a prime minister that will say one thing and then do the complete opposite—whether it's promising to reduce your power bills by $275 and not delivering on it, promising to not change the capital gains tax and changing it or promising not to change trusts and changing it. This is a prime minister that has so much disrespect and contempt for the Australian people he will deny what we can see with our own eyes. He will fall off a stage, with video evidence of it, and say it didn't happen. He will disrespect the Prime Minister of Japan and will say it didn't happen. He will mislead this parliament when it comes to the Marrickville Golf Club, and he will say, 'I'm sorry,' after three tortured questions and pretend it didn't happen.

That is the reality for the Australian people. What you say matters, what you do matters and it ends up in tax changes that you didn't think were coming. The reality for the Australian people is that, in 18 months time, when the next election is here, it will be irrelevant what this prime minister and this government says. It does not matter what they say or what they promise will happen, because you cannot trust a word that they say. This is a prime minister that said, 'My word is my bond,' and has continued to mislead the Australian people, break his promises and show Australians—good luck. You have no idea what you're going to get with this prime minister at all.

I really don't know where to start with this, because there's quite a quantum of material and a very short time, 15 minutes, to discuss it. The prospective prime minister of Australia at the last election—when you give a warrant that you are not going to do something, you should stick to your word. It is fundamental to people and business. 'If I can't trust you, I don't deal with you.' As you grow up, that's probably one of the fundamental laws your father will teach you. If you don't trust someone, don't go into business with them. You'll always end up in tears. And this government went to the last election saying they weren't going to do precisely what we're about to vote on.

As an accountant, this causes all sorts of problems. Accountants have this desire to trust the government and to trust what they say, and when people pay us fees we give them the best advice we can in the belief that the government keeps their word. We don't particularly want to make money because the government, in an erratic and dishonest way, changes what they had given a warrant that they would not do. Our job as accountants is to minimise your tax. That is what you're paid to do. You would be an accountant in a job for a very, very short time if you said, 'What I'm going to do today for you, Mr and Mrs Smith, is make you pay as much tax as I possibly can.' They expect you to understand the tax law and, as you apply it, to try and minimise the tax. As Kerry Packer said, 'I've seen how you spend it down here, and I don't intend to give you any more.'

Let's go through a couple of things here. You set up a discretionary trust. 'Discretionary' means that you have the capacity, at the discretion of the trustee, to distribute the money to those who need it or in the most appropriate way to minimise tax. That's been in place for a long while. Then you have a bucket company at the end, and if there's anything left over you put it into the bucket company. This is not evil. Australia has some of the highest tax rates around, so it would make sense to try and mitigate that. Australia does not have the tax rates of Singapore or of the United States. We have a very high tax rate. So, especially in a discretionary trust, when you have a number of family members in a business, then you have the discretion to give it to those people in that family business in a form—as they're all part of the business and all beneficiaries of the business, they'll pay tax—that's most effective. I do note that farming sections have been noted in here as not being in it. But I have a concern, because yet again that's a warrant, and I can't trust warrants.

I want to go through the two issues that really concern me. These changes that the government has brought about have really hurt small business. I had a group of small-business people from the western suburbs of Sydney over in the Senate side of the building, in a committee room, the other day. They are furious. They are working to try and get ahead. They have staff. They don't really take home much. They invest back into their business. They've set up a trust, and now it has been changed. Not only that; they have to pay a tax rate that is far in excess of what they were paying before. These are people who, when they go well, employ more people. That is what a government is supposed to do.

But it's not only that; we have this noxious position that if—I'll give you a business that I was talking to. It was a husband-and-wife boilermaker in the mining industry—I know you're very aware of that—in the Hunter Valley. They started providing mining parts. He would fit them. He was fitter. He would go out and fit him. She would wrap them. They worked in their backyard. They started in the garden shed. It's tradesperson and his wife. That is a typical form of business in so many areas. They both, at the start of their career, work for nothing. They work for nothing. They just work to cover the costs. They start small. Then it starts to grow. The mine realises—the evil coal mines! Oh, don't we hate the evil coal mines! The evil coal mines that support so much of Australia start to say, 'Well, these people are good at their job.' They start getting repeat business, and then they get bigger and bigger and bigger. Next minute, they've got 10 employees, then they've got 20, 30, 40 employees.

I went to this business and talked to them. By the time I got there, they had a chief financial officer. He looks pretty flash. He reminded me of my previous jobs in cost accounting. I said, 'Who owns the business?' and he pointed to a person I thought was just a regular worker at the back. He was sitting at the back of the room amongst all the other labourers, blue-collar workers. There are none of them any more over there on that side; they're all gone. Now, if he sells that business under this law, the Treasurer of Australia, on behalf of the worst management we've ever seen, takes 47 per cent of their winnings. They took all the risks, and Jim, the Treasurer, takes the money. That's a very bad deal. That is a very bad deal because, if they'd gone broke, they weren't going to be paid 47 per cent. They'd just lose their shirt, lose their house and probably lose their marriage. That's the pressure, and that's the reality. That's how it works.

The success of this crazy policy is—you'll see it in the housing market. The housing market in some areas, especially in the cities, is getting smashed. But does that mean that people—people rent. People rent because they can't afford a house. That's why they rent. What's happening now, perversely, is that the housing stock that's there is going down, and people who are renting are still renting, but it's becoming harder. So what the investor does, because they don't—there's another section. They don't have negative gearing. Guess how they make up for it. They put up the rents. They put up the rents to cover their loss. It's just crazy.

I just want to go to another thing. They're saying, 'For entrepreneurial areas, we're going to have an exemption, so you can get a form of capital gains tax exemption.' I'm going to give you an example. I declare I have an interest in this. In my area, we had—in the past it was a big tin-mining area. Tin was once worth a lot of money, then it went into a glut, and it fell out of favour and disappeared. Now, because of all the electronics and data centres and other things coming back in, it's actually starting to kick along a bit. It's starting to kick off. We have an opportunity in a place called Emmaville, around Glen Innes, to employ 300 people at a company called First Tin. It's in my electorate. I have an interest in it. I do have shares. I have declared it. I have shares in it. Here's the perverse thing: if this is going to invest in an Australian mining precinct—it's a foreign company, but I can buy shares in it. If I were from England, my capital gains tax, if those shares make money, would be 18c on the dollar. If I were a larger taxpayer, I think would be 24c. Don't quote me on that. It would be about there. If I were from New Zealand, it would be zero. But, if I'm an Australian investing in Australia and I sell my shares—guess what. It's 47c. So guess what happens. The foreigners invest in Australia, and the Australians don't. Can't they see this? This is like a big sign that says, 'We want foreign ownership.' That's what you'll get.

Now I'll go back to the accountancy side of me. I've got someone walking down out in western Queensland.

You trip over—whoops! Oh my gosh, you just found gold. You just found gold, and you think, 'Hang on, I might have a crack at this.' I would be advising you not to. I would say, first of all, the regulatory burden you're about to take on will make it near impossible for you to get ahead, and you're going to take a huge risk, and you might come unstuck. The overburden might be too much. You might come unstuck, and you'll do your shirt, and there's just no point doing it if they're going to take 47 per cent at the end. Who would go to the races and say, 'If I win, they take 47 per cent off me.' I just won't go to the races. There's no point. The odds are ridiculous.

What happens then is the people who are willing to invest, to take risk and to develop Australia don't do so. They don't take the risk. What you're likely to do—and this is not financial advice, for all those watching you or not. What I'm giving you now is not financial advice. You should go and see your registered financial planner and get proper advice. But what I might do is say, 'I can either take risk in that new mining precinct or take risk in that business, and, if I lose, I just lose my shirt, and, if I win, the Treasurer takes 47 per cent,' or I just go and invest in the National Australia Bank or BHP. I get my dividend from retained earnings and I get my franking credit, and there you go. It's a no-brainer. Go into the established business that's making a profit. Get the dividend, get your franking credit—you're alright! But that means we become a dumb country. We literally pop the balloon of entrepreneurial flair, and we say to the people, 'If you are willing to take the risk, we're going to kick you,' in a figurative way.

How do people get around this, if they think, 'No, I still want to have a crack at Australia. I still think it's worth it. I love the place'? They do two things: either they don't, or they move overseas. All of a sudden, you go to a party, and you're talking to people, and they all seem to have Australian accents, but they tell you that they're living in Singapore, apparently, or New Zealand. The ones that are doing well live in Monaco, because they've moved out of here, because our tax rate is crazy, and the price of taking risk is insane. If you go to London and set up, you can invest back in Australia as a pom and get a vastly better tax rate than if you were an Australian investing in Australia. Riddle me that. How do we get something so perverse? Because don't have people on the front bench of the government who have been in business.

In fact, in the Labor Party on the front bench, we don't have any labourers. Why that's important is you get a sense of common sense in people being outside, working in the sun, getting skin cancers, having hands that actually look like they've done manual work. They're less likely to get carried away with the garbage. Look at the savings in this—I don't know what it's about. I pointed out today during question time, if you want a saving, I'll give you a big one—$8.7 billion a year on the climate change department. That is something, in a few years time, they'll say about Australia, 'This is for real. I'm not joking. Australia used to have a whole department to change the climate. It really did. They invested $8.7 billion a year to change the climate,' and people say, 'Oh, that's crazy,' and he says, 'No, it's true. It's true. It's really happened. They were completely off their head,' and they will say, 'Did it change climate?' Of course not. Of course it didn't. It's just that's what happens when you've got ex-student unionists with a chip on their shoulder. Those are the sort of crazy policies you get up—climate change department and $8.7 billion.

And why that's important is—they're doing all this garbage because they've run out of dough. They run out of money, and they're desperately trying to work out—oh gosh, panic, panic, panic bills are rolling over. We're at HAFF per cent now, a bit over five per cent. Got to find money, need money, and the Treasurer was going, 'Where's the money?' It's in super funds, $4.5 trillion in super funds, so we'll tax them. We'll start a little bit and then we'll go—where else can we find money? Other family businesses, those outrageous people in commerce making the sacrifices—tax them when they sell. Tax them. What about houses? 'Oh, people put aside a bit of money and buy an investment house. We'll tax them.' They said, 'Hang on, why don't you just get rid of your climate change department?' 'Oh no, no, no, we can't do that, because that's enlightened. We can waste money on 5,700 employees in the climate change department.' What? I don't know what the hell they do down there. I should go and have a look. I suppose they're busily at their desk changing the clouds. But this goes to show the perverse nature and the confusion of this government. In the Intergenerational report, it says you're going to have 40 years of deficits in front of you. You're over $1 trillion in debt. One trillion seconds is 31,700 years. If you get this wrong, if you don't get your economic act together, you are going to go broke.

I'm rising to speak on the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026. The changes outlined in schedules 1 to 3 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, which introduce a minimum tax on discretionary trust income, are significant. Indeed, they are a significant departure from the beneficiary taxation principles that have been in place for 90 years. These proposed changes are technical and complex. I note, with disappointment and at the risk of repeating myself, that we are once again not being offered the opportunity to review the outcome of that inquiry before debating the bills.

I want to talk about these discretionary trusts. I've heard from many small businesses in Bradfield that will be impacted and who rightly use discretionary trusts for fair dinkum purposes—family and commercial arrangements, quarantining investment risks, asset protection and succession planning, not to mention estate planning, about which some concerns and confusion remain. Treasury estimates that the additional regulatory compliance burden will be material, around $141 million per annum. While not all of this will be borne by those needing to restructure, it is an acknowledgement of the additional complexity being introduced in the tax system as a result of these bills. Rollover relief across an extended period to 30 June 2030 is therefore welcomed. However, this relief only applies to a small subset of potential costs and does not provide for the state and territory stamp duty that may be incurred in transferring real assets nor the cost of professional services and other advice that trustees will be required to seek to understand their restructuring options and what's required of them. One Bradfield small-business owner told me that she will be forced to close her business as a result of these changes. I think it's reasonable to expect that the federal government will work hard to negotiate with the states to introduce stamp duty exemptions for these businesses, and I'm going to continue to press them to do so.

In addition, despite the deliberate intention of these reforms being to, in effect, force taxpayers to migrate from one structure to another, any tax losses accrued in the original trust structure will be potentially stranded. This is a substantive economic cost being imposed on taxpayers who are only restructuring because government has made a midterm policy change. This is a question I'm being asked all the time. Surely the government could have worked to create a statutory mechanism to preserve tax losses during a government induced restructure. This is among many of the questions that my constituents have raised with me in relation to these bills. I think it points to a need for greater transparency from the government on other key issues also raised with me, such as the source of the $4.5 billion additional revenue allegedly generated from these changes, how much is going to come from income splitting and whether some of these arise because tax losses become stranded or unusable. Also, more transparency is needed about how the government settled on a flat rate of 30 per cent. While this aligns with the marginal rate that the average taxpayer pays, it's difficult to otherwise reconcile it to the average taxable income or the average tax paid.

There is another part of the bill that I would like to speak to as well, and that's the clarification of negative gearing exemptions for social and affordable housing. The bill defines affordable housing in line with the Income Tax Assessment Act, but the definition could be improved and made consistent across the country. My campaign for a nationally consistent definition of affordable housing is ongoing, and I introduced a private member's bill into the House last month to create exactly that. It sets affordable housing rent at the lower of 75 per cent of market rent and 30 per cent of household income for lower household incomes. The Treasurer has said that he agrees we need a consistent definition, and this bill is an opportunity to progress that agenda.

Today we're also being asked to debate another large tax bill, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026, at the same time as the other two bills. I don't support lumping these together. I believe it dilutes the quality of parliamentary debate, but I have some remarks to make on this bill. I support the fact that the government is proposing to provide exemptions for CGT changes for innovative start-ups, as I've consistently called for since the tax changes were announced in the budget in May. I acknowledge the member for Wentworth has put forward different, cleaner proposals, and I support the fact that the government is considering these and hopefully doing something about this issue. The bill also makes changes to the research and development tax incentive. Previous reviews of the R&D tax incentive have found that the scheme has fallen short of its objectives of encouraging additional R&D and generating wider economic spill-overs. That's why I support the direction of these parts of the reforms, which seek to better target assistance towards core experimental research and provide stronger incentives for businesses undertaking genuinely innovative work. These are worthwhile reforms that respond to an important part of Australia's innovation challenge. However, one of the changes is the 15-year refundable offset for biotechnology and medical technology firms, which in my view is just not fit for purpose. Many medical technologies take much longer than 15 years to reach market, and that means the cut-off will come often during costly late-stage clinical trials, just when we need to be offering them support. We have biotech firms based in Bradfield, and I'm calling on the government to support the member for Curtin's amendment to this bill. Remove the 15-year age limit on the offsets for companies in this sector.

These changes also sit within a larger challenge that cannot be addressed through the tax system alone. Australia's total investment in R&D is now just 1.69 per cent of GDP against an OECD average of 2.72 per cent, and the Australian Academy of Science has described recent measures in the budget as useful whilst warning that they will not on their own reverse Australia's long-term research underinvestment. At a time when artificial intelligence, biotechnology, clean energy and other critical technologies are becoming central to our economic prosperity and national resilience, we cannot afford to allow Australians and their research capabilities and the talented people who sustain it to fall behind. So, while I support the direction of these particular changes, I encourage the government to see them as part of a broader national task—lifting Australia's research ambition, retaining and attracting talented scientists and ensuring that the technologies and industries that will shape our future are not simply invented elsewhere and imported here.

Finally, this bill implements the government's commitment earlier this year to phase out the fringe benefit tax exemption on EVs. As I said when they made this announcement, I think it's disappointing that, in the middle of a fuel crisis when every electric car on the road represents diesel and petrol that they don't have to import, the government should choose to roll this successful initiative back. We absolutely need to be prudent with how government funds are invested, but right now I think is not the time to wind this back. I think it's good that they aren't removing it entirely. EV sales are taking off around the country, and we should still be doing everything we can in our power to electrify our transport systems as fast as we can whilst this fuel crisis continues. These bills are far from good. They might in some places have good meaningful intent or not, but I hope by the time it comes back to this place that many of the crossbench amendments that have been made are considered and adopted—those from Wentworth, from Curtin and indeed from Mackellar. Without these changes, this is going to be a bunch of bills that will be tricky to support.

ADJOURNMENT Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

Today the House passed the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, and I am so pleased that it did. I have called for a digital duty of care for a long time, particularly for Australians to have a real choice over the algorithms that decide what we see, because at the heart of so many harms we see online is an algorithm. These platforms are profiting from our attention. Every feature, from endless scroll and autoplay to constant notifications and like counts, is designed to keep us scrolling, and the algorithm learns exactly what keeps each of us individually hooked. Too often, what keeps us hooked is what makes us angry. A 2021 study of 2.7 million posts on Facebook and Twitter found that every additional word attacking the political 'other side' raised the odds of a post being shared by 67 per cent. Outrage is not a bug in these systems; it is a feature.

The consequences are real. In his annual threat assessment in June, ASIO director-general Mike Burgess warned that social media is fuelling Australia's rising terrorist threat—a terrorist threat that my community in Wentworth, in Bondi, has experienced directly—and that algorithms can take someone from non-violent content to ISIS propaganda with only a few clicks. Fewer than 17 per cent of the minors ASIO investigated were born overseas. These are Australian kids being radicalised in Australian bedrooms. ASIO's evidence is that just 10 minutes engaging with incel material can lead algorithms to recommend increasingly violent, misogynistic content. Dublin City University researchers found accounts set up to mimic teenage boys were served antifeminist content within 23 minutes. University of Melbourne research found misogynistic attitudes were the strongest predictor of support for violent extremism, with 19 per cent of 18- to 29-year-olds agreeing that violence could be legitimate to 'resist feminism'.

At a time of national crisis in domestic and family violence, we cannot ignore a machine feeding young men a steady diet of contempt for women. That is why I've championed Teach Us Consent's Fix Our Feeds campaign since the end of last year. Its ask is simple: put the choice back in the hands of the users. Each of us should be able to decide whether we want the algorithm, a feed of people we know, or something depersonalised. Some people want to switch off the algorithm for good. Others just want a break. Either way, the choice should be theirs, and I am proud that this choice is now part of the digital duty of care. I want to thank Chanel Contos and the team at Teach Us Consent, whose advocacy has been monumental, and the parents, young people and experts who told me over and over how harmful these algorithms can be.

I also want to be clear about what the bill is not. It is not a misinformation law. I voted against the mis- and disinformation laws that were brought in before, so I should know, because I take this very seriously. It does not ask the government or the platforms to decide what is true. It does not give the government power to censor anyone. It is for the parliament, not a minister, to decide any new category of harm. This is, first and foremost, a safety bill. If anything, it hands power back to the users from a handful of global companies that have had far too much power over us for far too long.

There is more to do. I will keep on pushing for an external dispute resolution scheme, stronger penalties, a right to redress and tools that are easy to find and easy to use. But today is a significant step. If you build it and you profit from it, you are responsible for making it safe. That is what it's like in a building, that is what it's like in clothing, that is what it's like in food, and that's what it should be like in social media as well. For the first time, Australians will have a real say over their feeds, and I think this is a good thing.

Citizenship, Werriwa Electorate: Community Events

As often as I can, I attend citizenship ceremonies. They are always balm for the soul. The last one I attended was a case in point. I was part of a ceremony that welcomed new Australians from over 70 countries, from the four corners of the globe. Every single conferee's path was different. Some brought their unique skills to enhance our workplaces, some followed partners for love, while some followed a much more difficult and treacherous path, but all of those at the ceremony have chosen to stay here in Australia and build their lives in our wonderful country. Whatever their stories and whatever their pathways, these new Australians now enhance us. I want to thank each of them for their commitment and their courage.

Since becoming the member for Werriwa. I've learnt so much about different cultures and traditions. Without exception, they are built on love and respect, and this is mirrored in the different events that I attend throughout the year. So it is those events that I'd like to talk about tonight.

Recently, along with my state colleague Anoulack Chanthivong, I attended the 80th anniversary of Hume Region Scouts. The Hume region is large and covers all areas from Concord to Bundanoon. It consists of 28 groups and has approximately 1,200 members. Over its 80-year history it has seen countless volunteers and young people learn so much about themselves, in addition to learning new skills to make them great leaders. The 80-year celebration dinner was a wonderful night, and I commend the organisers and volunteers that made it possible.

Much earlier in the year I attended the induction of the new Anglican rector at Liverpool South Anglican Church. Faith is essential to many in my community, and in any given week I can attend a mosque, a temple, a hall or a church. In the case of the Liverpool South Anglican Church it was deja vu for me, because this is the church where my children were baptised a couple of decades ago. The evening was conducted by the local bishop and was attended by a number of local clergy and many of the new reverend's friends. The night, of course, had its formal aspects, but it was overwhelmingly characterised by joy, happiness and a sense of fellowship.

A month ago I attended another religious event, this time in the Buddhist tradition. The occasion was the ancestral ceremony at Rossmore, organised by the Khmer Krom and Australian Buddhist Association of NSW. Buddhism is one of the fastest growing faiths and in Australia it dates back to the gold rush, so it's hardly new. South-west Sydney is home to many Buddhists, especially because of the large-scale immigration from South-East Asia in the 1970s. I have many friends within the local Buddhist community, and my visits to their temples are always a highlight and a source of delight and happiness.

Having outlined my visits to local Christian and Buddhist events, let me complete the journey of faith by outlining my recent visit to Amity College to celebrate their 30th anniversary. Amity College is established in the Islamic tradition and has been a school providing quality education in my electorate for 30 years. The school began with just 32 children in 1996. Now it operates across four sites with over 4,000 students. The growth and success of Amity over the decades has been the result of hard work and dedication, and I'm proud to support it, as it provides opportunities for young people to reach their full potential.

I have also attended an event organised by the Visayan Association of Australia and the Philippine Community Council of NSW. It was a commemoration at All Saints church, Liverpool, of the 82nd landing at Leyte Gulf and the liberation of the Philippines. Diplomatic, economic, trade and cultural ties between the Philippines and Australia have never been stronger, and in modern contexts can be traced back to the World War II.

Time doesn't really permit me to go much further with all of the other events in my electorate, but it is wonderful to have people from all over the globe be part of events, show our community such kindness, give blood and make sure that they are part of our vibrant community. It is a wonderful place to call home.

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

Earlier today a bill, the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, passed through this chamber, and it's a contested bill. It's a complex bill. The complexity is indicated by the fact that there were attempts to rush through last minute amendments. The bill addresses some very complex issues about freedom of speech and about what will work in relation to social media, and there are many competing views in the community on not only this bill but this issue.

Many people who represent electorates around Australia did not get the opportunity to debate this bill because the government gagged it. It's really disappointing when a government that has the numbers to get anything it wants through this House wants to stop transparency and stop debate about a contested issue. Effectively, what the government has done is say, in my case and I'm sure in the case of—I don't know whether the member for Parkes spoke on it.

No, I didn't get a chance.

I'm the member for Nicholls, and the government has disenfranchised the 110,000 voters who sent me to this place to speak about these issues. Not all of them will agree with me and not all of them will agree with the government, but democracy relies on us having these discussions. That's the first point.

The second point is that I can see a number of sides of this debate. It's a question about the balance of freedom of speech, the powers of a minister and what will work in relation to something we all want to see—the protection of children from online harm. But the tone of the debate from some of the government speakers was, I would say, incredibly disappointing. It was the member for Cowper who put it best in his contribution; he was one of the members on this side who got to speak on the bill. The member for Cowper was, in a previous life, a police officer and a detective who had to investigate some of this horrific child abuse material and harm. He didn't agree that this bill was the right way to go about it. He didn't think this bill was going to work—and I agree with him. He agrees with me that there are 17 codes that this bill removes that it would have been better to build on to get the outcome that we wanted, which is the protection of children. But, as the member for Cowper observed, the tone of the debate from some of the government speakers—not all but some of them, including very senior ones—was, 'If you don't support this bill, you don't support protecting children from online harm.'

That's wrong.

The member for Parkes is right; that's wrong. I'm going to quote the member for Cowper; he said it 'exposes the filthy underbelly of partisan politics'. He was very moved by this because of what he's done in his life to try and protect children. He didn't agree with this bill, and that's okay. The government's got the right to bring this bill on, but they should have had it debated because it's contested. And the people I represent, and the people the member for Parkes represents, have the right to have their representative speak on such a complex and controversial bill in this place, the people's house. It is the people's house, and if the people are disenfranchised then where are we going with democracy?

In relation to the bill itself, the difficulty that many on this side had—even though we support the intent to protect children from online harm—was that the 17 codes and standards that we felt could have been built upon to better protect children would have been a better way to go than what the government introduced. It gave the minister sweeping powers, which we didn't think was appropriate and we didn't think was going to work. If the government could bring in a bill which deals with the algorithms and criminalises the activity that we all don't want to see, I'd be the first to support it. Bring in something that does that, and I'll be the first to support it; I'll cross the floor if I have to. I don't believe this bill did that, but it's very disappointing that we couldn't come in here and debate it the way it should have been debated in this House.

Banks Electorate: Community Events

Over the brief break between parliamentary sittings, I had the pleasure of attending a number of community events in my great electorate of Banks. I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge some of the amazing groups and leaders this evening.

St George AFC is Southern Sydney's premier AFL club, and their presentation night on Saturday was a fantastic celebration of grassroots sports. The night included a special celebration of Stephen 'Willo' Wilsen, who this year broke the club's record for most games played with his 382nd game over 24 seasons. Like so many sporting clubs, St George AFC is powered by volunteers, and I send my thanks and huge congratulations to the club's president, Angie Zissis, and the vice president, Dale Widders. Congratulations again, Willo, for your huge milestone. I look forward to seeing St George go from strength to strength with their new facility at Olds Park next season in this new Sydney Football League competition.

After a significant period of construction, it was great to attend the reopening of Penshurst Mosque, established by the Australian Islamic Society of Bosnia Herzegovina. The mosque was first built in 1989 by the Australian-Bosnian community and served the needs of that local community for more than 30 years. The new mosque will be a hub for community life, supporting charitable initiatives, hosting cultural celebrations and promoting intercultural understanding. Congratulations to President Sanel Begic and the whole Australian Islamic Society of Bosnia Herzegovina on the fulfilment of a long-held vision for their community.

Over the weekend I also had the privilege of visiting a pair of local organisations who have found practical ways to serve our local community. On Saturday I visited Linda Pritchard and the ladies of Knit2gether, who convene at the Oatley Uniting Church once a month to socialise, knit and crochet, with items donated to local charities and distributed to those in need. They have also sent a package of their thoughtful knitted items to those in need in Ukraine and Nepal. On Sunday, I visited the Revesby Uniting Church for the launch of their rivergum community pantry initiative, which offers free and dignified access to food and essentials for those in need.

Each of the organisations I have spoken about so far is made possible by the efforts of volunteers and the generosity of the local community, and supporting organisations like this is so important. It is why I am so pleased that more than $66,000 in federal grant funding through the volunteer grants program has been awarded to 35 organisations in my electorate of Banks. From the South Hurstville Carss Park Cricket Club to the Beverly Hills North Public School P&C and the East Hills District Men's Shed, organisations all across Banks are receiving support for new equipment to support their operations.

Some examples include St George Little Athletics Centre, which will receive $1,850 for new timing gates at their events; the Blakehurst Public School P&C, who have got a new barbecue and utensils for school events and fundraising; and the Connells Point Sailing Club, which will be able to fund the replacement of sails and rigging for part of their fleet with $2,000. I look forward to seeing what all of these organisations can achieve with this support.

The events in Wangaratta last Monday meant last week was a tough one for many people in this place, but being able to be in my community and support organisations like the ones I've mentioned reaffirms why representing my community is such an incredible privilege and the honour of my professional life. I look forward to being back in my community, speaking to residents and supporting these local organisations.

Inland Rail

Once again, I have heard the desperate pleas of the people this Albanese Labor government have very conveniently left behind. These are the people, the families and the businesses who have heard for the first time this year that the Inland Rail project will not go ahead north of the township of Parkes. This is after years of planning, years of negotiation and years of businesses and farms restructuring. I spoke to a family in the Dubbo region recently who have been in acquisition negotiations with the Australian Rail Track Corporation for years. Since the federal government's Inland Rail announcement in May, there has been nothing. They were left in uncertainty about their future and the future of their property. Many others are in the same boat—landholders on the point of acquisition, businesses who have invested heavily in the project that is now not going ahead and farmers who have already sold. About $100 million in property has already been acquired in my community, in my electorate, north of Parkes.

Then this family and other landholders in negotiations received a letter at the end of September from the Inland Rail that notified them all negotiations had come to an end. I quote from this letter: 'We recognise that this decision is likely disappointing given the time, effort and consideration that you and your families may have invested in the process. We also appreciate the uncertainty that this may create and assure you that this decision has not been made lightly.' The letter then states the Inland Rail understands the news 'may be difficult to receive' and thanks landholders for their engagement. Then it goes on to offer free consultation. This is the end result of a horrible political decision by an Albanese government that shows they are not serious about lifting national productivity and they're only interested in playing political games with regional Australians. Following years of talks and promises with individuals, with families, with farmers, with businesses and with local government who have taken this federal government at their word and invested, planned, moved and sold, there is now nothing—only the offer of free consultation. How is this good government?

This is, of course, only one aspect of the fallout of this disastrous decision. This project has been in the planning since 1998, when a nation-building initiative was proposed to take trucks off the road, to build our freight capacity and to help the progress of our regional towns along the route. That work has been progressing since that time. Throughout my electorate, the New South Wales government have invested multimillions in special activation precincts in towns like Parkes, Moree and Narromine. Local governments have invested millions in infrastructure planning and investment attraction. Businesses have invested multimillions of dollars on plans and built infrastructure. Families have uprooted their lives to work on the project. Whole communities have invested in this as part of their future. Then mid-development and mid-negotiations comes the announcement that the 960-kilometre stretch from Parkes to Brisbane has been axed. Jobs, plans, time and money have all been lost.

More than 3,500 people have signed a petition to rescue our rail. Even the same minister who presided over the decision to axe this part of the Inland Rail described the project last year as 'a really significant project that the Australian government is very proud to be delivering for the Australian people'. Well, this Labor government is certainly not delivering for the Australian people who choose to live in the federal electorate of Parkes. My electorate includes Inland Rail's longest new section of track, from Narromine to Narrabri. This is 306 kilometres of disappointment, financial hardship and uncertainty. In Narrabri, one business built to facilitate the Inland Rail has gone from 85 full-time jobs plus subcontractors to now just 40 full-time staff. Councils from one end of this disaster to the other are trying to make sense of the 10 years of planning investment towards this project that has gone down the drain. I've heard from mayors and general managers across the electorate that the Inland Rail is critical to their income and economic future. This Labor government cannot just leave businesses, councils, landholders and families floundering. (Time expired)

Leichhardt Electorate: Defence

Usually I take the opportunity in the adjournment debate to discuss how great the far north is and how everyone should come and visit and check out the Great Barrier Reef or the Daintree, run up to Cape York or maybe, if you've got the time, enjoy the wonder of Zenadth Kes, the Torres Strait. People from this House often come and visit me as well. In fact, last week the Speaker came with his giant flag. In a week when democracy felt a little bit under siege, it was really great to have the Speaker around with the flag, unfurling it in front of hundreds of kids and having them cheer on our national emblem, want to touch it and be excited about a little piece of Canberra that had come to our town of Cairns—the flag that sits proudly above this great house, the flag that we can see as we come to work every morning, the flag that sits proudly on the shoulders of the men and women who serve our nation.

Cairns has a great history of service. In fact, the president of the RSL sub-branch, Nathan Shingles, was just this week received at Yarralumla. He was stoked to meet the Governor-General and was really proud of his time there and proud of his service. He sent me the photos. I was really happy for him.

On service, the far north is increasingly becoming so very strategically important. The 51st Battalion is legendary right across the north. We've got RAAF Scherger and, of course, the expansion at HMAS Cairns, a $250 million investment that's created around 700 jobs and was delivered on time and on budget. But that's just the beginning, because with the completion of HMAS Cairns come at least two Arafura class offshore patrol vessels, bigger, better and with longer range and more lethality—better for protecting our borders, better for our nation and better for our economy. To have two home-ported in the city of Cairns is an economic opportunity we have not had for decades. For too long, we have been so reliant on our tourism industry. Our tourism industry is absolutely second to none, but it is unfair to rely on it all the time. Bringing defence industry to the regions—bringing the defence industry to the far north, to Cairns, such a strategically important place, with the gateway to the South Pacific and to Asia, and with the Pukpuk Treaty being signed—is critically important, not just globally but locally. It's a vote of confidence in the regions.

It's a vote of confidence, more importantly, in our shipbuilding and manufacturing areas. There are 4,000 people currently employed in our shipyards in Cairns, and over COVID they did not lose one single day of work. When the rest of our economy was absolutely on its knees in the far north, these guys found a way to persevere. They look after the boats from the British navy and the French navy. The Americans are starting to think about it. We've got the South Pacific navies coming through. We have the capability. We have the talent. Now that is being recognised not just locally but on a global scale.

There is opportunity in Cairns. We have the marine engineering college. I would encourage anybody who wants to work with their hands to come north. We are going to have the work for you. The opportunities are going to be there, and you will get to build your home and your life in the most beautiful part of the planet. You'll get to play with some of the most advanced boats on the planet. You'll get to get inside, get your hands dirty and do all of the things that you wanted to do growing up. If you thought working on a car was cool, try working on a warship. My goodness! We need sparkies. We need chippies. We need metalworkers. We need everybody. So, if you've got a trade or if you want a trade, come up to Cairns, because we've got the work and we've got the lifestyle. We've got everything that you could possibly imagine. Homes are being built. There are plenty of great schools and universities for your kids. There are TAFEs—anything that you want. Cairns doesn't have to be just a holiday destination anymore. The far north is where the future is going to be. All roads now lead north. So I encourage everybody. Grab a wagon if you need to. Grab a horse. I do not care. Work your way up. You can stop off in Townsville if you like, but make sure you drive those extra four hours. Arrive in the beautiful Far North Queensland, because we have work for you.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the debate is interrupted.

The House transcript was published up to 20:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 09:31.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Raise Our Voice in Parliament

'What is one big issue shaping our future, and what is a meaningful action you want parliament to take on it?' Earlier this year, Raise Our Voice asked that question to women and gender diverse people under 25 years of age. I'd like to read two responses to the question from two young people in my electorate. First, from Evelyn, aged 11, who argues that our school curriculum should not include artificial intelligence, especially where it impedes the mental health and cybersafety of our students. Evelyn says:

Data shows strong evidence that screens have significant effects on mental and physical health on children. The more they were engaged with screens, the likelier they were to develop socioemotional problems as screens are a coping mechanism, the socioemotional problems that would arise would be anxiety, depression, aggression and hyperactivity, which would lead to a damaged family relationship, behavioural issues, attention and self-esteem challenges.

It is time that our curriculum prioritises student health and cyber security with the same urgency as traditional subjects!

The second response I received was from Iris, who is 13 years old. Iris says:

To combat anti-immigrant sentiment in Australia, it would help to teach a more inclusive history to young Australians, they would be educated in the diverse histories of cultures beyond their own, increasing their empathy and understanding.

Australians need to know about the wrongdoings of the British empire.

They need to learn about other countries histories'; about minorities' histories, such as feminist history, the history of other races and religions, and queer history.

Iris then suggested that parliament could review the curriculum, reconsidering how historical events are taught with an increasing focus on critical thinking for all year groups. She believes this is necessary for the general education and betterment of society. I couldn't agree more. Thank you to both Evelyn and Iris for your youthful responses.

I'd also like to take the remaining time to thank the group of young adults and students from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition action groups who visited me recently. In fact, some are in parliament today with their report to the special rapporteur around climate action and the trust gap between the Australian government's commitment to the Pacific nations around care and climate and continuing to make the problem worse by approving coal and gas. I thank young people for being engaged in their democracy and caring about their issues. Contact your local MPs. Make your voice be heard.

Southern Women's Action Network

Before entering parliament, I worked in community development. That experience shaped my understanding of what it takes to create lasting change. It taught me the strongest solutions are built with and by communities, not delivered to them. Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending the 30-year celebration of SWAN—the Southern Women's Action Network—and its contribution to our community. SWAN is a wonderful example of what happens when women come together with a shared purpose, a strong sense of justice, and a belief that our community can be better. What makes this milestone even more remarkable is that after 30 years SWAN is not simply looking back at what it has achieved; it's more active than ever. Its new book, Where SwansSoar, captures this story beautifully. It recognises the achievements of SWAN, the women behind its work and the importance of community activism. It also reflects the renaissance of SWAN, an organisation that has maintained its original purpose while responding to the changing needs and challenges of our community.

Community activism is never finished. The challenges change, the conversations evolve, and new generations bring new perspectives and energy, but the need for people who are prepared to speak up, challenge injustice and work towards meaningful change remains as important as ever. SWAN has continued to meet these challenges head on. From supporting the rights of First Nations people to raising community awareness about a broad range of justice issues, and taking action to address climate change, homelessness, and gender based violence, SWAN demonstrates what it means to turn a commitment to fairness into practical action. These are not always easy issues to tackle. They require courage, persistence and a willingness to listen to people whose experiences and voices have too often been overlooked. SWAN and its members amplify women's voices and the voices of those not so loud. SWAN ensures women have a seat at the table and have a genuine say in shaping our future. May SWAN and all the members from this amazing community organisation continue to soar for many years to come.

Australian Greens

Picture this: the year is 2035 and the Greens are in government. Don't be alarmed! Patriots are in control. After years of major party failure, voters were fed up with the corporate control of our politics and voted for real change. Let's imagine how that would look. Life could be affordable again. Groceries would be cheaper, with publicly owned supermarkets breaking up the duopoly and introducing some much-needed competition into the supermarket sector. Coles and Woolies would be unable to price-gouge consumers, with a stronger competition watchdog and better rules against monopolies, and—this is good—Palantir would be banned from spying on you at the checkout. Energy prices would be near zero, with publicly owned, 100 per cent renewable energy powering every household. Not only would we have taxed gas exports, getting a fair return on our resources, but we would also eventually phase out fossil fuels completely. We would end the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on our politics and end the wasteful subsidies and government handouts. Instead, we could invest in community batteries, massive solar and wind projects and electrification to achieve cheap, clean, sustainable power.

Rents and mortgages would be stable, with a government owned developer completing a big build of public housing. This would end the runaway price increases that have put homeownership out of reach for so many. It would make housing a human right for everyone rather than a wealth accumulation vehicle for private developers and rich property investors, and it would make our beautiful communities affordable for people of all generations. Our cities would be even more liveable and sustainable, with proper urban planning and decent, frequent and free public transport. Utilities like telecommunications, water and our national aviation carrier would be publicly owned once more, ending the failed privatisation experiment. And why not aim for high-speed rail too? Why not aim for high-speed rail, too? People could finally afford to go to the dentist with Medicare expanded to include dental and mental healthcare. Child care, and primary, secondary and tertiary education would be free—guaranteed to every young person as an investment in Australia's future. Aged care and disability services would operate and be funded properly, giving everyone the dignity that they deserve.

In the 2035 Greens utopia, young people and families can afford to live near their parents and grandparents, near their jobs and near their communities. They can afford to eat, to power their homes and to go to the dentist. They have a four-day work week, with three days for the beach—the good life for everyone. Sounds alright to me.

Disaster and Emergency Management

As we head into the high-risk weather season, we have to ensure that, at all levels of government, we're adequately prepared, particularly in my area of northern New South Wales, following the devastating floods that we've had and many other weather events. Indeed, Labor is delivering a major investment to our local State Emergency Service infrastructure and equipment right throughout my electorate. I want to take this opportunity to thank every SES volunteer and other emergency services volunteers across my region. Thank you for your incredible commitment and dedication to keeping our communities safe. We are very fortunate to have so many wonderful SES volunteers who always volunteer their time to keep the rest of us safe.

Of course, locals in my area know all too well the devastating impact of severe storms, flooding, cyclones and bushfires. They know the impact on families, businesses and communities in our region. When natural disaster strikes, it is our wonderful SES volunteers who put themselves at the frontline to protect our lives and property. As I've said, Labor is investing in our emergency services and disaster preparedness. In fact, the Minister for Emergency Services of New South Wales, Jihad Dib, was back in the region earlier this month to inspect newly upgraded SES infrastructure and equipment right across our region. During his visit, Minister Dib and I inspected the progress of the new Murwillumbah SES facility on Old Lismore Road. The $6.2 million purpose-built facility is taking shape ahead of its expected completion in early 2027. In the past three years, the Murwillumbah SES unit has responded to close to 850 incidents, many due to storms and flooding in our region. Of course, once the new unit is complete, it will include expanded garage bays, improved training areas and dedicated operational rooms.

In Ballina, we've also got a new $6.3 million purpose-built SES facility, and it's just recently been opened. It includes an emergency operations centre to improve coordination between our emergency services during major incidents. The Ballina SES unit has responded to more than 1,100 tasks, including 725 storms, 352 floods, 132 general land rescue incidents, in the last three years. That's why it's so important to have both of these new headquarters open before the high-risk weather season is upon us. They really are replacing very outdated facilities that were no longer fit for purpose. These facilities provide our volunteers with the modern infrastructure they need to respond quickly and effectively during those emergencies. The upgrades really do come at a very critical time as we're told there's another severe weather season. Preparedness is absolutely at the heart of that.

I particularly want to thank Minister Dib for being up in our region, and I then want to thank all of our amazing SES volunteers and all of our emergency services personnel. They do incredible work. They are dedicated community members who help so many during very difficult times.

Arts and Culture

The arts, cultural institutions and creative opportunities enrich, support and expand the lives of Australians. They help us explore and reflect on who we are as a local community and as a nation. They can help build social cohesion and support health, education and the future economy. That's why it's particularly alarming that they appear to be seen as little more than an opportunity for cost savings by this Tasmanian government.

Indeed, the latest demonstration of this was the recent news that the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, TMAG, is facing a loss of about one-third of its workforce. TMAG is critically important to Hobart and Tasmania. It holds the state collection of about one million objects of eye-watering value and has an outstanding reputation which draws visitors and researchers to the state and adds considerably to Tasmania's cultural reputation and Tasmania's economy.

Despite this, the Tasmanian government, including arts minister Roger Jaensch and deputy premier Guy Barnett, has confirmed that TMAG will experience 'efficiencies and cuts' under the restructuring of the Department of State Growth into Building Tasmania. While officials have rejected the specific 30 per cent reduction figure, they have declined to provide an exact alternative figure. Media reports indicate the cuts target critical, specialised positions, including the head of the Tasmanian Herbarium, who is an internationally acclaimed lichen researcher, as well as a librarian, a graphic designer, a photographer and senior exhibition officers. Frankly, the loss of such deep expertise would likely harm future research, conservation and education efforts in the state.

These cuts also form part of a broader targeting of creative agencies and public services, with roughly 150 positions slated for elimination or to be affected across Building Tasmania and creative agencies, with Treasurer Eric Abetz targeting around 1,800 public service job cuts by 2032. I've repeatedly raised wider concerns about government support for Tasmania's arts and cultural sector, especially in light of the fact that the ABC has reported on the state of arts funding in Tasmania, which has remained stagnant since 2016-17, and the fact that several TasTAFE creative courses have recently lost government subsidies. There are also the Screen Tasmania cuts, which I've spoken about in this place recently. Of course, Treasurer Abetz might argue that we can't afford these outlays, but I say we can't afford to lose all of this critical cultural capital. So I call on the Tasmanian government to sort out its priorities and to ensure that arts and cultural funding is maintained to ensure TMAG and its staff can continue to safeguard our state collection and that our other arts and cultural institutions can continue to enrich the lives of all Tasmanians.

Holt Electorate: Diwali, Sukhija, Mr Jagdeep Singh

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of hosting my inaugural Diwali celebrations, bringing together local community leaders and members from across Holt. I thank my friend and colleague Minister Clare O'Neil for making time to join us. Diwali is a joyous occasion for the Hindu, Sikh and Jain communities. It is a chance to catch up with family and friends over a good meal and with plenty of sweets to go around. For many Hindu families, it is also a time to honour Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and prosperity, and offer prayers for the year ahead. As homes across Holt glow with lamps and colourful decorations, we are reminded of Diwali's enduring message: the triumph of light over darkness, good over evil and knowledge over ignorance.

Over the years, so many people have welcomed me to their Diwali celebrations and made me feel at home. It meant a great deal to return that hospitality. Hosting this celebration was also an opportunity to thank those who bring people together and keep traditions alive. Our Indian community contributes so much to Holt. They run businesses, create local jobs and volunteer their time to support local families and community organisations. I thank everyone who joined us to celebrate, and I hope this becomes a tradition we share for many years to come. May this festive season bring you and your loved ones nothing but good health, wealth and happiness. Happy Diwali.

I congratulate Jagdeep Singh Sukhija on receiving a COTA Victoria Senior Achiever Award. Since founding Compassionate Hands in 2020, Jagdeep has given local seniors across Holt a place to make new friends, learn new skills and feel welcome. His work spans mental health and wellbeing programs, digital literacy classes, cultural celebrations and fundraising for relief efforts. He also organised breast cancer screening for 115 women, helping two receive treatment following early diagnosis. I have always enjoyed joining Compassionate Hands's many celebrations and seeing the warmth Jagdeep and his team extend to everyone. For someone who might otherwise spend the day alone, having somewhere to go and people to talk to can make all the difference in the world. Jagdeep understands that and puts it into practice every day. Congratulations, Jagdeep. This recognition is truly deserved.

Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program

Regional Australians are asking why their communities are being neglected, while the Albanese government finds millions of dollars for hand-picked projects in Labor electorates—like the Prime Minister's own. Labor's $560 million Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program was a closed invitation-only program. Communities couldn't simply put forward their projects and compete; they first had to be chosen by Labor. The Centre for Public Integrity says 45 electorates received nothing under the MLCI, seats like Durack, O'Connor, Grey, Maranoa, Wannon, Farrer, Indi, Riverina, Hume. What do they all have in common? They're regional seats. Mallee got just one modest project, which I supported, a $4.5 million investment in the Maryborough outdoor pool redevelopment—money, I must add, that does not go far enough to do what is required.

All up, the Centre for Public Integrity found 73 per cent of MLCI money went to Labor-held electorates. One project in Maryborough is not a fair share for the Mallee electorate, covering more than 83,500 kilometres. At Nhill, ageing club rooms at Davis Park still need replacing. At the last election, I committed $2.8 million towards that project. At Kaniva, I committed $500,000 towards an all-abilities splash park. Like many other regional shires, the West Wimmera shire and Kaniva community are still fighting to redevelop their ageing pool precinct. At Beulah, seven years after fire destroyed the town's only supermarket and community hub, the community is still fighting for a permanent replacement. I committed almost $1.4 million to rebuilding this essential service, and Yarriambiack Shire Council continues to pursue funding today. These regional shires have low rate bases. Without government support, they simply cannot upgrade infrastructure.

Adding insult to injury, Labor has abolished the coalition's Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which gave untied money to councils so they could decide how the funding was spent locally. By contrast, Labor's secretive grants program found $6 million through MLCI for the Marrickville Golf Club, as we all now know, in the Prime Minister's own electorate. Australians are entitled to know who chooses the projects and the criteria applied. Why was Marrickville Golf Club invited through the front door, while communities such as Nhill, Kaniva and Beulah were left outside?

Fenner Electorate: Acknowledgements

Canberrans are endlessly ingenious. On chilly Canberra walks, Monika Mironov was forever stopping to rescue the blanket covering her daughter, Sofia. Sometimes it slipped and sometimes an excited kick sent it towards the wheelchair wheels. Monika decided there had to be a better way. A graphic designer by training, Monika taught herself to sew at night, and spent two years testing designs with families and therapists. The result was Mimi Blankets, colourful blankets that attach securely to wheelchairs, with options for winter warmth and summer sun. More than 2,000 have been sold worldwide. An American dad told Monika that his daughter, who usually managed only 15 minutes of Halloween trick-or-treating in the cold, stayed out for over an hour with her Mimi blanket. They'll be thanking Monika again this Saturday. This month, Monika won two Australian Good Design Awards. The best part, she said, was having Sofia there to celebrate. Sofia, who communicates using an eye-gaze device, even helped choose the colours and patterns. Congratulations to them both.

At Gold Creek School in Nicholls, Dr Tamsyn Terry is helping students learn their own way. Tamsyn is the school's associate principal. Working with University of Canberra researchers, she's helped teachers tailor lessons to students' strengths and interests. It starts with teachers discovering what excites their students then working with them to shape their learning. The project began with 26 teacher ambassadors working with students from pre-school to year 10. Teachers report more engaged students, and three other schools in the ACT and New South Wales are now taking up the approach. Tamsyn has just been named the ACT's 2026 school leader of the year, recognising her work to turn an educational idea into everyday classroom practice. Congratulations, Tamsyn, and everyone at Gold Creek School.

Congratulations to the Canberra Food Co-op, Australia's longest-running food cooperative, which will celebrate 50 years with a dinner on Saturday night. It began in 1976 with ANU students dividing bulk-food orders in Kingston railway station. Half a century later, it's still bringing generations of Canberrans together around affordable food, shared effort and plenty of lentils.

As this is likely to be my last parliamentary speech of 2026, I want to thank the people who kept my electorate and ministerial offices running. They help constituents navigate difficult problems and bring extraordinary dedication to the work. My thanks to Nick Terrell, Tori Barker, Meg Thomas, Chris Davis, Felicity Wilkins, Bronwyn Asquith, Blair Arnold, Pallavi Linton, Kal Slater, Maria Neill, Cullen Savle and Cohen Elliot. Thanks also to our volunteers, particularly Jo Corrigan, Christine Debu and Gerry Lloyd. It's a privilege to work alongside you.

Health Care: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia

Every year, thousands of Australian men hear the words no family wants to hear: you have cancer. Almost 4,000 Australian men die from prostate cancer each year, yet this Albanese Labor government has decided to withdraw funding from the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia's established specialist nursing service. It is wrong, it is reckless and it must be reversed. During the last sitting, I and the member for Hunter co-chaired the Big Aussie Barbie with the Prostate Cancer Foundation here at Parliament House. Survivors, families and specialist nurses came together to share their experiences, but what was deeply disappointing was the distinct absence of the Labor cabinet. No Prime Minister and no Minister for Health and Ageing. The people responsible for the funding cuts were nowhere to be seen when nurses and patients travelled to Parliament House just looking for answers.

John Burns is a husband, father and prostate cancer survivor in Dawson. He is just 45 years old, and this is what he told me:

I am frightened about what comes next.

I am worried about losing control of my bladder, about potentially wetting myself in public.

I am trying to recover physically and mentally, rebuild my strength and get back to being the husband, father and working man I was before cancer turned my whole world upside down.

This is a real man fighting to reclaim his dignity, his livelihood and his life. Now, while John fights to rebuild that life, Labor is taking away the very support that is helping him. His specialist nurse told him she will not remain beyond July next year because this government is stripping away the funding from the Prostate Cancer Foundation, putting 96 specialist nursing positions in jeopardy. Redirecting funding to the McGrath Foundation offers no guarantee that John will keep the nurse who knows his history and understands his recovery.

These nurses help men navigate the physical, emotional and deeply personal consequences of prostate cancer. John asks: 'Who will be there to help me navigate the next stage of my recovery? Who will be there to provide specialist guidance when I have questions, concerns or complications? Who will help me and my wife understand what comes next?' Where are the answers? The health minister must restore this funding, protect these specialist nurses and give patients and families the certainty they deserve. Men like John have already had one fight: the battle for their lives; they should not have to fight their own government for the care that they need. Cancer patients deserve compassion and certainty. Minister, please restore the PCFA funding.

Trade with European Union

The south-west Sydney region is home to over 400,000 people of various ethnic backgrounds and beliefs, a significant number of which come from Europe including from Italy, Greece, Germany, Macedonia and the Netherlands, to name just a few. With the new Western Sydney International Airport at our doorstep, the ability to engage and visit Europe has never been closer for residents. Tie this in with the Australian-European Free Trade Agreement that our Labor government is working on delivering, and you'll quickly see that the businesses and economic opportunities between our continents have never been better.

This agreement presents Australian businesses, manufacturers and workers, particularly those in south-west Sydney and across New South Wales, with incredible potential. In 2025, New South Wales exported $2.5 billion worth of goods to the EU. Once this agreement enters into force, the vast majority of EU tariffs will be eliminated, or duty-free access will be locked in, for New South Wales goods. This includes tariffs on New South Wales exports to the EU of up to 14 per cent on machinery and electrical goods, 12.8 per cent on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and 10 per cent, importantly, on aluminium products.

Speaking of aluminium, Macarthur is home to an Australian family owned company called DECO, which manufactures aluminium products of the highest quality, including the signage you see at your local train stations, the benches at your local train stations and high-tech machinery which they sell domestically and internationally. DECO was founded by Ross Doonan and his family in 2004 and now employs 120 people, mostly locals, at their very impressive manufacturing facility in Minto, which I had the privilege of welcoming the trade minister, Don Farrell, to visit some weeks ago, where he met with Ross and Richard Hamber, his general manager and son-in-law, and his team to discuss how the Australian European Union free trade agreement will bolster business and export opportunities for companies such as DECO.

For DECO, the EU free trade deal will allow them to explore these new opportunities across the 27 EU country markets and their combined 450 million consumers, whilst also obtaining cheaper access to the machinery, equipment and technology they need to compete globally. The trade agreement with the world's largest economy is worth approximately $10 billion to our economy and will give local businesses and manufacturers such as DECO and their workers huge export potential.

It is important for us to consider also the benefits the trade deal with the EU will have for the working people in outer metropolitan communities like mine, their manufacturers and small businesses. When Australian businesses can sell more products to more customers around the world, they grow and provide jobs. When they grow, they invest. When they invest, they produce high-technology, secure jobs for all Australians.

Bowman Electorate: Telecommunications

I rise today to speak about an issue that affects residents right across the Redlands every day: unreliable mobile phone coverage. In an age where Australians rely on their phones for work, business, education, emergency information and staying connected with loved ones, too many people in my community still experience black spots, dropped calls and patchy service. Since being elected, I've fought to ensure that mobile coverage in my community of the Redlands is upgraded from patchy black spots to strong and secure coverage. Working with telcos has resulted in 44 local telecommunications infrastructure upgrades to the local mobile network. Those upgrades have made a real difference, and I'm proud of what has been achieved, but I'm not going to pretend that the job is done.

Whether it's residents on the Bay Islands, families in suburban neighbourhoods or local businesses trying to stay connected, there are still far too many areas where mobile service is unreliable or unavailable. For many people poor coverage is frustrating, but in an emergency it is far more serious. When Tropical Cyclone Alfred hit my community in March last year, mobile networks across the Redlands collapsed, cutting off emergency communications from people needing it most.

I regularly hear from residents who tell me they have to move around their property to find a signal, drive down the street or deal with calls dropping out altogether. Small-business owners rely on mobile connectivity to process payments, manage bookings and stay in touch with customers. Parents want confidence that they can contact their children, and elderly residents want to know that they can reach out for help when they need it. Those are not unreasonable expectations. In a modern country like Australia, people should not have to wonder whether they will have service when they need it the most. Reliable mobile coverage is no longer a luxury; it is an essential service that underpins safety, economic activity and community connection.

That's why I'm so pleased that the coalition has secured amendments to the government's universal outdoor mobile obligation legislation to ensure that the ACCC examines domestic mobile roaming alongside new mobile network reliability standards and legislated temporary disaster roaming arrangements. These are practical measures that could make a real difference to telecommunications outcomes across regional Australia and on our urban fringe.

For communities like the Redlands, reliability matters. During severe weather, natural disasters or other emergencies, people need the confidence that they can contact family, receive critical information and reach emergency services when required. Redlanders deserve mobile services they can rely on whether they are at home, at work, on the islands or travelling through our community. I will continue advocating for the infrastructure investment and policy reforms needed to improve coverage across the Redlands because when my constituents pick up their phone, especially in an emergency, it should simply work.

Moore Electorate: Volunteers

One of the best parts of representing Moore is getting to meet the people who keep our community going. The one thing I've learnt is that behind every successful community group there's usually a handful of people doing an extraordinary amount of work. They're the people who organise the volunteers, chase the funding, turn up early and stay back late. And I want to recognise a few of them today.

At Motion by the Ocean, Alanagh Godderidge and her team are helping older Australians and people with limited mobility enjoy our beautiful coastline. Through Cycling Without Age Sorrento, volunteers are taken out on specially designed bikes, giving them fresh air, conversation and a chance to reconnect with their community. Over in Edgewater, there's John Tostevin, who, well into his 80s, has helped transform a neglected patch of land into the Lakeview Contemplation Garden. Alongside Beth Hewitt and other volunteers, they've planted hundreds of native plants and created a beautiful space for the whole community.

At Padbury Community Garden, Sandy How, Sue and their fellow volunteers are bringing neighbours together through gardening, shared meals and a good old-fashioned working bee. I've taken my boys along, and I can definitely confirm they were far more interested in the worms than listening to their dad. Down at Mullaloo Beach, Mitch and Toni Sideris at the Mullaloo Community Inc recently organised the Great Spring Clean-Up. Families turned up with gloves and rubbish bags to help look after one of our most beautiful beaches. My boys came along to that one too. It is a great way to teach kids that looking after the environment isn't somebody else's responsibility. It's something we can all do.

I've spent the last few weeks visiting community groups receiving volunteer grants. From All Stars for Autism to Removing Barriers, to the North Beach Bowling Club, the Sorrento Croquet Club, Mullaloo Boardriders and the Mirabilis Collective, these community groups are doing different things, but they're all contributing to a stronger, more connected community. And across Moore, there are hundreds more examples. Our surf lifesaving clubs are keeping families safe. Our sporting clubs are giving kids somewhere for them to belong. Our environmental groups are protecting the bushland and the coastline we love.

Our volunteers make it all possible. But volunteering isn't always glamourous. There are meetings, minutes, paperwork, grant applications, fundraising and the occasional argument about who forgot the keys, yet people keep turning up because they understand something important. A community isn't just a collection of houses, roads, schools and shops. It is the people that bring these places to life. Governments can build facilities and provide funding, but they can't manufacture community spirit. That comes from the people who care enough to give their time to others. So to Alanagh, John, Beth, Sandy, Sue, Mitch and the thousands of other volunteers across Moore: thank you—you don't just live in our community; you're the reason we have one.

Monash Electorate: Community Events

'Here if you need'—that is the netball call-out in the Monash electorate, and netball continues to go from strength to strength because of the extraordinary people and volunteers who are involved in it. The 2026 Netball Victoria Awards recently recognised five groups and players from my electorate for their outstanding contribution to the sport. Warragul & District Netball Association won the NetSetGo Centre of the Year under the leadership of coordinator, Meaghan Romano. Meghan is a young and dedicated leader who inspires players right across the community with her introductory program at the Burke Street netball courts, which has achieved a 124 per cent growth. There are 57 players registered for the summer season, which I had the pleasure of launching last year, and my colleague Wayne Farnham, the member for Narracan, has also been involved this year.

The association president, Karen Romano, told the Warragul Gazette that the award reflects more than participation numbers. Karen said:

It represents what is possible when we invest in young people, particularly our own people and give them the opportunity to lead.

Alison Duggan from Warragul Specialist School won Teacher of the Year. Ali was nominated for her contribution to the Goodwill Netball Games, bringing together specialist schools across the local area. Moe Football Netball Club won the Safety Initiative Award. Zali Anderson of Wonthaggi was announced in the Victorian Netball League championship team of the year. A midcourter, Zali started her journey at NetSetGo in Wonthaggi, played junior netball at Wonthaggi Power and was a training partner for the Melbourne Vixens this year.

I joined the Labertouche Blue Wrens Country Women's Association's afternoon tea at Labertouche Hall recently, where they raised funds for sudden infant death syndrome. I had the honour of meeting Annie, whose grandson Joshua lived for just 15 days. But, in the over a decade since that tragic event, Annie has turned her grief into an extraordinary effort to support other families and honour baby Joshua's life. Annie handmakes the most extraordinary jewellery, which I got to see firsthand, and in that time she's raised over $200,000 to support SIDS research and local grieving families. Annie your love for Joshua is changing lives, and I was so moved to hear your story. Since Red Nose Day began in the 1980s, research and education have helped reduce SIDS deaths in Australia by 85 per cent, saving more than 12,000 babies.

I also want to give a shout-out to Kerry and Jason Rantall. I joined the Bettermentall Australia crew for a barbecue in Trafalgar last week to support their work. Lindsay from their community did a great job, and it was great to join Councillor Brendan Kingwill as well in that effort.

Chisholm Electorate: Volunteering

There are many unsung heroes in our community, and that's why I held the Caroline Chisholm Volunteer Awards ceremony yet again this year on 23 October at the Mount Waverley Community Centre. It was an opportunity to sing the praises of our volunteers.

Our electorate was named after one of Australia's great volunteers, Caroline Chisholm. She was a legendary and highly regarded volunteer of her time in the 19th century. She worked predominantly to help women who had emigrated and arrived in Australia. She was a tireless worker and an absolutely remarkable woman.

The awards are presented to volunteers who live or perform voluntary work in the Chisholm electorate, and they give recognition to inspirational people who make a difference to their communities and an important contribution to their community organisation.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:11 to 10:40

The Caroline Chisholm Awards are a fantastic opportunity to recognise people who do so much for our community.

We received many nominations this year and presented awards to 41 community volunteers, who I would like to mention today: Rachael Kennedy from the East Malvern Junior Football Club, Jillian Malin from the Monash Toy Libraries, Michael Miao from the Chinese Association of Monash, Trevor Smyth from Waverley Tennis, Linda Machin from Monash University Cricket Club, John Edgar from Burwood Cricket Club, Jennie Tang from Asian Australian Volunteers, Asokumar Navaratnam from Victorian Tamil Senior Citizens Benevolent Society, Devasena Babu from Victoria Tamil Women's Benevolent Society, Peggy Creek from the First Mount Waverley Scout Group, Tess McBaron from Amaroo Neighbourhood Centre, Allen Clark from Glen Waverley Bowls Club, Connie Tzelepis from the Rotary Club of Monash Glen Waverley, Noel Johnstone from the Monash Men's Shed, Sushma Vats from Knitted Knockers Australia, Felicity Smith from Monash Community Arts Society, Jasvinder Singh from the Indian Senior Citizens Association of Victoria, Glenys Chandler from First Mount Waverley Scout Group, Xin-Er Chen from Eastern Health, Gwen Nelson from Monash National Service Association, Peter Crandle from Waverley Woodworkers, Anil Sood from the Australian Indian Seniors Association, Vihas Somaratne from Syndal Storm Basketball Club, Dora Macris from Alamein Neighbourhood and Learning, Parminder Jabbal from the Friends of the Children Foundation, Sokratis Ioannou from the Monash Greek Macedonian Elderly Citizens Club, Yvonne Merritt, Victoria Scrivenger, Brian Priestnall, Kamlavathi Reddy, Tracey Ryan, Claire Leonard, Jan Chivers, Marieta Jones, Mark Edmonds, Patricia Jardine, Sandra Riley, Jenny Blain, Paul Crane, Michelle Channon, Sithy Marikar and Drew Ashton.

I was running out of time, so I couldn't say all of those community groups, but we're so lucky to have some amazing volunteers in our community. I thank them for their work and congratulate them again on their achievements.

Fernlea Community House, Pakenham Lakeside Primary School

Today I acknowledge the wonderful group of young visitors from my electorate of La Trobe from Pakenham Lakeside Primary School. It was a great pleasure to welcome the grade 6 students and teachers to Parliament House. The students made their long way from Pakenham by bus, and can I just say they were absolutely delightful, respectful, engaged and eager to learn. They were asking thoughtful questions and taking a genuine interest in Australia's democracy. I thank the teachers and school staff who made the visit possible, particularly Steven Runting, for helping to arrange the visit and for giving these students the opportunity to experience our nation's institutions. Again, it was just a delight with the kids. I've never had so many high fives and handshakes, and they were so pleasant to deal with. It made my day up here. During their time in Canberra, the students visited—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:43 to 10:53

Before the suspension, I was talking about the visit by Pakenham Lakeside Primary School. During their time in Canberra, the students visited the High Court of Australia and, with parliament sitting that week, had the opportunity to observe the Senate and the House of Representatives during question time. Seeing Australia's democratic institutions in action provides a unique understanding of how our nation is governed and encourages young Australians to become informed and educated citizens. To all the grade 6 students and teachers from Pakenham Lakeside Primary School, thank you very much for visiting Parliament House. You were outstanding ambassadors for the electorate of La Trobe.

I'd also like to acknowledge and recognise another outstanding organisation in my electorate: Fernlea Community House in Emerald. For more than two decades, the non-for-profit Fernlea has supported local families by providing respite services for people across the hills in Melbourne's south-east. Established in 2000 and opening Emerald's facility in 2004, the organisation has grown into a highly respected community service provider. Over that time, Fernlea has provided day respite services to more than 800 people and their families, helping some of the most vulnerable members of our community remain connected, supported and cared for locally. I particularly acknowledge Ross Farmer for his dedication and leadership in helping guide the organisation so it continues to meet the needs of local residents, as well as all the committee members, past and present.

As local member for La Trobe, I've had a long association with Fernlea House, seeing firsthand the difference they make. I was proud to secure an $800,000 Commonwealth funding package back under the Howard government in 2005 to establish support for Fernlea, followed by a further $170,000 in 2007. Those investments helped lay a foundation for the organisation to continue to support local communities and families. Again, I thank Ross Farmer, the board staff and the incredible volunteers. I wish Fernlea all the success. When it comes to Fernlea House, it needs government support, because it can't survive on its own and continue to provide a magnificent and thoughtful service to residents of La Trobe.

Scullin Electorate: Multicultural Events, Rosales, Mr Raymundo (Ray)

It's such a great time of year to be in Melbourne's north. As the weather warms up, our calendars fill up with cultural celebrations that bring together people across the community—like today, when Ohi Day celebrations get under way in Lalor. I know that the Greek Orthodox Community of Whittlesea, led by secretary George Sachinidis, will be right now getting ready for a really wonderful celebration enjoyed by so many community members. As I told my good friend Constantine on the weekend, I'm very sorry not to be there, but I want to acknowledge Ohi Day right here in Australia's parliament.

We've also recently celebrated Durga Puja in Epping, and I acknowledge Councillor Chaman Tiwari and the Sharit Charitable Foundation for putting together a wonderful celebration. Just this weekend people came from across Melbourne's north to celebrate Dussehra Mela in Epping, and I recognise my friend Kishore and the PREM Prakash Mandal Mandir, who do a really wonderful job of making this Mela a really special celebration enjoyed by all the community each and every year. I'm also looking forward to joining the ninth Northern Diwali when I get back to town—so well organised by Nish and the team at Mission Smile—and going on to celebrate Deepavali with the Tamil Seniors Social Club.

I think about the Circolo Pensionati Italiani Di Bundoora, who mark 38 years of contribution to the community with an afternoon of dancing—not by me, I hasten to add!—food and music. I recognise that after many decades of dedication from many committee members—I think of my good friends Maria and Antoinette in particular—there's a new committee and new energy under president Gianni Pitruzzello and secretary Luisa Mikheal. These celebrations and so many more make me so proud of the community I represent in this place as the member for Scullin. Melbourne's northern suburbs are so proudly multicultural, and these occasions are a great reminder of what this really means in a practical way—people coming together not just to celebrate their culture but to share it, and in doing so to strengthen the place we all get to call home. None of this happens and none of these events take place without so many volunteers giving of themselves their understanding and their time to bring people together. I want to thank them for that.

I'd like to acknowledge an inspiring person whose contribution has been recently recognised by others—my friend Ray Rosales, recently recognised with the Council on the Ageing Victoria Senior Achiever Award. Ray really is a deserving recipient of this award. He's someone who always gives, whether it's in his local community, to his local church, to First Nations communities or more broadly. Whenever there is work to be done, including in emergency services, Ray is found there. Congratulations, Ray, on a well-deserved recognition.

Goldstein Electorate: Sailing

I know there's nothing better at the start of warmer weather than the sailing season. That's right—the warmer weather is bringing across Port Phillip the sailing season for yet another year. From Brighton to Beaumaris, Port Phillip comes alive. Juniors are heading out in their first boats, but the boats don't just launch themselves and races don't just run themselves, because behind every sail and past every regatta and every sausage sizzle is a volunteer who has given up their time. So let's celebrate them: at the Royal Brighton Yacht Club, acting commodore Grant Dow and his committee, Andy Holmes, Brett Heath, Paul Jackson, Keith Badger, Murray Cowdell, Karen Johns, Simon Lynch, Bronwyn McIlveen and Paul Tadich; at Sandy Yacht Club, commodore Cathryn Furey and the committee, Dean Robson, Greg Winnett Stephen Lynch, John Neville, Jonathan Dewar, Jordan Commins, Debbie Parker, John Strahan, Andrew Wilson and Dave Suda; at the great Beaumaris Motor Yacht Squadron, where I was only the other day, commodore John Giuliano and the committee, Wayne Paravicini, Cameron Bean, Harry Petsios, Peter Clinch, Julie Ahern, Hein Preller and Graeme Woolacott; at the Beaumaris Yacht Club, where I presented a flag, commodore Evan Chapman and the committee, Mark Harrick, Will Sharp, Katherine Kemp, Stephen McMillan, Peter Sharp, Lachlan Sharp, Alison Kemp, Judy Taylor, Phil Connard and Andrea Barber; at the Hampton Sailing Club, fresh from celebrating their incredible achievement of more years, commodore David Rooney and the committee, Eddy De Geest, Paul Clarke, Deb Stephenson, Frank Leipper, David Briggs and William Brown; and at the Black Rock Yacht Club, where I was on Saturday, commodore Nik Wallis and the committee, John Sammons, Morwenna Griffiths, Peter Tovey and Andre Blasse. Thank you, every one of you, for your volunteer efforts.

And now, to everybody who is engaging in the season, let us bless the fleet. Lord Jesus, we are grateful to You for the abundance of the sea and the life it contains. We ask that our fishermen be blessed with good health, strength and courage as they embark on their journey. May they be guided by the Holy Spirit and return home safely with many a bountiful catch. We also pray for the safety of all those who work around the sea. May they be protected from harm and danger, and may their families be comforted in their absence. We especially think of our fishing and boating committees and staff, who guide and bless us in serving and caring for us faithfully. As we bless our fleet today, let us remember the sacrifices made by those who came before us. Let us honour their legacy by continuing to work hard and by being good stewards of the sea that God Himself has given us. May God bless our fleet and all those who sail upon her. Amen. What a beautiful basis to wish everybody a happy and safe sailing season and, of course, to bring people together on the safety of Port Phillip.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament

I am happy to once again participate in the Raise Our Voice campaign, which puts young people's voices on the record in parliament, helping shape Australia's future. Today I have the speech of a 16-year-old from the Perth electorate:

My name is Alexandra, and last year I spoke in my state's Legislative Assembly about the mental health crisis affecting our young people.

This year, I stood in that same room and gave a voice to this issue again.

Right before our eyes a national emergency is unfolding, and it's shaping the future of my generation.

39 per cent of young Australians aged 16 to 24 are experiencing a mental health condition.

That is nearly two out of every five young people.

It is time to realise the traditional system is not just failing to cure the problem, it is completely incapable of understanding it.

Meaningful solutions start with a fundamental shift in power.

Solutions made by youth—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:03 to 11:14

Before I was democratically interrupted, I was reading Alexandra's speech:

Meaningful solutions start with a fundamental shift in power.

Solutions made by youth for the issues they face.

We don't just need more institutions; we need programs designed and driven by the very students who live with the daily pressure of life in our modern age.

Youth advocacy is vital and the missing link, but simply listening to us inside this room is no longer enough.

I call on this Parliament to mandate that all future youth mental health legislation and funding require a co-design strategy directly led by young people.

Let us turn our struggles into solutions and finally heal the heartbeat of this nation.

Thank you very much to Alexandra, who I recently met at a Fogarty Futures leadership forum. What struck me was her determination to stand up for young people and give them a seat at the table. It is a message we hear again and again. I heard it at my Youth Leaders Policy Dialogue that I hosted alongside the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Youth and Senator Whiteaker. We heard directly from young people about everything from mental health, to housing, artificial intelligence, education, gender equality and the environment. Those students didn't just bring concerns; they brought forward practical ideas. They challenged assumptions about the way the world is and the way the world could be and have a high expectation of turning their input into action.

Finally, as I am doing a Raise our Voice in Parliament 2026 speech, I want to say a big thank you to the team who make all of this happen. They are an incredible bunch of volunteers, led by CEO and founder Ashleigh Streeter-Jones and a bunch of her team, including Nuria Olive, Declan Davidson and school teachers across this country who are embracing this program as a practical way to teach the next generation about how to engage in our civic institutions and make sure that we do indeed listen to the voice of young Australians. Thank you very much.

Hinkler Electorate: Acknowledgements, Hinkler Electorate: Local First

A hospice provides a special kind of care: dignity, comfort and compassion at the end of life. I was proud to attend the fifth anniversary celebration of Fraser Coast Hospice, which has cared for 1,000 terminally ill people and their families. The former coalition government helped establish this vital service through a $7.7 million investment under the Hinkler Regional Deal. As federal member, I'll continue to do what I can to ensure the hospice continues serving our community. I commend CEO Alicia, the board, staff, volunteers and everyone who has contributed over these five years. Their care makes a profound difference when families need it most. It is a place where people are supported with kindness and where loved ones can focus on precious time together.

Jillian Pace from Urraween has been recognised as a regional winner in the 2026 Excellence in Family Day Care Awards. This honour celebrates Jillian's dedication to exceptional early childhood education and care. Jill runs a thriving home based business where children are encouraged to explore, learn, discover and, most importantly, be themselves. Congratulations, Jill, on this recognition and for showcasing the benefits of family day care.

The accolades continue for Hinkler businesses. Macadamias Australia and Freshfarm Fine Foods have been named the Queensland winner of the Family Business Association's 2026 Established Family Business award. The Steinhardt family business story began in 1958 and continues today through the second and third generations. They now progress to the Australian and New Zealand Family Business Association Excellence Awards, with winners to be announced in June 2027. Congrats and best wishes to a fantastic family business.

From the farm to Futsal, congratulations to Bundaberg's Kyrah-Rose, who has been selected for Australia's under-13 futsal team. She will travel to Spain in May next year to represent our country. What an incredible achievement. I wish Kyrah-Rose every success on the court.

A craze that took off in the 80s is still going strong in Hinkler. Walking the neighbourhood seeking sponsors may be less common these days, but the double under and criss cross remain favourites through Jump Rope for Heart. I congratulate St John's Lutheran Primary School, St Luke's Anglican School and Kawungan State School for skipping their way to raising valuable funds for the Heart Foundation. These students are supporting a worthy cause while getting active and having fun.

Finally, my annual Local First campaign is back, celebrating everything home-grown in Hinkler. Now in its second year, this initiative supports local jobs, promotes family businesses and puts our community first. As Christmas approaches, choosing local can make a real difference to the small businesses who employ locally, support our clubs and contribute so much to the Hinkler community. I encourage businesses to register for the campaign, and I invite everyone to get behind them and choose local first.

Corangamite Electorate: Fort Queenscliff, Housing

Strong communities are built when governments work closely with people they represent. My view is that, if we bring local voices into the decisions we make, we deliver outcomes and opportunities that make a real difference in people's lives. It's why I've established the advisory panel to provide government with advice on the future of Fort Queenscliff. The panel is made up of passionate, knowledgeable locals from a wide array of backgrounds. They bring a unique perspective to the table, which is so important as we move towards securing a better future for Fort Queenscliff.

The panel is already kicking goals. I'm so proud to announce that the fort will host a community market on Sunday 29 November, coinciding with the Queenscliff Music Festival. This is such an awesome win for the panel and the Queenscliff community, who have always wanted greater access to the fort. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank panel member Jane Wager. Jane worked with her market committee to make this possible. Alongside Jane and the rest of the panel, I look forward to continuing our work together to promote greater community access to the fort while protecting its heritage. This is exactly the kind of outcome we can achieve when we bring local knowledge, community passion and government decision-making together.

This same principle applies to the challenges of housing facing many in the community. That's why it's so valuable—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:21 to 11:43

That's why it was so valuable to bring local voices into the conversation at the Melbourne housing forum. The forum was held in the CBD and hosted by the member for Melbourne and the Minister for Housing, Homelessness and Cities. MPs from across Victoria joined the discussion, and a group of incredible locals from my electorate of Corangamite joined me for the event. The forum made clear there's more work to do, but it also highlighted just how important the Albanese government's investments in housing are proving to be for people right across the nation. The Housing Australia Future Fund is making a real difference in my electorate, with more than 400 new homes set to be delivered locally.

So, in closing, whether we're talking about opening the gates of Fort Queenscliff or making housing more accessible, the principle is the same: the best decisions are made when we listen to the people those decisions affect. That's putting communities at the centre of government, and that's what it looks like. That's exactly what I'll continue to fight for in my electorate of Corangamite and right across Australia.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

BILLS Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026, Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026; Second Reading Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026

Unfortunately, we've seen this movie before: Labor bringing on an ill-considered, ill-consulted-on and ill-designed gas reservation bill, only to see a litany of problems sink it before their very eyes. That's what we're looking at here, with this package of three bills which are nothing less than an assault on Western Australia's gas industry and, indeed, on the prosperity of Western Australians, because this legislation seeks to import east coast problems over the border into my own home state of Western Australia.

For Labor MPs from Western Australia, this represents a test: will they put their home state and the interests of the Western Australian people who trusted them to come to Canberra to represent them and to be a voice in this place, ahead of the eastern states? That is the test that we see this legislation present, because, as it stands today, these three bills—the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, the Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 and the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026—represent a $330 billion threat to the opportunity for Western Australia's gas industry, because we have, and have long had, for more than two decades now, a gas reservation system that works. But, rather than take something that works and replicate it on a national scale, rewarding those states who have managed their hydrocarbons industries well, we see this legislation in front of us. The holes in it are so numerous that it warrants serious scrutiny by the parliament. The fact that we see debate gagged in this place and this legislation rammed through the House whilst there are such fundamental issues with it is obscene, frankly. And that's why we are, effectively, standing for Western Australia and demanding amendments to this legislation—not for it to be patched up later, as the Labor government like to do, with a bandaid here or there, as with the fourth bill to fix up the ART which was rushed through the parliament as well. This legislation should not pass this place until it is fit for purpose.

Effectively, at the moment, the most important issue with this bill is that Western Australia's fate is to be decided by ministerial discretion, and the minister that we're talking about is none other than the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen—part-time president of the COP flop, now sunning himself in Fiji to get over the jet lag, because his own convention, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Australian taxpayer, wasn't enough excitement to keep him awake—and that idea is frightening for our gas industry and, indeed, Western Australia's industries that depend on cheap, reliable and affordable gas. That's why we want to see amendments to this legislation. Where a state scheme is already in operation and substantially achieves the bill's objectives—because, let's face it, Western Australia's domestic gas reservation scheme has been doing so for more than 20 years—we argue that the minister must set the domestic supply obligation for the market to zero.

There must be an automatic mechanism in the legislation so that where a state is proactively reserving gas for its domestic needs in a functioning market, the Commonwealth scheme doesn't fiddle with it. What we see here is the imposition from the eastern states squarely over the top of a scheme that has worked for 20 years with an untested, untried and, frankly, horrible set of legislation that asks more questions than it answers. For instance, this reservation scheme would apply in the Northern Territory. Now, anyone who's considered the transportation of gas from the Northern Territory to the eastern seaboard, and particularly to southern states like Victoria, would understand just how frighteningly expensive that can be. But, nonetheless, the obligation stands under this legislation that 20 per cent of gas produced offshore the NT would be required to be transported to the eastern states market, and it must be sold even if the market price is effectively insufficient to recover the cost of production. What sort of madness is this? You would think that there would be pause on the government benches to ask those simple questions and have them resolved before they tabled such legislation, which is frankly an absolute embarrassment. Nonetheless, the energy minister should have no discretionary role in the fate of Western Australia's gas reservation scheme.

Where exemptions are applied under the legislation, they should run indefinitely or at least the life of project, which, in the case of the gas industry, is typically 40 years. We are seeing investment capital flee from Australia's shores. At the same time as our productivity has flatlined, absolutely going nowhere, our standards of living are going backwards. The very investment that we need to attract to get our economy moving again is fleeing elsewhere. Perth-headquartered companies are amongst the first to be sending their investment capital overseas. If you look at, as a prime example, Western Australia's—and indeed Australia's—largest LNG producer, Woodside Energy, they've spent more money investing in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Senegal in Africa than in Australia in recent years. That's frightening.

We've got to ask ourselves why Australian companies are fleeing offshore with capital to invest in other jurisdictions. Frankly, it's because of the fact that the Labor government has made the gas industry in Australia almost uninvestable in recent years. The reason why market participants have that view should be pretty obvious. These interventions from the Labor government have included gas price caps; a complex and poorly developed mandatory code of conduct, which did absolutely nothing except drive prices up on the eastern seaboard; the rushed announcement of a gas reservation scheme in December 2025 without any real detail behind it except that it was alleged to commence immediately; and then we've had the past eight months of design and consultation on this dog's breakfast of a legislative package, which has left the industry confused, paralysed and frozen. Indeed, those investment dollars are fleeing our shores whilst customers are looking elsewhere in the world for supply guarantees. This is playing into the hands of other jurisdictions like Canada and the US. Outside of the conflict in the Middle East, of course, Qatar is also the beneficiary of underwriting gas projects with significant life-of-project and billions of dollars of prosperity for those host countries.

So the facts speak for themselves in that energy prices are up 40 per cent since the Albanese government came to power. We face looming winter shortfalls, exacerbating the risk of blackouts. At the end of the day, this scheme does nothing to boost supply. In fact, it scares investment dollars away from Australia whilst posing difficult problems for existing operators that can't simply be answered. The pipelines that exist between Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria are at capacity or very, very close to it, so how is this reservation scheme supposed to answer the transmission problem of gas molecules from states that have done the right thing and have backed investment capital that wanted to take the risk, wanted to develop these projects and has successfully done so in Australia in the last 40 or 50 years, since Western Australia's pioneering North West Shelf development and, of course, the boom that we saw through the mid-2010s with Gorgon and Wheatstone and with Gladstone in Queensland?

The states that have done the right thing are enjoying the results of low, reliable and sustainable gas prices. The states that have not done the right thing are the ones bleating for change today. But Victoria has a moratorium on gas exploration in its own state, whilst New South Wales is making moves towards the same madness. The questions of how these peculiar decisions of state jurisdictions will play out with this Commonwealth intervention need to be answered before we pass the legislation, not afterwards, because, at the end of the day, the uncertainty that's already crippling the industry will be more pronounced if we see an even bigger legislative mess as a result of the passage of this.

The coalition has always said that we want Australian gas to work for Australians and our export partners. Whilst we were in government, of course, we never saw the Japanese ambassador take to publicly commenting on the fact that they saw Australia as a risky destination for investment and an increasingly untrustworthy partner for energy security. Anyone who understands Japanese culture and the Japanese psyche knows just how startling a pronouncement that was from a Japanese ambassador.

But, at the end of the day, this package of bills has done nothing to advance the ability to invest in Australia for the development of gas. In fact, it does the opposite. In Western Australia, our Perth Basin has in recent years seen an investment boom, and it is that onshore domestic gas production, where 100 per cent of those molecules are going directly into the industries that underpin jobs and prosperity in my home state, that is exactly the sort of thing that keeps gas prices low. What you are going to see under a domestic gas reservation policy like the one this package of bills represents is a starvation of investment in the exploration and development of onshore gas, which is critical to keeping industry going.

The Albanese government likes to talk about a future made in Australia and is very quick to shell out taxpayer dollars to prop up unprofitable and unviable businesses suffering at the hands of high energy costs. Look at the recent announcement of $2½ billion for Tomago. Don't get me started, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas, on the fact that high energy prices sank the Albemarle lithium refinery in my own seat, with the loss of some 800 jobs. The Albanese government was nowhere to be seen. That's a whole other issue.

I turn back to this legislation. It does nothing to improve the ability to invest in domestic gas production and in onshore gas exploration, which, of course, in five or 10 years time leads to that domestic gas production. We are setting ourselves up for an epic fail, and some would contend that there's a risk here that the Albanese government will rush off and do what they always do: do a deal with the Australian Greens. At the end of the day, we want to see reliable and affordable gas for Australians, with gas production and policies that encourage investment. If there is a legislative package that can be salvaged out of this through significant amendment and with protections for states like Western Australia, then, of course, we will vote in the national interest. But we will stand in the way of bad legislation that does not deliver more gas for the Australian people now and into the future. That is our responsibility to the Australian people.

So the test of whether his government will put aside politics, act in the national interest and work with the coalition to amend this dog's breakfast of bills into some sort of package that can actually work for the Australian people really lies now with the Prime Minister. We've never hidden our desire to see more Australian gas working harder for Australians, but this legislation as it stands will not deliver that reality. If the government decides to do a dirty deal with the Greens, well, so be it, and let there be no mistaking that that may well have been the intention all along, because with this government you don't look at what it says, you look at what it does. As I say, Western Australian Labor MPs are quick to say that they stand up for Western Australia. Well, the test is coming. The test is coming in this place this very week, and either they will vote to protect Western Australia's gas reservation scheme and Western Australian jobs by not allowing the passage of the bills in the current form or they will sell out their home state, Western Australians and our successful Western Australian gas reservation scheme, which, I might add, was introduced by a Labor government. I do give credit where credit is due, and it was the Western Australian Labor government, in 2005, that set our state on this journey to prosperity. That's something worth remembering, because bipartisanship in the national interest is possible with this package of bills. There is a way, with substantial amendment, of working with the coalition and with industry to get something that might actually deliver more Australian gas for Australians. But, as it stands, this is a journey to blackouts, higher prices, less investment in Australia, less prosperity and fewer jobs in an industry that delivers extremely high standards of living and wages to the workers who benefit from it.

I rise to make a contribution on the domestic gas reservation bills before the House: the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, the Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 and the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026. We are home to some of the world's largest gas reserves—resources that have helped power economic growth, support communities, create jobs and establish Australia as one of the world's leading energy exporters. These resources are a national asset—an asset that belongs to all of us. Therefore, Australians rightfully demand reliable access to their own gas at prices they can afford. That simple principle sits at the heart of the government's domestic gas reservation reforms.

The government recognises the significant investment made by companies, workers and international partners in helping develop Australia's natural gas export industry. Those exports generate economic activity, support well-paying and skilled jobs, support our regional communities and play a critical role in securing our region's energy security. But Australians should not be facing uncertainty on whether they'll have access to their own gas given the fact that vast volumes are shipped overseas. Australian consumers and businesses should not pay high prices for a resource that is abundant right here in Australia, and Australian manufacturers and heavy industry should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage because the market fails to deliver adequate domestic supply. This package of reforms brings the balance back in our natural gas market and addresses the failures of the previous government when it came to our natural gas market.

At its core, the reform establishes a new domestic gas reservation framework based on export licensing. Liquefied natural gas exporters will continue to have the opportunity to export gas to international markets. These reforms will not see a cap on LNG exports. Companies can continue exporting as much LNG as they can supply, provided they also meet their obligations to support domestic supply. Put simply, we can secure domestic supplies and affordability without putting a stranglehold on our export markets. Australia can continue to be a major exporter while ensuring Australian consumers, manufacturers, heavy industries and businesses receive adequate access to Australian gas. This is not about restricting trade and growth in the natural gas market; it is about making sure the Australian natural gas market works for Australians too.

Under these new reforms, Australian LNG exporters will be required to contribute additional natural gas to the Australian domestic market. The bills before the House will establish a domestic supply obligation, which is set at 20 per cent of LNG exports. Put simply, 20 per cent of gas production will need to be set aside for Australians in the domestic market. The bill will also give the Australian Energy Regulator the responsibility for overseeing this scheme. Importantly, this obligation will not be a static requirement. This will allow the Australian Energy Regulator to have the power to calibrate obligations according to forecast domestic demand and supply requirements in the market. This also gives the Australian Energy Regulator the ability to maintain a modest surplus in the domestic market. By having a modest oversupply in the market, this will allow for downward pressure on natural gas prices. This will see major benefits to Australian households, Australian manufacturers, Australian heavy industry and Australian businesses. It helps strengthen economic resilience. It supports Australian jobs. It supports Australian industry. And it reduces the risk of supply shortfalls that can undermine confidence and security throughout the economy.

The government has also included strong integrity measures. We recognise that the effectiveness of any reservation framework depends on ensuring that additional domestic supply is genuine and represents a net increase in supply rather than a reallocation of existing supply. Exporters will not be able to satisfy their obligations merely by reclassifying gas that was already available to Australian customers. The expectation is made clear from the onset: the scheme must deliver real additional supply to the domestic market, not merely a reclassification. The Australian Energy Regulator will oversee compliance, monitor market behaviour and ensure obligations are met.

The package is also supported by improvements to the Gas Market Code designed to strengthen transparency and encourage responsible market conduct. It is important not only to set standards for supply and reservation of our natural gas market but to implement the necessary transparency and accountability mechanisms to see it successfully through. Importantly, the government has listened throughout the development of these reforms. Over the course of two years, extensive consultations were held with industry stakeholders. More than 130 submissions were received during the consultation process. As a result of extensive consultations, the government refined the framework to make it clearer, simpler and more predictable. The commencement date for domestic supply obligations was moved to 1 January 2028, as opposed to the original 1 July 2027 commencement, to better align with contracting cycles.

The formula used to calculate obligations has been simplified. Flexibility arrangements were simplified and narrowed. The government has also provided confidence in existing contracts, and how existing contracts are treated against the framework has been clarified with the sector. And regulatory discretion was reduced by providing clearer rules and requirements. The result is a framework that balances domestic energy security with investment certainty for the producers as well. We must get the balance right, building on existing market settings and obligations while ensuring our reforms deliver secure and reliable gas supplies into the future.

Australia's economy benefits enormously from investment and stability in the resources sector. The government understands the need to provide businesses in this sector with certainty when making long-term investment decisions, allowing them to plan ahead for new reforms and minimise disruptions to their operations. That is why contracts entered into before 22 December 2025 will be respected and upheld. The scheme includes transitional arrangements, which will recognise existing contracts, infrastructure constraints and current reservation arrangements. Importantly, the bills before the House allow for the facilitation of long-term export licences, which will provide investors with greater clarity and greater stability. Compliance pathways that will be enforced will also be clearly defined, and existing obligations appropriately recognised. These measures ensure that Australians receive the benefits of stronger domestic supply whilst ensuring Australia remains an attractive destination for investment.

There has been speculation that these reforms will mean Australia is turning away from international markets, and that's simply not the case. Australia remains committed to being a major LNG exporter and will continue to be a committed and trusted trading partner. Under these reforms, we remain committed to supporting the energy security of our region and, importantly, our regional partners. The government has actively engaged with trading partners and international investment throughout the development of these reforms. Existing contracts will continue to be honoured, and, importantly, Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier will remain solid. What changes is that Australian consumers and businesses will finally have stronger protections that ensure domestic supply is not overlooked. This is not a choice between Australians and our international partners; it is about giving Australian natural gas consumers a fair go.

These reforms are also about the critical flow-on effects of energy supply. By ensuring Australian supply remains available to Australian users, we create a stronger foundation for future investment and future economic growth. These reforms are about jobs. They are about manufacturing, and they are about Australia's future industrial capability. Affordable and reliable gas supports a wide range of industries. It supports our food producers. It supports our agricultural industry through chemicals and fertilisers. It supports manufacturing and construction. It supports our regional and rural economies. When businesses have confidence in future energy supply, they are more likely to invest, expand operations and create jobs.

Our natural gas reservation policy will be a key pillar in shielding industry and households from global price volatility and gas supply shortfalls. By placing downward pressure on gas prices and reducing scarcity risks, these reforms strengthen Australia's economic resilience and sovereign capability. It helps businesses plan for the future with greater confidence, and it supports the competitiveness of Australian industry in increasingly challenging global markets. Seventy per cent of Australia's gas usage stems from industrial activities, serving as the key input for our industrial base and sovereign capability.

Our liquefied natural gas reservation policy will also play an integral role in supporting our Future Made in Australia policy. By securing affordable and reliable access to natural gas, we support our Future Made in Australia agenda and nationally significant trade exposed industries that currently have limited viable electrification pathways. Securing our liquefied natural gas supply has never been more important. As we've seen in recent months and years, reliable access to critical supply chains is essential to our economic resilience, our energy security and our national interest—whether it was the global pandemic, the conflict that followed in Ukraine or the conflict in the Middle East. Access to vital supply chains is critical to economic prosperity and sovereign capability in times of global uncertainty.

Following the conflict in Ukraine, the Albanese government acted decisively to safeguard Australia's energy security. In December '22, the government recalled parliament to shield Australians from surging international gas prices and secured an additional 644 petajoules of gas supply. These were measures the coalition opposed at the time. More recently, following the conflict in Iran this year, the Albanese Labor government worked around the clock with international partners to safeguard Australia's supplies of diesel, fertiliser and other critical fuels. Now before the House the Albanese Labor government is taking further action to secure Australia's natural gas supplies both for the immediate future and for the years ahead.

The reforms also recognise the realities of Australia's geography. As we know, Australia's east coast and west coast gas markets operate differently, and our regulatory framework must reflect those differences. LNG exporters will be required to hold export licences, while our reforms will also allow for tailored regulatory settings where appropriate. This flexibility will ensure our policy settings respond to the realities of Australia's dynamic gas market rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all approach.

Ultimately, this reform comes down to a simple proposition: Australia's gas resources are a national asset. Australians deserve reliable access to those resources. Australian manufacturers and heavy industries deserve confidence that affordable energy will be available into the future. Australian workers deserve the jobs and opportunities that flow from a strong and competitive industrial base, and Australia can achieve all these goals while remaining a leading LNG exporter and a trusted global partner.

This package is about balance. It is about backing our regions. It is about backing our energy security. It is about supporting Australian jobs, supporting Australian manufacturing and supporting Australia's long-term economic strength. Most importantly, it is about ensuring that Australia's natural resources work for the Australian people and for Australian industry. That is why these reforms matter, and I commend the bills to the House.

I rise to speak on the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill and related bills. Overall, I'm supportive of this legislation. The Western Australian gas reservation scheme, which has now been in place for two decades, has shown that gas reservation schemes can be effective in ensuring Australians have abundant access to their own gas for a reasonable price. The east coast has looked enviously at our gas reservation scheme for many years, and it's finally taking action to implement its own. However, another lesson from WA is that the details matter. The gas companies will do whatever they can to exploit the loopholes in the system to prioritise profits over good faith engagement, and there are a range of issues with this Domestic Gas Reservation Bill that remain unresolved and ambiguous, which could form the basis for loopholes that result in more expensive gas for Australians, more emissions or more profits for gas companies.

Let me start with why we're here. Australia is one of the three largest exporters of gas, or LNG, in the world. Yet, despite having abundant reserves of gas in our country, we still often see projected shortages of gas and domestic prices linked to international prices. After Russia invaded Ukraine, wholesale prices went from under $10 a gigajoule to as much as $60. And it's a bit ridiculous that a conflict on the other side of the world can cause the price that Aussies pay for gas to skyrocket, when the gas is sitting here. Of course, the logic for the gas companies is also clear: they make more money by selling the gas overseas, so why wouldn't they? If we want gas to stay at home at a reasonable price for the people who own it, there have to be rules.

And that's why WA took action. Since 2006, through state agreements negotiated project by project, LNG exporters in WA have had to make gas equal to 15 per cent of their exports available to the local market. Now WA sells gas for around $6 to $8 a gigajoule on the domestic market, against $10 to $12 on the east coast. The WA scheme does have some serious problems, which I'll address later, but the basic premise has held up; gas that's kept in WA has been available and cheaper.

With gas prices remaining high on the east coast and with the Australian Energy Market Operator projecting shortfalls towards the end of the decade, the east coast has also decided to act. So what does this bill actually do? In short, this bill makes the right to export LNG depend on holding a licence. The licence comes with an obligation to supply the domestic market with up to 20 per cent of what the exporter sends overseas. Each year, the Australian Energy Regulator works out how much gas the domestic market is likely to need, adds a 10 per cent buffer and divides that amongst the exporters. Exporters have to supply the gas rather than simply offer it. Contracts signed before 25 December are respected, and the minister can reduce an exporter's obligations for those contracts for infrastructure constraints and where a state has its own reservation arrangements, which in practice means WA. Penalties can reach 10 per cent of annual turnover, and a licence can be suspended or cancelled. The companion bills put a levy on licences to cover the cost of the scheme and repeal the existing Domestic Gas Security Mechanism.

I support the principle, because this is Australians' gas. We should not be facing shortages and international prices for something that comes out of the ground here. I also believe the way to deal with a shortage is to put the gas we already have to better use before we go looking for more. New gas fields mean more emissions, and I want to keep new supply to a minimum and get as much as we can from renewables.

There are many specific aspects of this bill which are positives worth highlighting. The requirement that exporters must sell rather than just offer is an important change. It turns this into a buyer's market, where gas exporters must provide gas at prices that buyers will accept, rather than making only unattractive offers. I'm also pleased that exporters can meet their obligation by reducing domestic demand, for example by paying to electrify someone else's gas use. As the bill is drafted, this will depend on rules in the Gas Market Code, which haven't been written yet. But, if they're done well, this could be a positive outcome. Electrification and renewable energy are the long-term solutions as fossil fuels are phased out over time.

I also have a range of concerns with the bill as drafted. They are potential loopholes and ambiguities which threaten to undermine the intent of the legislation. Firstly, I'm concerned that this bill could drive an expansion in gas supply. Exporters want to keep their plants full. If the easiest way to meet a domestic obligation is to develop a new field rather than diverting gas from export, then they'll do that. An expansion of gas fields would not be compatible with our emissions targets and our mission to restore a stable climate for future generations. Secondly, there's a lack of clarity and modelling around how gas prices are actually expected to fall. This is a significant intervention in a major market, and the government is not clear on what's it's expected to do to the market or the prices that people will pay. Thirdly, the bill leaves a great deal in the hands of the minister. The minister can reduce supply obligations, for the whole market, to zero. The minister can adjust the obligation for an individual exporter and can grant extended periods at a reduced percentage. Now, I accept that some discretion is needed because markets change, but anyone trying to plan an investment or sign a supply contract has very little to hold on to. A lot is also still undefined. How additional gas is determined, how the annual demand calibration works and how baselines are set all sit in codes and instruments not before this parliament. Whether the scheme succeeds will depend on getting those right—and we're being asked to vote on the frame without them.

I also want to look at the interaction of this new federal gas reservation scheme with the WA scheme. Technically, this scheme will apply nationwide, but the bill allows the minister to carve out facilities that are already covered by a state scheme. Clearly the intention is to carve out WA facilities, which is the right decision, but there's an opportunity to use this federal scheme to strengthen compliance with the WA scheme. The issue with the WA reservation is that the 15 per cent obligation is measured over the life of the project and not in each year, so an exporter can supply very little for a long time and still say it's on track. The terms are negotiated and confidential. Only about eight per cent of WA gas was supplied domestically in 2023, not 15 per cent. The DomGas Alliance, which represents users such as Alcoa, Wesfarmers and Yara, says the Pluto LNG project has supplied just 3.4 per cent of its production to the local market. Many experts doubt that some facilities will ever reach 15 per cent, so a facility could receive the benefit of a carve-out from the federal reservation, despite not complying with the WA scheme.

There are two further points worth making. Gas reservation is a cost-of-living and energy security policy not a climate policy, and it can have unintended consequences. If it works, gas gets cheaper, and some households and businesses who would have switched to electric could decide to stay on gas. The answer is not a weaker scheme. The answer is to accelerate electrification and renewables alongside it, with help for households, small businesses and industry to get off gas. It also means asking how licences of 20 to 50 years sit alongside our climate targets, given that a licence issued in 2028 could run into the 2070s. We need to stay full steam ahead on net zero, while making sure the lights stay on and stay affordable along the way. Those two aims can work together.

Secondly, this bill is not a substitute for a better tax on gas exports. Gas companies do not pay their fair share for the right to use and sell the gas that belongs to Australians. The PRRT has failed so comprehensively that many gas projects have never paid it and probably never will. Since the invasion of Ukraine, exporters have made windfall profits approaching $100 billion, and the public has seen little of it beyond company tax.

The government has options here. It could fix the PRRT or introduce a targeted windfall profits tax or a two-way cashflow tax that shares both the upside and the downside. Now, I accept that investors need certainty and that sovereign risk is a thing. This calls for a carefully designed tax; it does not justify leaving the problem alone. Reservation and a fair return for the gas are separate questions, and we need an answer for both.

To sum up, I support the Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme. Gas produced here should serve the people who live here, and WA has shown it can work. But the government needs to tell us what it expects this to do to prices. It needs to narrow its own discretion, define additional gas properly, make sure the scheme does not end up producing more gas than the country needs, and then improve the taxation of gas exports. In Western Australia, an exemption from the national scheme should only be earned by delivering in good faith under our state scheme. I'll be introducing amendments to give effect to this so that an exemption is only possible if companies are actually delivering under the state scheme, not just if a state scheme is present. I ask that the government considers these amendments to make the most of this opportunity to make domestic gas reservation work effectively and fairly in every state—even WA. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Australia is one of the most blessed nations on earth when it comes to natural resources. From iron ore to gold, nickel, cobalt and silver—in fact, most of the periodic table—Australia surely leads the world in these riches. But the point needs to be clearly made that they are Australia's assets, a national asset, and for the benefit of all Australians, and that includes our liquefied natural gas, LNG.

Good legislation is based on extensive and thorough consultation across all stakeholders and interested parties. In December 2025, the Albanese Labor government released the Gas Market Review and announced its intention to introduce a Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme. Since then, consultations have included gas producers, exporters, peak bodies, manufacturers, unions, states and territories, and trade partners. Further, an exposure draft of the legislation package was released on 10 September 2026 for public consultation which closed on 24 September 2026. As a result of this exposure draft consultation, 130 submissions were received. The feedback received varied considerably by stakeholder group. The package before us then has been refined as a result of this consultation process.

The fundamental premise underlying the bill is that it recognises national gas as a national asset and, further, that LNG exports are important to supporting jobs and Australians must have access to cheaper and more domestic gas. Surely no-one can argue with these things. The package before us comprises three bills. Firstly, the main bill, the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, establishes the export licensing, domestic supply obligation, administration and enforcement framework. Secondly, the Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 amends a number of other acts, including the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Thirdly, the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026 will ensure costs associated with administrating the scheme are paid for by the gas industry.

The main bill relates to the proposed Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme and has two components. Firstly, LNG exporters will be and are required to hold an export licence. Secondly, these export licence holders are required to contribute to domestic gas supply through a domestic supply obligation, the DSO. The scheme's standard setting, the DSO, will require licence holders to contribute to the equivalent of 20 per cent of annual export volumes to domestic gas markets. Importantly, in relation to the second point, as demand forecasts firm, the Australian Energy Regulator, the AER, will align domestic supply obligations to forecast domestic demand.

This calibration or adjustment will ensure domestic supply prices do not sink to levels that would cause a collapse in gas production or undermine Australia's renewable goals. Further, regarding existing contracts and infrastructure, these will be respected and contractual commitments that predate the scheme's announcement may be recognised through an adjustment system. These adjustments will not operate as a blanket exemption from the domestic gas supply but rather will be limited by time and circumstances. Other flexibility mechanisms incorporated into the package recognise operational realities while maintaining the integrity of the domestic supply obligation.

The main bill also aligns with the Albanese Labor government's commitment to a net zero economy. It does this by enabling the Gas Market Code to prescribe circumstances in which renewable gas, or arrangements that reduce demand for gas, may contribute towards meeting a domestic supply obligation.

Finally, the main bill reflects Australia's two physically and very distinct gas markets, the east coast market and the west coast WA market. The two-speed approach recognises that market fundamentals and effectiveness of state based regulation are very different in these two markets. In other words, the package allows WA's existing state based gas reservation scheme to continue to operate within constitutional constraints.

The Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 commences when the domestic supply obligations begin and repeals the Australian domestic gas security mechanism from 1 January 2028. The reason why the ADGSM is being replaced is that it was designed to respond to forecast gas shortages. The new framework establishes an ongoing system that operates prospectively, preventing forecast gas shortages.

Finally, the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026 imposes a levy on export licences to recover the cost of administering and regulating the framework. The levy reflects the principle that the efficient costs of regulating an industry should be recovered from that industry rather than from the wider public.

The new framework and the new scheme outlined and detailed in these bills don't put a limit on the total amount of LNG that may be exported. In fact, exporters can continue to export as much LNG as they want, provided they meet their domestic supply obligations. Let me be clear. The Albanese government remains committed to Australia's role as a major LNG exporter and trusted trading partner, but this cannot come at the expense of domestic gas supply and users who have the right to demand reliable access to gas at prices they can afford.

In summary, access by Australians to reliable liquefied natural gas at an affordable price is fundamental to these bills, and the measures and reforms in these bills ensure that. Equally, these bills provide certainty for export of Australia's LNG and do not cap what can be sent to overseas markets. In this respect, these bills get the balance right. This legislation has and will generate debate. The debate is welcome. I commend to the House the bills and the work the ministers have done to get to this point.

Australians deserve a fair, affordable, transparent and predictable energy system, not the export distorted market that we have today. We have lots of gas, let's be real. This is an Australian resource. But, instead of prioritising our domestic markets, we have for far too long allowed companies to exploit it for great profit for export, prioritising other markets over our domestic market. We do not need more gas approvals. What we do need is to be smarter about where we use it, where it can be sold, what we have and who we prioritise.

Our gas security scheme has previously relied on a combination of market interventions, voluntary agreements and emergency mechanisms to manage supply concerns. These arrangements applied temporary bandaid solutions to avoid shortfalls, building an energy system reliant on fossil fuels and continuing to let the gas industry shape policies long after the science has shifted, also prioritising their profits over Australian consumers. Since liquefied gas exports started in Queensland over 10 years ago, eastern Australia's domestic gas consumption has fallen by about 32 per cent, while prices have tripled. In 2023-24, Australians paid more than four times on HECS debt payments to government revenue than gas companies did on PRRT.

Instead of rules to protect our domestic requirements, producers have had strong incentives to maximise exports for great profits. Projects like Santos's GLNG project in Queensland have siphoned gas away from the domestic market to fulfil export commitments. It is plain wrong, because while they do that at great profit Australians pay. This bill seeks to create a licensing regime for LNG exports from 2028. Each exporter must supply the domestic market with up to 20 per cent of what it exports. The theory behind that approach is clear. More gas in the market means, hopefully, lower prices for consumers, so it's an objective I support. But there are concerns around this bill.

As it stands, the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 presents significant concerns. The bill is incredibly complex, at 190 pages long, and after 18 months of consultation it's still unclear how it will work in practice. The bill is unclear about the core areas of the operation of the scheme: how much gas is to be provided to the domestic market, who supplies it and what counts, in fact, as supply. The government seems to be retrofitting a policy on top of projects that were considered without a domestic supply policy and trying to do so without upsetting the gas companies—the great lobbying sector that gets straight into the government—and not wanting to disrupt this sector, its investment business or anyone else. So I would say this is not the best drafted piece of legislation I've seen.

A significant amount of the scheme's operation still depends on future ministerial discretion and decisions by the Australian Energy Regulator. In a joint response, the Australian Workers' Union, Australian Conservation Fund, Australian Council of Social Service and Australian Industry Group have all highlighted that the bill has some major weaknesses that carry the risk that the scheme will be gamed and undermined, potentially to the point of hampering the efficacy of the reservation as a whole. Let's get real. The Australian public is pretty cynical at the prospect of the gas industry yet again gaming this legislation and whether or not the government is yet again creating a policy that will favour the gas industry's superprofits over Australian markets and Australian users. This should concern the government, and I hope they are hearing that feedback. Australians should not have to rely on future ministers making the right decisions behind closed doors. Parliament should provide greater certainty upfront through clear legislative safeguards, transparent decision-making and independent oversight. Australians deserve confidence that this scheme will deliver real, more than just simple paper, compliance.

First, there should be greater limits on ministerial discretion. Ensure that the key principles of the scheme are contained in the legislation itself. There are too many critical questions that are left to future rules, future determinations and future regulatory decisions. If this scheme is to endure, Australians deserve certainty about how obligations will be calculated, how compliance will be assessed and how decisions will be made. A reservation scheme should operate through clear rules, not ongoing ministerial intervention.

Second, we must strengthen the principle of additionality. The bill outlines two ways that you could meet your domestic supply obligations if you are a gas provider—through providing your own gas to the domestic market or by providing additional gas to the domestic market—but how additional gas is determined is not defined in the bill, Instead, it will be provided through the Australian Energy Regulator or ministerial decree. It's simply not good enough. I think the Australian public should be allowed to know how additional gas is to be defined and considered. This should be simple. If gas is counted towards a domestic supply obligation, it should result in a genuine increase in gas available to Australian consumers. There are really legitimate concerns that this can cause gaming by these companies. The fact is that this is not clearly defined. There is—excuse the pun—a Santos sized hole in this bill. Buying gas that was meant for the domestic market anyway and using it to fulfil your own obligations is allowed under this bill, and that is really problematic.

Third, the bill should better align with Australia's energy transition. I welcome the fact that the framework recognises demand size measures, electrification and alternative pathways, but these provisions must be designed to reduce Australia's dependence on gas, not create new incentives for gas expansion.

Fourth, transparency and accountability must be strengthened. The advice provided by the regulator should be published wherever possible. Determinations should be accompanied by clear reasons, and compliance decisions should be transparent and subject to scrutiny, because can I say again, the Australian public is highly cynical about the decisions government has made—this government and previous governments—in relation to the gas sector. Every decision has resulted in a system that the gas sector has been happy with because it continues to make super profits; meanwhile, Australians pay through the roof. It's not good enough.

This bill does not include a mandatory review period or operation to actually even assess whether the reservation scheme is working as intended in putting downward pressure on domestic prices. Ultimately, I hope that this bill provides a mechanism by which Australian gas for Australian consumers will be more affordable. But if the government gets this design wrong, we create a different problem. We don't want a policy designed to improve affordability to incidentally then become a vehicle for the expansion of fossil fuel production on this excuse of providing for the domestic market while maximising sales to export markets.

Whilst in principle I support there being a gas reservation scheme to ensure the domestic market is supplied fairly at a reasonable price, we have to be really clear that there is a high level of scepticism and cynicism when it comes to the involvement of the gas lobby and its power when it comes to dealing with this government and previous governments, so I urge the government to close the loopholes and ensure there is greater accountability and transparency.

To that effect, I move the amendment as circulated in my name to ensure that we have much greater transparency and accountability, pointing out that, for successive governments, there's been a real failure in delivering a fair stewardship of Australian resources for the Australian people.

This is the fourth intervention in the gas market in under a decade, and yet we still don't have a fair system. Such market interventions do undermine the market functioning. This bill relies on ongoing active management on the part of ministers and the regulator to achieve the policy intent. As I've said in my contribution, I am concerned that that makes it unclear as to what could happen in successive governments.

I do, in the amendment as circulated in my name, call on the government to: prevent the expansion of further LNG export capacity; accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels; enshrine the key principles of additionality in this bill instead of deferring to an Australian Energy Regulator instrument and remove ministerial determination; ensure acquisition cannot bypass the additionality test; and transparently publish the Australian Energy Regulator's advice and determinations to ensure the domestic gas reservation scheme does not encourage the development of new gas fields.

That the following words be added after paragraph (2):

(a) successive governments have failed to steward Australia's natural resources for the public benefit;

(b) this is the fourth intervention in the gas market in under a decade and that such market intervention undermines market functioning;

(c) this bill relies on ongoing active management on the part of ministers and the regulator to achieve the policy intent; and

(d) there are concerns that this bill may create incentives for new gas developments that are inconsistent with Australia's emissions reduction commitments; and

(4) further calls on the Government to:

(a) prevent the expansion of further LNG export capacity;

(b) accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels;

(c) enshrine the key principles of additionality in this bill instead of deferring to an Australian Energy Regulator (AER) instrument and remove ministerial determination;

(d) ensure acquisitions cannot bypass the additionality test; and

(e) transparently publish AER advice and determinations ensure the Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme does not encourage the development of new gas fields".

Is there a seconder for this amendment?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I rise today to speak in support of the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026. The reality is that governing is rarely that simple.

Australians expect a fair return from their natural resources. They also expect affordable and reliable energy. They expect secure jobs and a stronger manufacturing sector, and good policy requires us to advance all of these objectives together. This legislation is an important contribution towards that goal. At its core, the bill is about energy sovereignty. Energy sovereignty means the capacity of a territory—like Australia—to meet its energy needs in an autonomous and sustainable way to guarantee its independence, having direct control over its energy resources, production and infrastructure. Energy sovereignty is made up of many different parts. It could mean guaranteeing security of energy supply in a particular territory. It could mean encouraging the development of renewable gases to reduce imports of fossil fuels. It could mean investing in the adaptation or construction of infrastructure to strengthen energy resilience. It could mean developing meaningful and long-lasting relationships with allies and partners in our region to achieve gains of trade. It could mean a combination of those things.

We've seen gains of trade in action recently through the Albanese Labor government's broad approach to improving energy sovereignty in this country. This approach included drawing on our relationships with Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia to secure new agreements for the supply of fuel and fertiliser. In securing these resources, the government was able to emphasise that energy security is a dual carriageway, with our gas playing a critical role in this 'gain of trade' approach.

A basket of measures to improve energy sovereignty was also a feature of the May 2026 Federal Budget, which committed $11.9 billion through the previously existing National Fuel Security Plan, with the aim of securing Australia's near-term fuel and fertiliser security. Within this was the establishment of a fuel and fertiliser security facility—a $7.5 billion investment which is intended to increase the domestic supply and storage of fuel and fertiliser by providing financial support, including loans.

Order! As a quorum has been called in the House of Representatives, proceedings are suspended until the chair is resumed.

Sitting suspended from 12:48 to 12:51

by leave—Equity guarantees insurance and price support. Secondly, $3.2 billion was committed for the establishment of an Australian fuel security reserve. As part of this initiative, approximately one billion litres of fuel was reserved to increase long-term diesel and aviation fuel supply and storage, and the minimum stockholding obligation will increase Australia's critical fuel reserves to 50 days. The focus of this is to address potential regional stock-outs and supply constraints for essential users like critical industries and farmers in anticipation of future potential supply disruptions.

Separately, the federal budget also committed $35.5 million to be spent over four years from 2026-2027 for the establishment of a domestic gas reservation mechanism. This aims to ensure a secure and affordable domestic gas supply through the wholesale gas market. These funds will be spent over four years from 2026-2027 not only to develop and implement the reservation mechanism but to conduct gas market analysis and policy development to promote market reliability and energy security, to modernise offshore resources regulation, support gas investment and mitigate supply shortfalls.

Energy sovereignty also reflects that Australian gas is our natural asset. The Albanese Labor government's Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme is a landmark Labor reform, designed to deliver more supply at the lowest possible prices for gas users, disconnecting domestic prices from the more costly international market, and it's also designed to make Australian industry stronger and our economy more resilient to global, political and supply-chain shocks. These, of course, look like they're becoming more frequent, of longer duration and with much shorter periods of relief in between. Australians rightly expect to receive a fair return from the development of our natural resources. That expectation is reasonable, and it's one that governments must continue to keep in mind when considering future resource, taxation and royalty arrangements.

But energy sovereignty is not one size fits all. As this government has demonstrated, it requires a really broad approach that is much more considered than simple calls to just drill at all costs or to implement a blunt taxation instrument, which is always the inevitable call in response to bills of this nature. Do I want Australians to get a better return on gas and our natural resources? Yes, I do. Do I want Australian gas to be first and foremost available for Australians so that there are no energy shortfalls and so there can be firming as we continue the transition to clean, renewable energy? Yes, I do. I want these things as quickly as reasonably practicable, which is why it's so important to have conversations that can lead to these benefits for the Australian people—conversations that involve fair comparisons and fair and relevant case studies; conversations that are informed by facts and data, not slogans.

The question before us today is not whether Australians should benefit more from Australian gas, because they should. The question is how we deliver that outcome in a way that strengthens energy security, supports Australian industry and provides certainty for investment. Taxation can influence investment and government revenue, but taxation alone does not guarantee affordable domestic supply. The purpose of this bill is to address supply and energy security directly by ensuring Australian gas remains available to Australian households and businesses. Resource taxation will continue to be debated in this place, and rightly so, because Australians expect governments to examine whether the community is receiving a fair return from the extraction and commercialisation of our natural resources. In Australia, we have a mechanism: the petroleum resources rent tax.

The PRRT is a profit based tax designed to capture revenue from Australia's oil and gas resources without discouraging the investment of private capital in identifying and developing those resources that we still need to do at this moment. An entity will be liable to pay PRRT where that entity earns a taxable profit in relation to an offshore petroleum project. PRRT is levied at the rate of 40 per cent of taxable profits, and it's payable in addition to income tax. While views differ on the appropriate level of resource taxation, today's legislation is not principally a taxation measure; it's an energy security measure. Its purpose is to ensure that domestic users can access Australian gas at predictable prices and in reliable quantities.

That being said, since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has made changes to the PRRT to reflect community sentiment that gas companies should pay more tax. The changes mean that between now and 2030 gas companies will pay approximately $1.6 billion more than originally forecast. But does this mean set and forget, all good? No. There are big differences between Australia and other countries like Norway and Qatar, which are often used as comparison points. The differences between us primarily relate to the ownership structure of assets and organisations, the capital outlays, the downside risk to the taxpayer and the way gas is taxed in essence as a cash flow tax where CAPEX is immediately expensed, leading to lower downside risk for investors, rather than as a revenue tax. As a general principle, Australia and the Australian people do not receive a comparable return once those differences are taken into account.

No tax system should ever be considered beyond review, but reform should be guided by evidence and Australia's long-term national interest. If it involves comparisons between industry, systems or countries, the comparisons should be apples with apples in fairness. Otherwise, they just don't advance the argument. For example, unlike an excise, the PRRT is a profits based tax. An excise is a flat, volume based tax that provides a regular source of revenue regardless of whether a producer of the product attracting the excise makes a profit or not. With respect to the PRRT, the question is not whether tax should be paid but how Australia balances a fair return to the community with maintaining investment in projects that underpin jobs, exports and energy security.

Good energy policy is not about choosing between households and industry, between energy security and decarbonisation, or between domestic consumers and our trading partners; it's about balancing all of these interests responsibly, and that is what this bill seeks to do with an appropriate emphasis on securing supply and fair prices for the Australian people. At this moment in time, Australian gas supports jobs and investment, supports regional communities, and provides energy security for us and our trading partners. At the heart of this bill 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. The regime operates with certainty for both the Australian consumer and the exporter, in that it establishes a predictable and proportionate domestic contribution at prices agreed in commercial negotiations between market participants while allowing exporters to continue to participate in international markets.

The way the regime has been balanced is also important for business and heavy industry, which is particularly reliant on gas. Many industries, like chemicals, plastics and fertilisers, rely on natural gas as a critical raw material or energy source. A reliable, affordable domestic supply keeps these industries competitive and prevents job losses. A good example of this in motion is the South Australian government's agreement with Santos, pursuant to which Santos will supply about 20 petajoules of gas per year to the state's strategic gas reserve from its Moomba operations over 10 years, commencing from 1 March 2030. This arrangement will support the long-term future of the Cooper basin central fields near Moomba, create jobs in Adelaide, create jobs in regional South Australia for at least the next 15 years and ensure South Australia's industrial future and energy security, including the planned sale and transformation of the Whyalla Steelworks.

Australian gas should first and foremost be for Australian consumers and Australian industry. Given its abundance, there should be no gap in supply in the domestic market and prices should be fair, and exporters who export Australian Gas should contribute fairly to the welfare of the Australian people by providing jobs, supporting industry, supporting regional security and paying the Australian people fairly, including by paying the levy contemplated by the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026, which is payment for the opportunity and significant benefits that come to them from extracting Australian natural gas. I commend the bill to the chamber.

I rise to speak on the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill and related bills. Australia's gas is a shared national inheritance. It belongs to all of us, and how we share it matters. Right now Australian households and businesses compete with international buyers for their own gas, and too little of the proceeds of selling it come back to the public who own it. I support the principle of domestic gas reservation. The question I want to put to the House is one every resource decision should answer: what is in it for the public?

Western Australia asked that question in 1979. When the WA parliament ratified the North West Shelf agreement, the state did not simply approve a project; it struck a bargain. The state energy commission became the anchor customer on a 20-year take-or-pay contract and built the Dampier to Perth pipeline. In return, Western Australians got first priority in both reserve allocation and deliverability. Read that debate and you'll find members on both sides argued about royalties, foreign ownership, local content and whether a public stake should be taken. Government and opposition disagreed sharply, but both understood that they were deciding how a public resource would serve the public over the long term. Nearly 50 years on, WA's reservation is imperfect, but it has helped buffer domestic prices from international swings.

The east coast took a different path. Between late 2010 and mid-2011, three LNG gas projects at Gladstone were approved and committed around 25 million tonnes a year of export capacity, up from zero in less than a year. Nobody paused to ask how domestic supply would be secured or how the public would benefit. There are people in this House who presided over these decisions. An east coast reservation is 16 years overdue.

The problem the bill seeks to resolve is real. The gas market review found Australia produces around four times as much gas as it consumes, yet AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, is warning of domestic shortfalls from 2030. Since east coast exports began in 2015, production has roughly tripled—so have prices. Gas that once sold for under $5 a gigajoule now contracts at $12. It's in part thanks to a price cap that it's not higher. At the height of the crisis, Australians were offered gas at prices as high as $60 a gigajoule. The minister called this unacceptable. She was right.

I think we do need to stop and think and reflect on this, because at the moment there is much discussion about supply in gas and how we just need to increase supply and that's going to lower prices, but we have seen a situation in this country, on the east coast, where we tripled supply and then the prices almost tripled as well. That shows, I think, the fallacy of that argument and also the need to get the settings right, because gas prices really matter. Households paid around $1 billion more for gas in 2023-24 than in 2014-15, and businesses paid a further $3 billion. That is before counting the impact on electricity prices. Gas still supplies around a quarter of all energy Australians use and more than 80 per cent of the Northern Territory's electricity.

Domestic consumption on the east coast has fallen by around a quarter. Some of that fall is good news—households electrifying and leaving gas behind. Some of it is damning. Manufacturing closures driven by high gas prices have cost at least 1,200 jobs. The Gibson Island urea plant in Brisbane shut at the end of 2022 because it could not secure affordable gas. When the war in Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz this year, the government had to scramble for fertiliser.

High prices have not made the public rich. This is the problem. Rising prices and record volumes should have delivered strong royalties and resource rents. Instead, the PRRT collects nothing from Queensland export projects, and taxpayers are now being asked to prop up energy-intensive industry. Four interventions in under a decade—the ADGSM, the heads of agreement, the Gas Market Code and now a reservation scheme—are not the sign of a functioning market. They are attempts to claw back access to a resource the public already should own.

The Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 creates a licensing regime for LNG exports from 2028. Each exporter must supply the domestic market with up to 20 per cent of what it exports. Each year, the Australian Energy Regulator will forecast domestic demand at a 10 per cent buffer, subtract what non-exporters will supply and share the remainder among exporters. The minister can reduce an individual exporter's obligation because of LNG contracts signed before December 2025, infrastructure constraints or existing state reservation arrangements. The companion bills impose a cost recovery levy on licence holders, repeal the ADGSM and rewrite the Gas Market Code, removing the price cap. The minister says the scheme will deliver a reliable supply of affordable gas at home. This is an unobjectionable goal. The question is genuinely whether the bill will deliver it.

So I come back to the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026. I support the intent of the bill. Australian resources should benefit Australians. The government has consulted widely and worked across portfolios, and I thank the minister for her office's engagement with mine. I support requiring reserved gas to be supplied, not merely offered. I support excluding renewals and extensions from the protection for existing contracts, and I support the provision allowing demand reduction and renewable gas to count towards the obligation.

But let's now move to my concerns. This is an exceptionally complex bill built around a simple proposition: our resources should serve the national interest and exporters should be net contributors to the domestic market. What makes it so difficult is that we are retrofitting a policy onto projects that were built without one, and we are trying to do so without breaching existing contracts and creating so much sovereign risk that future investment evaporates or atrophies. Yet, across nearly 200 pages, the questions that matter are still left for ministerial decision or rules not yet written: how much gas is supplied domestically, by whom and what counts as supply. The test for whether the gas is additional is not in the bill. It sits in a baseline method the regulator has not yet made, in case-by-case approvals that need not be published and in a power for ministers to declare gas additional in whatever circumstances an instrument specifies.

The minister says the scheme is predictable and proportionate, but the obligation changes every year. Individual exporters can be granted adjustments on regulator advice that need never be published. That is not a rules based reservation scheme; it is a scheme that depends on active, ongoing management by multiple ministers and the regulator, and it will only be as good as the next decision. Consistency depends on later decision-makers. It raises the question: how is this more certain than the intervention it replaces?

There are real risks, and the impact analysis states them plainly. Some high-cost production may become uneconomic, reducing production and constraining supply. The Productivity Commission in 2015 and the ACCC in 2016 both cautioned that a reservation scheme could distort market signals and prove inefficient. Producers call the 110 per cent target a sugar hit—an indirect price control, whose target the government will not state. Rystad Energy estimates that, while most existing gas can be produced for under $10 a gigajoule, the marginal cost of supply rises to $13 to $14 by the mid-2030s, beyond the current price cap. If domestic-only producers cannot compete, they will sell to the exporters. As drafted, an exporter that buys a domestic producer turns that producer's output into its own gas, appearing to bypass the additionality test altogether. That concentrates ownership, undermining competition. Also, reservation alone can only supply around half of the current east coast demand. The ongoing viability of domestic producers remains essential.

Other countries offer lessons. Norway and Qatar control allocation directly through state ownership. The UK taxes windfall profits to subsidise energy users. The United States vastly expanded supply to meet export capacity. Indonesia shows what happens when a reservation is combined with a price cap, falling production and rising demand: rationing, falling investment, and, this month, a public dispute with Singapore over cut supply.

I'm also concerned about cost and trust. The impact analysis puts the regulatory burden at $134 million over 10 years—more than double the status quo. We know from the PRRT that complexity, combined with information asymmetry, favours industry over the public. I'm also concerned the government will treat this scheme as a reason not to reform how we tax gas. And we must reform how we tax gas.

None of these are reasons not to reserve gas. There are reasons to get it right, which means legislating and administering the scheme in a way that is both predictable and transparent. So what is needed? Some changes would make the scheme more predictable and give confidence that it will deliver gas to the domestic market that is genuinely additional.

Firstly, there's additionality. The obligation can be met by either own gas or additional gas. Defining 'additionality' is central to ensuring gas doesn't leak from the domestic market. Those principles belong in the act, not in a method the regulator has yet to write. The minister should not hold an open-ended power to declare gas additional, and existing production should not be considered as additional, case by case, by the regulator.

Secondly, there are acquisitions. An exporter should not be able to meet its obligation by buying a domestic producer and relabelling that producer's output as its own. This would meet the domestic supply obligation but would only serve to concentrate supply, not add to domestic volumes.

Thirdly, there's transparency. The regulator's advice on adjustments, every production base line and every approval of additionality should be published, with reasons. If these decisions cannot be reviewed, they should be at least seen, and volumes shouldn't be able to hide from scrutiny behind claims of commercial sensitivity.

Fourth, there's export capacity. Gas exports should be limited to the capacity we have today. We can honour our existing commitments without signing new ones. Our trade partners are transitioning away from fossil fuels, and our fields are in decline. Gas infrastructure built today is tomorrow's stranded asset and locks in decades of decommissioning.

This bill is a stopgap for two things we really need: a deliberate transition plan and natural resource stewardship. Reservation is not energy policy on its own. We also need a deliberate and coherent plan to get off gas. Neither the Net Zero Plan nor the Future Gas Strategy sets out one. The most obviously national-interest energy policy on offer is to run as much of Australia as possible on the thing that we have more of than anyone else and is hard to ship: sunshine. Once renewables are built, the fuel is free. Gas only gets more expensive as wells get deeper and pipelines get longer. Gas dependence is inflationary.

We need natural resource stewardship that delivers real public benefit. In 1979, the WA parliament debated royalties, public equity and how fast to produce a public resource. We need that debate again. The public is now co-investing tens of billions in critical minerals and energy-intensive industry through mechanisms that are hard to see and harder to scrutinise. The question the government must answer is what we, the co-investors, get in return. I will shortly release a white paper on how Australia should tax its resources better, to try and put some answers at least into the public domain on this and get some feedback.

We cannot keep tinkering with gas settings every few years. It undermines confidence in Australia as a place to invest, and it undermines the market. This bill is our chance to set rules that last. Western Australia got its share in 1979 because its parliament asked what was in it for the public. Sixteen years late, the east coast deserves the same answer to the same question and to have a clear rules-based answer written into law.

Australia is a country rich in natural energy. We have plenty of sunshine, especially in the state where I come from. We have powerful wind sources. We're also very rich in people with great skills and innovation. Those people are greatly needed to move us to being a country that is fully reliant on clean, renewable energy, and that's been a big priority of this government. We went to the election last year pushing very hard. We had a track record of talking about our commitment to renewables and our net zero targets.

Order! A quorum has been called in the House of Representatives. As a quorum has been lost, proceedings are suspended until the chair is resumed.

Sitting suspended from 13:15 to 13:20

by leave—We were talking about the fact that Australia has set our net zero targets and our movement towards renewable energy. For a very long time in Australia, we've been very reliant on fossil fuels, and we recognise that you can't just flick a switch and move fully to renewables. There has to be a transition, and Labor does have a plan in place to transition to renewable energies. That's exactly where the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 fits in. Earlier I heard the member for Wentworth refer to it as a stopgap bill, and I tend to agree with that. It is a stopgap bill in terms of our transition from being fully reliant on fossil fuels to renewables. We are one of the world's largest exporters of liquefied natural gas. Even though we're doing that, there is a fairness element here, because I think it's fair for Australians to expect that their domestic gas supply is made a priority here, in Australia, as well. That's essentially what the government's domestic gas reservation plan is about and why it matters.

It does establish some clear principles. Access to Australia's gas export industry must come with a responsibility to supply the Australian market. It matters for a manufacturer trying to negotiate a contract, a small business maybe planning their energy costs and households planning the family budget. Our resources should support Australians at home as well as export earnings overseas. As we move towards an electricity system powered increasingly by renewables, we do need to manage the transition, as I said, with some seriousness. We do need cleaner energy, but we also do need reliable energy. We need an energy market that serves the people and the industries who depend on it. Business operates much more productively and much more efficiently when there is certainty, and our gas reservation plan is an important part of meeting those responsibilities.

These proposed reforms will establish Australia's first national domestic gas reservation system. I understand it's been in the works for some time. Under the proposed framework, gas exporters would face a domestic supply obligation equivalent to 20 per cent of the LNG, liquefied natural gas, exports calibrated to forecast domestic demand. That percentage is measured against export volumes. It's not a claim that one-fifth of all Australian gas production will automatically be redirected. The purpose is to make sure more gas is available to Australian customers and reduce the risk of a tight domestic market. We know what happens when markets are tight; prices go up. The proposal also seeks to replace several Commonwealth interventions with a more coherent framework which will give producers and customers clear rules for investment and long-term contracts. The principle behind the reservation is pretty simple. If you benefit from exporting Australia's gas, you should contribute to meeting Australia's gas needs, and it's a reasonable expectation of an industry that's built on natural resources. It's built on resources that are literally under our feet.

Why is this reform necessary? It's necessary because being a major gas producer does not automatically protect domestic consumers. The availability of gas in the ground is only part of the story. What matters to an Australian customer is whether gas is offered to them on workable terms and at a price they can afford and whether it can reach them when they need it. When supply is tight, buyers have few options. When businesses have few options, their bargaining positions weaken. When energy costs become unpredictable, decisions get postponed. A new production line might wait. An expansion may get put on hold. An employer becomes more cautious about taking on staff. Energy insecurity can become economic insecurity, and our reservation plan seeks to address that problem by increasing the pool of gas available to domestic consumers. It's intended to result in a market where Australian buyers have better access to supply and more confidence to negotiate.

For Australian Manufacturing, the stakes are significant. Gas is used for industrial heat and in some industries as a raw material. We don't want that to continue forever, but that's the case now and we have to have a smart transition to full renewables. It plays a role in producing goods that Australians use every day. Some businesses can electrify parts of their operations now. Others face more difficult technical and financial challenges. They may need new equipment. They may need new processes and new technologies that may still be developing. We should encourage that change wherever it is practical to do so.

We cannot build a credible transition around pretending every industrial process can change overnight. Workers deserve a plan that recognises the realities of the industries they work in. A worker in a gas-dependent factory should be able to support climate action without being told that uncertainty about their livelihood is simply something they must accept. A business owner should be able to invest in cleaner production while still securing the energy needed to operate today, and reliable domestic gas can help provide that breathing room. It can support existing production while businesses invest in efficiency, electrification and lower emissions processes.

The objective should be a stronger industrial base that becomes progressively cleaner, and that's certainly the objective of this government. Australians should aspire to make more of the products a changing world needs. We should want investment in Australian facilities, we should want skilled workers in Australian communities, and we should want the value of our resources to support more than the act of shipping them overseas. Our Future Made in Australia policy does just that. It brings all of this together. It brings together our energy transition.

There is sometimes an assumption that supporting renewables and securing gas supply must be contradictory positions. That assumption overlooks how the electricity system works and the fact that not everybody is there yet. The Australian Energy Market Operators 2026 Integrated System Plan identifies renewable energy connected through networks firmed with storage and backed up by gas as the least cost pathway for supplying secure and reliable electricity to our businesses and to our homes, but each part has a different job. Wind and solar provide renewable generation. Transmission allows electricity to move between places and share resources across our regions. Batteries store energy and respond quickly when the systems need them. Hydro and other storage help cover longer periods. Flexible gas generation provides a backup when renewable output is low and storage is insufficient. The task is to build these parts together. A solar farm cannot deliver its full benefit if it cannot connect to the grid. A battery needs electricity to charge, and a gas generator cannot provide dependable backup if it cannot secure fuel.

The last point is where domestic gas reservation can extract directly to the transition. As I said, the transition is a big part of this government's agenda. When I put my hand up to run back in 2022, moving our country towards a country so dependent on renewables was just so important to me and so important to the people of the Brisbane electorate. It was something that I said would be a priority for me as a member of parliament, so I am happy to speak on this bill today for that reason—not because I think the future of our country is fossil fuels. I speak to it because the future of our countries is renewables, and we need to make sure we get there. We need to have a plan to get there.

Back to the domestic gas reservation connecting directly to the transition, if gas is part of the system's backup, then access to gas becomes part of the electricity reliability. A reservation policy can help strengthen that access. It supports the fuel supply behind the backup capacity that the electricity system may need. Imagine a period of high electricity demand where renewable output is lower across several regions or storage has been working hard. Reserves might be running down. At that moment, the system will need a dependable source that can respond, and flexible gas generation can contribute to that.

But the value of that capacity depends on practical questions. Is fuel available? Can it be transported? Is there enough pipeline capacity? Can the plant operate when required? Those questions show why reservation is useful and why it must sit within a broader energy plan. Reserving gas on paper is only part of the task. The fuel, as I said earlier, must be deliverable, and planning must connect gas supply, pipelines, storage and electricity generation. It's a continuum, and all of this must happen alongside continued innovation and construction of renewables, electricity storage and transmission. The more effectively we build the whole system, the more confident we can be to retire ageing coal generation while protecting reliability. That's what a managed transition requires: practical preparation for the conditions the system will actually face.

We should also be clear, though, about the limits of the arguments here. Gas is a fossil fuel. Burning it produces greenhouse gas emissions. Methane leakage from production and transport also matters. Supporting a targeted role for gas does not remove those facts. Our responsibility is to reduce emissions while maintaining a functioning energy system and supporting people who rely on it. It means gas reservation should accompany continued investment in renewable generation, in storage, in energy efficiency and in electrification. For households, efficient electric appliances can reduce the need to buy gas. For businesses, better equipment and improved processes can reduce energy demand. For the electricity grid, more renewable generation and storage can reduce occasions when fossil fuels are required. Those changes must continue. A credible policy secures the gas Australians still need while helping reduce the need for it wherever practical. It should give us confidence to move forward with the transition.

At its heart, this is a debate about what Australians should reasonably expect from natural resources. They should expect those resources to contribute to public prosperity, they should expect the industry to operate under clear rules and they should expect benefits to extend to people who keep this country working: the tradesperson supplying local manufacturers, an apprentice starting a career or the family whose income depends on a regional industrial employer. Maybe it's a small business facing another contract renewal. For these Australians, energy policy is deeply practical. It affects whether the employer expands, whether the business grows, whether jobs are created, whether a business remains competitive, whether a household has room in its budget for that little extra that it might need, and whether a community has confidence in its economic future. That's a big part of this. It's about making sure that businesses, families and communities are confident about where we're going as a nation as we transition away from fossil fuels to renewables.

The transition to renewable energy is an enormous national undertaking. It requires construction, investment and coordination over many, many years. It requires public confidence. It requires workers. It requires education. It requires new skills. I go back again to public confidence. Public confidence depends on showing people that practical challenges are being addressed, and that public confidence does get tied up in skills development, education and what kids today are doing after school. We cannot ask Australians to trust an energy transition while ignoring their concerns about reliability, we can't ask industry to invest while treating secure supply as somebody else's problem, and we cannot assume that resource abundance will automatically produce a fair domestic market. Government has a responsibility to shape the rules, and our domestic gas reservation plan accepts that responsibility. It seeks to secure more gas for Australian users, it aims to improve the conditions under which households and industries obtain energy supply and it supports the back-up roles gas will play as renewable generation and storage become the foundation of our electricity system and of our homes, our businesses and our communities.

The work is to turn that framework into results—more dependable access, better contracting opportunities, a stronger domestic market and an energy transition that Australians can trust. Our ambition should be a country that uses its resources wisely and builds on its renewable advantages, thereby giving people a fair return—a country where export success supports domestic prosperity, where industrial workers have a place in a cleaner economy and where energy security is treated as a public responsibility. I commend this bill to the House.

Sitting suspended from 13:35 to 16:00

I rise to offer a contribution to the three bills the government have introduced: the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, the Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 and the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026. According to the government, this legislative package will deliver affordable energy, secure national gas supply and guarantee cheap gas for Australian industry and households. The problem for me is that I believe that this will deliver more red tape and more regulatory complexity and is another round of market intervention that creates confusion across the economy, particularly within the gas industry. As you are probably aware, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas, I represent the Central Queensland seat of Flynn, which is home to the largest CSG gas industry, at Curtis Island at the Port of Gladstone. It gets its feedstock largely from Central Queensland and is a major exporter of liquefied natural gas and a major supplier to the domestic market around Australia.

The first question I would ask of my parliamentary colleagues, the wider public and the political commentators is simply this: why do we need a gas reservation policy? There might seem to be an obvious answer to many, but many people do not understand the complexities of the gas industry. There are a few anomalies that need to get pointed out in the whole argument. First and foremost is that the gas resources are the domain of the states not the federal government, with the exception of all the offshore gas. To make arguments around the PRRT, which is the Petroleum Rent Resources Tax, which applies specifically to offshore gas development—to apply that to onshore gas reserves and the companies that develop it, export it, sell it, supply it and so forth is nonsense, because it's not the same thing.

The states—in my case, Queensland—gained huge amounts of revenue from the big export companies that operate out of Gladstone and have developed that gas resource in Queensland. One of the problems with the whole gas reservation policy argument is, as I've said, the question of why we need a gas reservation policy. The answer is very simple. By and large, the New South Wales government and the Victorian government, in particular, have not developed their gas resources. Nor have they developed the infrastructure required to deliver that gas resource or to plug into the systems from Queensland, for example. You would argue that they need gas—and, yes, they do. At the moment, there is not a gas shortage—not right now—but it is projected that in the early 2030s there very much will be a gas shortage, particularly in Victoria. The reason for that is that their gas reserves in the Bass Strait, for example, are becoming depleted and, because they have a fracking ban and they don't want to develop their gas resources and want to electrify all of their business, industry and houses and so forth—the Victorian government, in their wisdom, has developed policies like new home builds can't have a gas stove, gas heating and so forth, because they want them to be all electric—that raises significant issues for the businesses and industries that need gas in the future. They will have to take up the shortfall of the rising cost of that gas.

Those states are asking now for the Queensland gas development companies to supply them with gas and saying, 'It is our right as Australians to have some of that gas, and they should supply it to us.' But that, again, raises some problems. If you are going to now mandate or manipulate the market, as per these bills, and demand that the gas companies supply gas at a lower rate than their export income, what you're actually saying is that Queensland should accept less revenue for the gas that they've developed and that gas should go to the states—in this case, New South Wales, Victoria et cetera—at a discounted rate. From a Queensland point of view, that is not fair. From an industry point of view, we're asking, by this these pieces of legislation, for them to accept less money for the contracts that they've already got in place. That is nothing more than market manipulation, and market manipulation never works. We've seen this many, many times over the years.

I don't doubt that the whole gas issue is complex, but it's got further ramifications, because if you're going to have a gas reservation policy that affects Queensland producers, for example, how do you apply that to Western Australia and the Northern Territory—to demand that those companies and businesses up there supply the same amount of domestic gas? How can you possibly make the price the same where there is just nowhere to use that gas? That adds another layer of complexity to the whole issue of how we get around supplying affordable and reasonable gas.

To me, the other problem with this bill is that it doesn't actually create any more gas. The only way you can create more gas is by convincing the states, particularly New South Wales and Victoria, to explore their gas reserves. To date, they have made no commitments to do that, but that is what needs to be done. This all goes back to the argument of whether we develop our fossil fuel industries. For many, many years, New South Wales and Victoria have chosen not to do that. But now they find themselves in a position where they can't do without gas because they need gas both to supply to their business and industry and to generate electricity with, because it is quite clear that the renewable energy sector is not capable of supplying 24/7 power, so that power generation has to be backed up by something else. In this case it has to be gas. So the whole issue is extremely complex.

There is another problem that the big companies have got if they're expected to reserve up to 20 per cent of their gas production for the domestic market and take less money for it. Does that add any incentive to spending and committing billions of dollars for further development in exploration, drilling wells and developing wells and building the necessary infrastructure that is required to do that? Having dealt with all the big companies—I speak to them on a regular basis—their arguments are, 'That doesn't look very good, and if you're going to manipulate the market, we're not very interested in committing and spending a whole lot of money redeveloping gas tenements and building the necessary infrastructure required.' And there are significant amounts of money required to do that.

Before I came to politics, I came out of the gas industry. I'm a high-pressure pipe welder by trade, and I can assure you there are billions and billions invested into that infrastructure in Queensland that I helped to develop back then when it was all being done. If you are required to duplicate some of those pipelines and some of the infrastructure required—that was 20 years ago when I worked in the business, and there would need to be substantially more money committed from the big gas companies with what we're requiring them to do. As I've said, the whole gas reservation policy is a complex argument. It is not well understood by many of my parliamentary colleagues. I have listened carefully to some of the comment been made, and, for me, one of the big problems is that everybody in the wider public and some of the political commentators simply do not understand that gas as a resource, when it's onshore in Australia, it is controlled by and is the domain of the states. And, unless the state governments are all on the same page in respect to developing these resources, you are going to have problems, and significant ones. And that's why we're all in the position we're in. I would just ask everybody to try and understand the reality of what the government is proposing here. For me, as I've said, it is more complexity in the whole problem. It is more market manipulation that actually doesn't guarantee any more gas, nor does it encourage the gas companies to develop the resources which we sorely need.

Natural gas is vital to Australia's prosperity, our manufacturing industry and our energy security. It is one of our country's greatest natural assets, and we have a responsibility to make sure Australians benefit from the resources beneath our own soil and waters. Gas is essential to the production of products we rely on every single day. It helps our manufacturers produce steel, aluminium, glass and fertiliser. It provides households with energy for cooking and heating, and it plays an important role in backing up our electricity system, helping keep the lights on when the demand is high and renewable generation is not sufficient. The gas industry also supports tens of thousands of Australian jobs, attracts investment into our regions and generates over $60 billion a year in export income.

I am a strong supporter of the Australian gas industry. I want to see it continue to invest, create and grow. But supporting our gas industry also means making sure our domestic market has the reliable and affordable supply it needs. Australian gas should not simply be a resource that we extract, export and sell to the highest bidder overseas. It should support Australian families, Australian businesses and Australian manufacturing. When the east coast LNG market was opened up, Australians were promised this would not come at the expense of domestic supply. But the development of the export industry fundamentally changed the market, with some companies entering into contracts which export more gas than they produce. The result has been a market in which Australian businesses are competing with overseas buyers for access to gas produced here at home.

This is a problem when gas is an essential input into Australian manufacturing. It is a problem when businesses cannot secure affordable long-term contracts with confidence. And it is a problem when families are left dealing with high energy bills and the rising cost of living. We have seen wholesale gas prices rise significantly from the levels that Australians enjoyed before the LNG export industry transformed the market. In 2014, Australia had some of the cheapest wholesale gas prices in the world, at $4 a gigajoule. Today that sits at $14 a gigajoule. These pressures matter in my electorate of Holt. Across Cranbourne, Clyde, Narre South, Hampton Park and surrounding suburbs, families are working hard to keep up with the cost of housing, groceries, transport and energy. For a young family, every increase in the household bills matters. For a local business trying to keep its doors open, higher energy costs can mean difficult decisions about staffing, investment and expansion. And, for Australian manufacturers in places like Dandenong South or Cranbourne West, the cost of energy affects their ability to compete, employ local workers and keep production here in this country. We cannot control movement in international energy markets but we can make sensible decisions about how we manage our own resources and strengthen our resilience to those movements. That is what this legislation seeks to do.

We do not have to look overseas to see how a domestic gas reservation policy can work. We can look west. In 2006, Western Australian Labor Premier, the honourable Alan Carpenter, introduced a domestic gas reservation policy requiring new gas developments to make the equivalent of 15 per cent of their gas available for the domestic market. The policy was designed to secure long-term energy supplies for Western Australians, while allowing the state to develop its significant LNG export industry. This has seen gas remain consistently lower on the west coast than in the east coast markets. It has also seen significantly less volatility, with the market highly insulated. During the peak of the 2022 energy crisis, while the east coast market spiked fivefold to over $50 a gigajoule, the west coast gas market remained stable at $8. This disparity is why, in 2025, we embarked on the gas market review. This review recommended that the Australian government adopts a national domestic gas reservation scheme requiring exporters to reserve up to 20 per cent of their annual export production for domestic use. The Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 seeks to implement that recommendation.

From 1 January 2028, gas exporters will be required to hold a gas export licence carrying a legally binding domestic supply obligation. The Australian Energy Regulator will oversee the scheme and determine the quantity of gas that must be supplied to the domestic market—up to 20 per cent of the suppliers production. The scheme is designed to collaborate domestic supply to 110 per cent of the forecast demand. That oversupply will provide a buffer against unexpected demand and increase the volume of gas available to Australian customers, putting downward pressure on prices.

The bill requires exporters to physically supply the gas required under the obligations. It is not enough simply to advertise gas for sale or make an offer that never results in delivery. Companies that fail to meet their obligations will face significant corporate penalties and may have their export licence suspended or cancelled. Licence holders will also be required to submit annual plans explaining how they intend to comply, followed by compliance reports which their performance can be assessed against.

This bill provides four flexible compliance mechanisms to help suppliers meet their obligations. First, the 90-to-10 rule provides flexibility between compliance periods. A company that delivers at least 90 per cent of its obligations in a year can make up the shortfall over the following three years. Equally, extra supply in one period can help offset a shortfall in a in another. Second, commercial arrangements with third party producers can allow exporters to obtain additional gas, providing the arrangements actually deliver additional supply rather than simply redirecting gas that would otherwise have entered the domestic market. Third, the framework allows for production of renewable gases, including biomethane and green hydrogen, to contribute towards compliance. Fourth, industrial demand reduction can be recognised where improvements genuinely reduce the amount of gas required across the economy.

This bill also recognises the reliance on Australian gas of our Asian security partners. for Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Australian LNG is vital, representing over a third of all gas consumed in these countries. At a time of such uncertainty in the world with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Australia has continued to be the bedrock of energy security for these nations. That is why this bill continues to respect existing export contracts. The bill provides an adjustment mechanism for pre-existing contracts entered into before 22 December 2025. It allows exporters to seek adjustments to their domestic supply obligations where there is no viable alternative to satisfy the local reservation requirement without defaulting on these commitments.

For Victoria, ensuring the supply of gas is significant. Victoria has a proud manufacturing history, and our future prosperity depends on retaining the capacity to make things here at home. Manufacturing provides skilled jobs, supports local supply chains and creates opportunities for workers at different stages of their careers. Gas remains an important input for a range of industrial processes, including high-temperature heat and the production of essential materials. When gas becomes unaffordable, manufacturers face pressure on their ability to compete with overseas producers. That is not an outcome we should accept without taking action. We should be giving Victorian businesses the confidence to plan for the future, rather than leaving them exposed to avoidable cost pressures, and we should be giving households greater confidence that Australian resources will help meet Australian needs.

I also want to be clear about what supporting gas means for our future. Australia is investing in renewable energy, storage and the infrastructure needed to modernise our electrical system. Gas has a role to play alongside those investments, particularly where reliable, dispatchable energy is needed to support the system. We need an orderly and practical energy transition that maintains reliability, supports workers and households and protects Australian industry. That means being realistic about the energy our economy needs today while preparing for the technologies that will power tomorrow. It means recognising the value of our existing resources, supporting responsible development and making sure that our energy policies put Australian households and businesses first. It means understanding that energy security is not simply about how much gas we produce; it is also about whether that gas is available at an affordable price when Australians need it the most.

Natural gas is one of Australia's valuable resources. It supports our economy, our industrial capacity, our international relationships and our energy system. As one of the world's largest gas exporters, Australia should be able to maintain a strong export industry while ensuring our businesses and households have the access to the gas they need. This bill establishes a framework to achieve that. By requiring exporters to oversupply the domestic market, the scheme will put downward pressure on prices.

For families in Holt, this is about taking pressure off those household bills. For Victorian manufacturers, it is about supporting investment, jobs and competitiveness. For the Australian gas industry, it is about maintaining their social licence by ensuring that the development of our resources delivers benefits at home as well as abroad.

I support a strong Australian gas industry. I support the workers, businesses and regional communities whose livelihoods depend on it. I also support making sure that Australians receive a fair benefit from the resources that belong to our country. This bill is an important step towards achieving that objective. That is why I commend the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 to the House.

I would like to thank the Minister for Resources, the Hon. Madeleine King, for her work on this legislation. As a proud Western Australian, the minister understands the importance of the gas industry to our national prosperity, and the experience of Western Australia's reservation policy provides valuable lessons for a national framework.

While I stand to talk about the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill, I have significant issues around this bill. This bill is about trying to address one key aspect in the gas industry, which is supply. To understand that problem, you have to understand our history and the industry. To understand that, you need go no further than the electorate of Maranoa, because the east coast market is underpinned by the Surat Basin, particularly around Chinchilla, Roma, Dalby and Condamine, which produces most of the east coast gas but also goes into much of the export market.

It's important to understand that, when that industry was developed, it was developed on the proviso and the condition of the then premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, and former prime minister Julia Gillard that the gas that was drilled and developed in the Surat Basin was not to be put into the domestic market. In fact, it was to be exported. It was to be exported out of Curtis Island off Gladstone. To demonstrate that, there was a pipeline built from the Surat Basin to Curtis Island. The reason for that by the Queensland premier at the time was that the Queensland government made $1.5 billion in dividends every year out of energy generation and distribution. So that came from coal-fired power assets.

What they didn't want to do is add more supply to the east coast market, which would reduce the price of the dividends that they got in generation and distribution from their coal-fired power assets. So Anna Bligh said, 'You can go and develop these fields, but you must export it.' So, for politicians to come in and condemn gas companies for being greedy and exporting gas to other parts of the world, you need to understand history. That was the condition of the development of those gas fields—that the gas was not to be put into the domestic market; it was to be exported, and it had to go out in a boat. So we created those export markets, and Australia has enjoyed the benefits of those export markets in royalties and in income; in fact, even in my home town.

I grew up in a place called Chinchilla. We would never get more or fewer than 3,000 people. That's what we were always stuck on. There's now 7,000 people living in Chinchilla today because of what the gas industry has done for our community with long-term jobs, not just direct but also indirect. The economic impact that it's had on our economy is enormous, not just in export dollars. If you understand that this is a supply issue, you would understand that, in Queensland, where this gas was drilled and put out on a boat, our industry isn't traditionally fuelled by gas—and probably still isn't—it's fuelled mostly through our energy grid, through coal, because we have significant coal-fired power assets. The states that do rely on gas—New South Wales and Victoria—are the states that are constraining supply because they're not drilling for the gas that sits underneath their feet.

The irony in all of that is that they complain about the price because of the lack of supply, yet we'll allow Queensland to continue to drill holes—and I don't have any problems with that—but they're about to run out of industrial gas, while, as the previous member was just talking about with industries in her own electorate, they sit there and say, 'We need more supply.' Well, they only need to look to their own state governments to see what's underneath their feet. In terms of making sure that the gas companies must supply 110 per cent of the market, if you want to oversupply something, you might drop the price, but then no-one drills any holes and you find yourself back in the same problem you were just in.

If we don't understand the history of how we have found ourselves in this mess, we are going to perpetrate that even further by saying everybody has to provide 110 per cent. What that means is there will be no investment. The town that I now call one of my own in my electorate will see that investment taken away. The boards of these companies make investment decisions, and they will not go and spend money to continue to increase supply if they can't make money. In fact, they're going to lose money. That's just how business works. I'm sorry to explain it to those opposite, but that is the reality of what will happen if you impose such a draconian measure in this bill. Investment will leave this country. It will leave my electorate and I will lose the 3,500 to 4000 people that have come to towns like Chinchilla, because those gas companies will go to another continent and we will have to import our gas. That is the stark reality of economics and business. You can't run away from that through ideology, and ideology is what this bill is about.

This is about making sure that we open up our tenements. We have that supply, and there are some practical things we could do. There are small capacity constraints between the Surat Basin and those in New South Wales and Victoria. In peak periods, we could get more gas down, in addition to what we're already sending out on a boat and paying the bills for to sit here today in the privilege of the air conditioning and the lights in this beautiful building. We might get those royalties and those gas companies to pay those taxes. We could see more gas flow down into New South Wales and Victoria. That is if they don't have the courage to drill a hole themselves, if they don't have the brains to think, 'Wouldn't it be quicker and easier to drill a hole right underneath our feet and pump it into those businesses that sit here and tell us they are going broke because they have high gas prices because they can't get gas?' The further you have to transport it, the higher the cost—another revelation to those opposite about how business works. Lo and behold, if you drilled the hole and you pumped it straight up, you might get cheaper gas and you might solve that supply issue. That's before you even look at, if we had to, plugging in Beetaloo that is in the Northern Territory. That will go out in the export market, and it is an opportunity to work with the gas industry and to plug that into the east coast as well.

We have an abundance of gas, and what we are trying to solve with this bill is a supply issue. The supply is beneath our feet, but those south of the border of Queensland have not had the brains to drill a hole to get it and still want it. To sit there and compare us to Western Australia because they have a gas reservation scheme—that is the right policy for Western Australia. The forefathers of Western Australia that did that did the right thing. But understand that the east coast market is significantly different—a higher population and a higher industry base that has already established coal. Gas has played some part in it, particularly in the southern states, and that's why it's important that you don't compare a reservation scheme in Western Australia to that on the east coast. That is purpose-built for Western Australia, and it is the right thing, but it's not the right thing for the east coast.

The stupidity that we are finding ourselves in is that when the supply is there—and this is the basics of all we're trying to solve—it is simply about us taking it, not forcing companies to make investment decisions that put us up against other countries and other continents that are prepared to develop that asset and allow those companies to get that capital to flow into them, away from Australia. We'll be back here again in another five or 10 years sitting here wondering why our gas prices are so high and why we don't have any gas going to the whingers in New South Wales and Victoria because their industries don't have the gas and they're paying too much for it when it's sitting underneath their feet. This is where common sense has left the building, and this is where a government has overreached and will have significant impacts.

Think about what is coming at our country. We're walking ourselves into the fourth industrial revolution of humanity with AI and the data centres that will be required. To give you an insight into what an AI data centre will need, forget normal data centres; an AI data centre is significantly greater. There's one proposed out near Chinchilla, where I live, and it will need 2,600 megawatts of energy every year to run. That is a bit over a quarter of the total generation of energy in Queensland every year. That's just one.

I'm sure I'll hear—and our teal friends will be here soon telling us—that we need all this energy and renewables will do it all and we've got AI data centres and they should all be run by renewables. If you want to do that 2,600 megawatts with wind turbines, you need to multiply that by three. You need three times the energy generation with a wind turbine over gas or coal or nuclear. Let me tell you what that looks like for the people of my electorate, around Dalby and Chinchilla. To do seven to eight gigawatts of energy, you would need 1,400 wind turbines at 260 metres high swishing around our heads. The member for Warringah got all upset about eight wind turbines at North Head because the good people of North Head were upset they couldn't see the Pacific Ocean unabated. Well, you know what? What about the views of the people of Western Queensland? We don't want to look at the Pacific Ocean—or live in Sydney, for that matter—but we want to live where we live without the amenity of our lives being taken up by 1,400 of them. But it gets worse. If you want to do it with solar panels, it's 1.5 million solar panels across 20,000 hectares. That's probably about the size of the shire of Sydney or more. That is what you are asking us to bear with. But you put your head under a pillow and forget about us, because you can sit in your high-rises in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and forget about what happens to us out there.

I don't want to turn away this AI data centre. I want to see these 1,400 new jobs come to the towns of Dalby and Chinchilla—new jobs, high-paying jobs. We do need to have AI if we want to be competitive with the world, but not at our cost. It should work. That is why, if you put these sorts of bills in place, you tear away the investment decisions of gas companies that are sitting there when there are three gas peaking plants sitting around one of these proposed data centres right at Dalby, which you could actually increase if you sent the investment signals to our gas companies to drill more. That is how markets work. That is the practical reality that happens outside this building. We might think we shape the world, but ultimately what happens is that the capital that flows from the decisions that we make determines what we actually pay, and that is what is lost in all this. We're going to force these companies to sell into certain markets, and we're going to tell them to oversupply, so the CEOs will go to their boards and the boards will say, 'We'll take our money elsewhere.' So we will be stuck with an energy grid that again depletes itself in the lived experience that Australians are already feeling—not that $275 reduction off their 2022 bills that they were meant to get in 2025. It's gone up by 1,300 bucks off their 2022 price.

So this is where physics and economics are catching up with this government. This bill is not well thought through. This will have a detrimental impact. It will have a detrimental impact on our economy but also on the environment, because you know what? You think about 20,000 hectares of native vegetation stripped away to put solar panels on to run a data centre. 'Oh, that's alright. I can still look at the Pacific Ocean. It's all good, because that's the only environment that I can see and that I care about.' Well, I don't really think that is a notion that Australia should predicate its decisions on.

This bill will do serious harm to an industry that has supported this nation and paid its bills. You talk about social licence. Let me tell you what social licence looks like. When Santos, Origin and Arrow turned up in western Queensland, I wouldn't feed them. They treated us like dirt. But we squared up with them, and now they are the best corporate citizens you would find in Australia. They spill more community support in Roma, Chinchilla and Dalby on a Monday before smoko than these wind tower companies give us in about 10 years. They're just throwing bits and pieces at us, thinking we can put up with 1,400 or 1,500 of these 260-metre towers. This is the reality. When you talk about social licence, the gas companies are the ones that actually are doing the right thing by us out there and by our economy. But what we are doing in this bill is saying to them: 'We don't care. We're just going to tax you and put market mechanisms that send you out of this country over you.'

I can tell you, London to a brick, that, if this thing gets through and it sticks long enough, I'll be back here again and we'll be fixing this, because this is just simple demand and supply. The Treasurer doesn't need to write 6,000 words of economic blah. I learnt in grade 8 at Chinchilla State High School from Mrs Hart about demand and supply. This is supply. Mrs Hart would be telling me, 'Increase supply.' Create the environment to increase supply and, lo and behold, you will actually have more stable and lower prices in the long-term. If you want to interfere in a marketplace, you will have detrimental outcomes that will not only strip supply but lead to perverse outcomes for prices into the future. This is just politics getting away from reality, and I fear that the people of Western Queensland who have worked with the gas industry and believe in the gas industry will have their futures stripped away because we believe that we can replace this with renewables, which will never be able to do what gas, coal and nuclear can, because of some ideology. This is dumb politics, this is dumb policy and we will all pay the bill.

I rise today to speak on the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, which establishes licensing and domestic supply obligations for the Australian gas industry. The coalition haven't reached a final position on this bill. There is a Senate inquiry being undertaken at the moment, which will, I'm sure, come back with some recommendations. But I do have to say that, at this point in time, I would find it very hard to support this bill in its current form.

Let's go to the nub of the problem here, and it is that, on the east coast of Australia, there is a shortage of gas for not only household use but also industrial purposes, and that is creating some difficulties for business and also higher costs for homes and communities. How did we get to this position, you might ask? It's great to follow on from my friend, the member for Holt, a Victorian Labor member. The Victorian government has banned the extraction of gas in Victoria, so to now complain that they don't have enough gas is quite sobering, really. You ban the extraction of gas but then complain about not having any gas. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

When the current government won power federally in May 2022, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy said the Kurri Kurri power plant could not run on gas. He sacked Paul Broad, the CEO of Snowy Hydro, the owner of that facility, because Mr Broad said it wouldn't run on green hydrogen—it can't; it won't happen. Where are we today? We're desperate for gas to run the Kurri Kurri power station, and the minister now says that he never bought into the green hydrogen dream. Well, you could have fooled me and a lot of people through that time! Let's face it, gas has been demonised in this place for a long time now. We talk about the vitriol on social media. If you're a gas producer or you work in the gas industry, you'd certainly understand that particular scenario.

We're now in a situation where the government is looking to force gas exporters to supply 20 per cent of their gas into the domestic market. As has been mentioned by many of the speakers here and as you'd be well aware, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas, as a proud Western Australian, Western Australia has a gas reservation policy. But it is a completely different beast to the one that we're talking about here. The first point that I'll make is that the WA gas reservation policy applies to new gas developments. Before a company makes an investment decision, it is aware of what its obligations are. So the companies that operate off the North West Shelf of Western Australia were aware of their obligations before they invested extraordinary amounts of money. In the case of INPEX's Ichthys project, it was $70 billion. They went to the Northern Territory, so they actually weren't caught up in the reservation policy.

The companies that operate off the North West Shelf are certainly supplying that domestic market, but there is a great deal of flexibility built into that program. While they have to provide 15 per cent of their production, it doesn't have to be done year on year. They can stagger that contribution over the life of the project. So, if domestic prices are low, they'll provide less gas into the market, and when domestic prices are high, they will provide more into the market. It's a price-buffering system for the Western Australian domestic market. At the end of the day, they've still got to supply 15 per cent of their production over the life of the project, so at some point that'll average out and it'll be 15 per cent per annum. That, I think, is a very good system for regulating price and supply.

What is being proposed with this legislation is forcing up to 20 per cent or 110 per cent of supply. If you oversupply a market by even one per cent and the buyers or the consumers in that market know that there's going to be an oversupply, then they're just not going to pay the price. They're just going to wait until that excess supply comes on the market and the price collapses. 'That's fine,' you may say. As Kevin Gallagher of Santos said to BlueScope steel, how about you supply us with some discounted steel? Everybody wants discounted gas, right? But nobody wants to provide discounted steel or other products that they produce from the gas.

One wonders why the gas industry is being forced to provide, effectively, a discount to their customers. What that means is you get a 20 per cent additional supply or oversupply into the market. If you're a domestic producer and you don't have an export market to effectively offset a very low price on the domestic market, then there's your business gone. Domestic suppliers of gas will literally go out of business overnight because they don't have the other 80 per cent that they're sending offshore. They supply the domestic market, and they take the domestic price.

The medium- to long-term effect of this policy will be that we will have less gas available, there'll be less investment and we'll all be paying higher prices. We'll see the gas industry go offshore. Already, companies like Woodside are looking to invest in the United States. While there are many in this place who would like to see that, I'll just remind people that the gas industry contributes $105 billion to the national economy. The coal industry, by the way, contributes $165 billion. That's $265 billion from those two industries contributed to the Australian economy. I haven't seen anybody tell me how we're going to replace that national income.

This legislation, while it might provide a short-term sugar hit for the states that have not extracted their own gas—I actually spoke to a Western Australian industrial company the other day who has a plant in Melbourne that's been sitting idle for 10 years because they can't get gas. That is what this problem is trying to solve; I get that. I get it, but why should producers in other states have to bail out Victoria? I don't understand that. By the way, this particular company was moving its operation to Houston, and they said that they could have approvals and be up and running within 12 months. They estimate the same process here would take five to seven years.

While the intent of the bill is to make more gas available to the local market, which I absolutely support, and a reservation policy of some description is a worthy goal—and I have said to my very good friends in the gas industry that to retain their social licence they will need to supply affordable gas into the domestic market—this current legislation is going to have the opposite effect in the medium- to long-term because it will crush the supply going forward. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy, which is the peak minerals and energy body in Western Australia, have called for amendments to this bill, and I think that some of them are very worthy of consideration.

The bill currently gives the minister discretion, and the CME say that this shouldn't be part of the bill; it should be much more specified. If you're going to make an investment of many billions of dollars in a future project and you don't actually know exactly what your supply obligations are going to be—you're having to wait for the minister to make up their mind—then that makes it very difficult to plan and very difficult to make that final investment decision. So I a hundred per cent agree that that needs to happen.

The other thing that needs to happen is that Western Australia needs to be exempted. We—as you would know, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas—already have a reservation policy. The reservation policy is working well. The Premier, Roger Cook, is coming to Canberra tomorrow, I believe, ostensibly to talk about backpackers—and all power to him; good on him, because that's an important issue, particularly in regional WA and across my electorate. But I reckon he might be talking about the gas reservation policy as well, while he's here, because to create this uncertainty for the Western Australian producers is going to cost the Western Australian economy. It is going to put a brake on future investment, and that will cost the people of Western Australia dearly. So, with a $35 billion contribution to the Western Australian economy, we need to look after our gas producers in WA. I say: all power to Roger Cook for coming to Canberra, and let's hope that he can convince the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy that Western Australia needs to be exempt from this program.

The other thing that no-one's been able to explain to me is whether Western Australian producers will be forced to physically supply the gas. I mean, yes, they can make it available at the wellhead, but it would be pretty costly to get it to Melbourne—if you actually could; I'm not sure that they've actually gone ahead and built an unloading facility there. But no-one in the industry has been able to tell me whether they understand whether that's their obligation or not—to actually physically deliver the product.

These are key issues for Western Australians and Western Australian producers, and, I'm sure, for the Western Australian government—and, hopefully, for Western Australian members, to fight for WA, to protect our industry. It's a magnificent contributor to our state. It employs thousands of people, in very well-paid positions. So I would expect that every Western Australian member in this place will be standing up for WA and will be making it very clear to their respective parties that WA has a system that works and that we're going to fight to protect that system.

I think we have been encouraged to be a bit more thoughtful in the way we debate, and I would like to absolutely take that up. What I would emphasise to the member for O'Connor is that he and I have very different views on this. I dare say, the member for O'Connor even has different views with himself, from listening to that contribution, because he can't, on the one hand, criticise us for wanting to set up an east coast reservation scheme but then, on the other hand, tell us how good the west coast one is.

There is an absolute need for us to be able to seize the moment—similar to when a WA Labor premier stared down the same sorts of arguments that, I dare say, Member for O'Connor, you have advanced here today, on the terrible things that a reservation scheme would do in the WA context: that it would lead to lower investment; that it would lead to companies going elsewhere; that it would lead to higher prices; that it would create all these problems. Alan Carpenter, who was the then premier, did a great thing not just for Western Australia but for the country as well, in being able to show that we can still have that investment, and those companies can still make their money, but we can look after people who needed to see gas much more competitively priced.

As much as I am an admirer of the west coast reservation scheme, Member for O'Connor, it doesn't always guarantee that there will be a consistent flow back to domestic markets. It's done over a period of time. When you look at the way it runs, you just have to guarantee a certain amount has gone into the Western Australian market, and that's how it's measured, whereas we think there should be something done to ensure that there is a consistent availability for Australians.

On the east coast, as much as it's been pointed out that it should apply, if I've heard you correctly, Member for O'Connor, in terms of new fields, we still have uncontracted amounts of gas. We export an eye-watering 80 per cent of our gas; 20 per cent is left aside for the country. Manufacturers can't get decent contracts out of the gas suppliers, out of these gas companies. They're given short-term gas contracts. When you're told you can only get a 12-month contract for such a critical input, how are you supposed to put up with that? The only reason is for the sheer greed of these companies that want to take advantage of a higher price, potentially, outside that 12-month gap. It's just unacceptable. Those manufacturers should be able to get much better prices. We shouldn't have to see our gas then be onsold when we're begging for it here. We're begging for the scraps, and then we see it onsold in some other markets at incredible rates.

I think of our friends in Japan. I understand their energy insecurity, but it cannot be that (1) they get all the gas that they do and then onsell it to other countries at extraordinary prices and make a huge profit out of it; and (2) talking about another thing which I firmly believe in, taxing gas exports, they say to us that we shouldn't tax gas exports while they tax gas imports. It's not consistent and not fair. So my view is that I stick up for Australians. My view is that we should be able to get a better deal out of this resource that should confer on us huge economic and commercial strength.

This is a very important measure in terms of what the parliament's debating, and it will kick in, based on the way it's designed, in 2028. Even though it's a great start, I absolutely do believe we need to put more downward pressure on gas prices. The fact of the matter is we have to fix a broken PRRT. It's not raising the revenue that it should. We've made some changes, but, frankly, I'm always wanting more. I think we need to be able to see a much better deal, and we're not going to get it out of that PRRT. I think Australians want the best possible return from resources that they own. The ACTU's proposal of a 25 per cent tax on gas exports is estimated to generate $17 billion a year. At a time when finding new revenue streams is pretty hard going, we have to have a serious talk about our options.

We're a resource-rich country. It's part of our national character, our national make-up. We're proud of that fact, but everyday Australians aren't seeing the returns of that prosperity. Instead they're reading headlines about Santos not paying company tax for 11 years. The same company that says to us that we shouldn't have a tax on gas exports because it's a bad idea also thinks it's a good idea not to pay tax for 11 years. I think the hypocrisy of that is just wrong. In contrast, Australians look at their pay slips, and every time they do they see the tax taken out. They do their tax returns, but then they read the headlines about some of these big multinational companies not paying their way and crying out poor. The income of those gas companies is around 580,000 times that of an Australian's real wage, and these big companies are not stumping up. The outrage is absolutely justified.

I'll keep saying a gas tax is a missed opportunity, not a lost one, because as long as we can keep up the noise, the fight isn't over. I've held forums in my local community where people from my part of Western Sydney have told me loud and clear how unfair they think the current state of play is. It's an issue that matters to them, and they're not alone. It's an issue that unites Australians of all political backgrounds. It doesn't matter if you're a Labor supporter, a Liberal supporter, a Nationals supporter, a One Nation supporter, a Greens supporter—everyone reckons we should be getting a better deal on gas. There are so many people that believe we should be taxing gas exports, and it's understandable that they do.

My view is that, with the money, at a time where revenue is tight, I do believe we should be looking to see how we invest that in the longer term prosperity of the nation. We, as I said, are a resource-rich nation, but we've made a lot of money in particular from a lot of fossil fuels. As global warming bites more and more and countries think about what they do to generate energy, the way they use energy and the way they cut their emissions, the longer term challenge for our country is—yes, we can recognise the contribution of those resources in times past, but we have to start thinking about what comes next? When the income starts to decline, how do we think ahead as a country and prepare? We should be thinking about how we invest the money out of a gas tax to build long-term economic growth for the nation. What are the jobs that come next? How do we think differently about how we make our money as a country and ensure that the ones that follow us enjoy the living standards we currently enjoy? That's why I'm a big believer in taxing gas. It's why I will continue to fight for this.

Yes, the case might be made that we can't do it right now, because we're in the middle of a fuel crisis from a war that was launched by Donald Trump, who we're told every week is coming up with another ceasefire that's around the corner or another peace plan—and that the war and the hostilities have ended, yet it continues. The sooner that gets sorted out, the better, but we cannot defer this decision to tax gas and push it in to the never-never. Too many Australians believe that we should get a better return. I agree with them, I stand with them and I will fight for them to make sure that we get a better deal, because we have been ripped off for too long by some of these companies who have made a lot of money off this and whose answer, by the way, is 'if you want lower prices, we have to open new fields'. That sounds like a great proposition until you think the more of these fields that they open—which I don't think we can continue to do. It'll be harder and harder into the future to open new gas fields.

When the big gas companies say that the key to lower prices is to open a new field, that's not for Australians. They will do what they've always done. They will simply open the new field, export the gas at the price that they want, make lots of money, not pay tax to this country and leave us poorer for it and begging for the scraps. At least with a domestic gas reservation plan like what this government has had the guts to do, we can ensure that more Australian manufacturers and households get access to the gas that they need and that we don't see it being shipped off in extraordinary amounts with no gain and no long-term benefit for the country. We absolutely, 100 per cent, can do better. I get tired of hearing the criticisms from many who sidle up to these big firms and say, 'If we do anything that stands up for the country, we'll miss out.' If there are gas firms that are threatening us and saying that they'll leave the country if we dare to stand up for ourselves, see you later. Ta-ta. There'll be another firm that will want to rock up and get this resource. They absolutely will. It's in such high demand and it does play an important role, but we should make sure, for the time that we have access to gas, that we get the better return and that we're not scared off by multinationals using the same playbook they've used for decades to scare governments of any political persuasion.

We should stand up and seize this moment to make sure we get the better return and, as I said, use the money from that to invest in the longer term good of the economy. So many other countries have done the same. They have looked at this. We've often pointed to countries in Scandinavia and the like, where they invested, they took that money and they were able to do better for their local populations. I absolutely have the same view. We should do it. I'm stoked that we are doing this reservation scheme, but the missing piece is a tax on gas exports. That absolutely has to come next, and I'm not Robinson Crusoe on that. There are a lot of Australians that believe the same.

I rise to speak on the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026. I want to begin by providing the context in which this bill was brought about. It was announced at a time when the government was facing increasing public pressure to introduce a tax on gas exports. Instead, it's chosen to do a gas reservation model. Let's be really clear about one thing from the outset. A gas reservation policy does not raise a single dollar in revenue that a gas tax would. A 25 per cent tax on gas exports would be expected to raise around $17 billion a year. It has incredibly strong support, with polling showing 72 per cent of Australians are in favour of this. In Mackellar, my electorate, that support is over 75 per cent. A gas tax would also create a direct incentive for exporters to redirect gas into the domestic market to avoid the tax, placing downward pressure on the prices for Australian households and businesses.

That context matters because this bill only goes partway to addressing Australia's gas problem. Let's be clear that Australia does not have a gas shortage problem; we have a gas export problem. Australia produces vastly more gas than it consumes, yet exports the majority of it. In doing so, we've exposed Australian households and businesses to volatile international markets and the price shocks that inevitably follow global instability. We are one of the world's largest gas producers, yet families are paying more for energy because domestic prices are increasingly linked to export markets. Since LNG exports commenced on the east coast in 2015, domestic gas prices have tripled. The domestic market has repeatedly experienced price spikes, not due to gas shortages but because export markets have been prioritised over Australian consumers.

In the long-term, the primary solution is the transition to clean, affordable renewable energy. Doing so is the most effective way to build our sovereign energy security and to genuinely insulate households from fossil fuel price shocks and bring energy bills down for good. In the meantime, we must ensure Australian gas supports local industry and households rather than flowing almost entirely overseas.

At the same time, Australians are rightly asking whether gas companies are paying their fair share. More than $55 billion worth of gas was exported in the last financial year alone. Since the Albanese government came to office, well over $300 billion worth of gas has been exported from Australia. Yet the petroleum resource rent tax, the Commonwealth's primary tax on gas, raised just $1.4 billion last year. Many companies also pay little or no company tax. Santos, for example, has not paid company tax in more than a decade despite reporting over $50 billion in total income. Australians see these figures and are frustrated that enormous volumes of publicly owned resources are leaving our shores, yet the public return remains remarkably small. I reiterate that this bill and this gas reservation scheme will not help Australians get a fair return from the sale of their natural resources.

I also want to make the point that a gas reservation policy should not become a mechanism for locking in new gas demand. Gas is not our future. It's expensive, polluting and finite. It's destroying our climate and our children's future. Australia is the world's second-largest fossil fuel exporter and the fifth-largest fossil fuel producer. The emissions associated with those exports contribute to the worsening climate crisis that is driving devastating fires and extreme weather events around the globe. Australia will be at the forefront of these consequences.

As a quorum has been called in the House of Representatives, proceedings are suspended until the chair is resumed.

Sitting suspended from 17:08 to 17:11

There's also the direct cost-of-living dimension I've already spoken about. Because gas remains one of the most expensive sources of electricity generation, wholesale electricity prices are heavily influenced by the price of gas. As domestic gas prices have increased, electricity prices have followed. At the same time, Australia's LNG export sector is projected to decline over the coming decade, including under the federal government's own Future Gas Strategy, due in part to ageing gas fields and shifting global demand.

A well-designed reservation scheme should support Australia's managed exit from gas, not entrenched long-term dependence on it. It should also recognise that not all gas users are the same. Some industries genuinely have limited alternatives available today. Certain heavy industrial processes continue to rely on gas and will do so until practical substitutes emerge. By contrast, many residential, commercial and lower-heat manufacturing users already have access to efficient, affordable and cleaner alternatives through electrification. This is why a number of stakeholders, including the Climate Council, have proposed demand-side compliance mechanisms alongside any reservation scheme. Such measures could fast track the ability of Australian households, particularly disadvantaged households, to access the cost-of-living and health benefits of efficient electric homes. They could help manufacturers realise the productivity, affordability and competitiveness benefits of electrification while protecting jobs. They would help preserve finite gas supplies for industries that genuinely need them, while reducing pressure for costly gas infrastructure expansions. And importantly, they would support Australia's climate goals by reducing fossil fuel consumption.

Turning specifically to this bill before the House, this is highly complex legislation. I note, too, that it's been rushed through the house while the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry is still underway and being debated in the Federation Chamber—the secondary chamber designed for less contentious and uncontroversial parliamentary business. Given the significance of these reforms and the far-fetching consequences they may have for consumers, industry and the broader economy, that is far from an ideal process.

This bill contains three core elements. First, it establishes a licensing regime requiring LNG exporters to hold an export licence from January 2028, backed by substantial penalties for non-compliance. Second, it creates a domestic supply obligation, or DSO, that determines how much gas a licence holder must provide to the domestic market. The obligation is set at 20 per cent of covered exports, adjusted for a range of factors including existing contracts, domestic reservation arrangements and infrastructure constraints. Third, it imposes requirements concerning financial assurance, notification of changed circumstances and cooperation with regulatory requests.

I do want to acknowledge that the government has made several sensible improvements from the original exposure draft and in response to stakeholder feedback. The bill no longer automatically requires exporters to reserve 20 per cent of exports for Australians. Instead, exporters are required to reserve up to that amount, meaning only the quantity actually needed by the domestic market. That is an important change and responds to stakeholder concerns that a blanket 20 per cent obligation would substantially exceed forecast shortfalls and risk locking Australia into greater gas dependence. The Grattan Institute has modelled that requiring exporters to direct the equivalent of 20 per cent of LNG exports into the east coast market would effectively flood the market for the next decade. It found that a even five per cent reservation would be sufficient for the foreseeable future.

Reservation levels should be determined carefully and adjusted regularly according to actual market need. If obligations are set too high, they risk creating unintended consequences, including incentivising new gas developments that may ultimately become stranded assets and facilitating long-term gas lock-in by flooding the domestic market and undermining electrification. The government has also responded to some concerns regarding ministerial discretion within the scheme. Nevertheless, significant concerns remain. While moving away from an automatic 20 per cent reservation is welcome, many stakeholders argued that an independent authority, potentially the Australian Energy Regulator working alongside bodies such as the Australian Energy Market Operator, should be responsible for determining and adjusting reservation levels annually based on actual demand forecasts. There are also concerns regarding the treatment of existing contracts and the potential for loopholes, including issues raised in relation to the Santos GLNG project in Gladstone.

The Australian Conservation Council, Australian Council of Social Services, Australian Workers' Union and Australian Industry Group have called on the government to do these things. Firstly, they call for removing open ended provisions allowing rules to prescribe new methods by which a licence holder could satisfy their domestic supply obligation requirements, retaining appropriate ministerial discretion while preventing investment in future gas supply being used to meet these obligations. They've called to provide that a licence holder cannot meet its domestic supply obligation by its own gas consumption unless it supplies the free-up gas domestically. It introduces a fairness requirement that, where a licence holder DSO is determined via demand calibration, the volume should be with reference to the share of exports. These are just some of the sensible suggestions being put forward through the inquiry process, and I encourage the government to consider these amendments, including those proposed by the crossbench.

More fundamentally, stakeholders have argued that exporters should be able to reduce their obligations by funding verified durable reductions in domestic gas demand through electrification and fuel switching. Such an approach would preserve scarce gas supplies for industries that genuinely need them, while accelerating the transition to cleaner alternatives. There are also questions about how this bill interacts with existing state reservation schemes. Western Australia's domestic gas reservation policy has operated since 2006.

While the principle behind the scheme is sound, the system highlights the risks of weak design. There is no comprehensive statutory framework. Reservation obligations are governed through individual agreements with exporters. Transparency is limited. Enforcement powers are weak. There are no meaningful penalties for non-compliance and limited ministerial powers to compel compliance. Indeed, a report of the Western Australian parliament found that LNG exporters had supplied only a little over half the volume they were required to reserve for the domestic market. A federal reservation framework should learn from these shortcomings. A national scheme could operate alongside state arrangements while ensuring exporters provide gas when and where it is genuinely required. Similarly, I believe this bill risks repeating some of the very problems that have plagued the petroleum resource rent tax. Complexity, exemptions and carve-outs can produce schemes that look robust on paper but fail to deliver in practice. We should be cautious about creating another framework so complicated that its effectiveness is gradually weakened over time.

In conclusion, Australia must ensure that our resources work, first and foremost, for Australians, we must ensure that gas companies pay a fair return to the community, we must protect households and businesses from unnecessary energy price shocks, and we must not lose sight of the fact that Australia's long-term energy future lies not in greater dependence on gas but in the transition to clean, affordable, reliable renewable energy. While the reservation scheme established by this bill is welcome and may help direct more gas to the domestic market, it does nothing to ensure Australians receive a fair return for the sale of their resources. And, given the complexity of the scheme and the limited scrutiny it has received, there remains a risk of unintended consequences. Ultimately, it is a distraction from the real reform Australians are calling for: making gas companies pay their fair share through a gas export tax.

In the lead-up to the last election, I called for a gas reservation policy, and at the time I asked the question about how it was that we were selling gas to China cheaper than to Australians. It's just wrong when so many households and businesses are crying out for cheaper gas, when prices are so high and when the cost-of-living crisis is having such impacts across the Central West and the rest of Australia. Australians shouldn't be forced to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families. That's the bottom line here.

After I announced that policy of a gas reservation, the coalition suddenly announced that their energy policy was—you guessed it—a gas reservation policy, and the government have now come out and announced that they also back a gas reservation policy. So I'm glad that the Liberal, National and Labor parties have seen the light. That's a positive. I have to say this follows other initiatives and bills that major parties have previously not supported or have voted against and then have come to call their own. I'm talking here about my bill to ban the foreign buying of residential property. That was announced by me. I put a bill into parliament. Then the coalition, in opposition, adopted it, and then the government adopted it as well. Then we had my bill to protect prime agricultural land, which has basically now been plagiarised by the National Party after they voted against it. You had my bill to keep cash king in Australia. Again, the National Party failed to support that, and then yesterday they announced a new policy. It's called 'keeping cash king in Australia'. So there are very serious concerns about the originality of some of the policy development that goes on in the major parties. But I'm pleased that the government has seen the light on a gas reservation policy, and I'm pleased that the coalition has seen the light on this as well. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, that's politics.

The Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 is not perfect. As speakers who have come before me on this have pointed out, there are still unanswered issues and questions surrounding it, and they do need to be addressed. However, it's better than what we've got at the moment, so, on that basis, I will be supporting it. However, there is a glaring failure from the major parties that continues to this day, and that is the unwillingness to support and impose a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. If we had had such a tax since 2022, this would equate to $79 billion in revenue, but we've lost it. We've lost $80 billion in revenue by not having this tax.

How many Great Western Highways could we have fixed and built with $79 billion to $80 billion? I mean, at the moment the state and federal governments expect us to be happy with the crumbs and scraps from the table—$200 million to fix the convict bridge that was built in 1832. It defies belief that so many billions could be spent in the major cities, with billions and billions spent on gold-plated highway and tunnel projects in Sydney and Newcastle—I could list them. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars investigating high-speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle. That project would be from $60 billion to $90 billion, but they expect us to be happy with $200 million for the Great Western Highway.

If you had a 25 per cent gas export tax, you would be able to build a new Great Western Highway, tunnels and high-speed access over the mountains. We could build schools and hospitals. We could fund so many things. How many business support packages could we have put out there for our struggling businesses being smashed to pieces by the highway closure? The failure to impose a 25 per cent gas export tax is costing us $17 billion a year, $2 million an hour and $577 a second. Why haven't we imposed such a tax so far? Why are Australians not getting a fair return on the resources that we all own? I think the answer is very simple: follow the money. It's these big gas companies that are the major donors to the major political parties.

Look, they just buy influence, and that's the cold, hard truth of it. That's why the major parties don't want to go near a 25 per cent gas export tax, because they've basically been in league with these gas companies. This is not an issue of left versus right; this is an issue of national interest versus vested interests. It's the vested interests of the big gas companies that are winning out at the moment, and we are forgoing revenue because of it. We've got overseas countries making more out of our gas than we are, and it is an outrage.

I would urge the government and I would urge all parties to come to their senses on this and do the right thing by Australians. Don't be beholden to the lobbyists; don't be beholden to the big corporations and the money people. Do what is right for Australians, and get a fair return from the finite resources that we all own, which are being sold far too cheaply at the moment. Let's fix the Great Western Highways, let's build the schools, let's fund the hospitals, and let's fund better mental healthcare. Let's fund all of those things that can help to build this nation. I would urge the major parties to get behind this 25 per cent gas export tax and do it on the double because every hour you delay it's $2 million in lost revenue, every year it's $17 billion.

There are too many priorities that need to be addressed in our country communities and across our nation to forgo this revenue. So I would urge the major parties to have a good look at their obstruction on this issue and come to their senses and support a 25 per cent gas export tax.

I rise to speak on the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, a bill that could have significant impact on the region and Australians that I represent. Under Labor, we have poorly drafted legislation, and I have plenty of questions and concerns around a number of elements in the current draft legislation. I stand for more Australian gas for Australians, more investment, lower energy prices and stronger emergency powers.

However, I can only support this bill if Western Australia is carved out of this legislation and if there is absolute certainty over that. This bill is designed to fix the east coast market, not the WA market. Ours is not broken, far from it. Despite not being legislated for some 20 years, our WA sovereign gas reservation policy has delivered a balanced market and stable prices. In the current draft legislation, WA would be beholden to ministerial discretion. That is not good enough, and I cannot support that. How can the government guarantee that future federal ministers will not step in and include WA in the Commonwealth's scheme? There is too much at stake for us to commit to this.

The current draft could leave more than 25,000 petajoules of undeveloped WA gas at risk. Developing that gas would return about $89 billion to taxpayers and support nearly 4,000 WA construction jobs. Our WA gas industry is too important to see it squandered or put at risk with regard to the many undeveloped projects that are already marginal. This bill will add another layer of cost and uncertainty. It is basic economics. If WA projects do not stack up or are too uncertain, investments will go elsewhere. To families in regional WA, this is their livelihoods. I'm talking about communities like Onslow, Karratha and the Mid West. They will all be most affected if this bill goes through without serious provisions and work done to it. Every investment that goes overseas is Australian jobs, Australian contracts and local spending lost.

I've been in contact with key west Australian stakeholders on this bill—including the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, who have made a submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee with regard to this legislation, with Aaron Morey, their CEO, appearing before the committee only last week. They hold grave concerns for regional Western Australia if this legislation is passed as it is. Western Australia should not be punished for investing in our local gas industry. We should not be punished for delivering a stable market for all west Australians and for providing certainty for our job market. How can you have faith in Labor given they have presided over a gas market and energy crisis that we are living day in and day out? Regional Western Australia should not have to sacrifice jobs, investment, lower supply and higher prices to fix Labor's mess. The coalition will not stand in the way of this legislation passing the lower house, but we will be moving amendments as required.

Put simply, I want WA protected from this legislation. Our market is not broken. It does not need fixing. Regional west Australians do not need uncertainty when it comes to our gas industry. It should not be up to ministerial discretion as to whether WA is included in this. The government has two choices: work in good faith with the coalition to get a workable deal that benefits all Australians—but I would say west Australians in particular—or work with the Greens, which would put regional west Australians out of work, drive up prices, decrease supply and end the gas industry as we know it. Nothing short of a 100 per cent cast-iron exemption of WA will be acceptable. I hope the government does the right thing.

I want to acknowledge that my friend and colleague the Minister for Resources, the Minister for Northern Australia and a west Australian colleague is here in the chamber now. I call upon her, I beg her, to make sure that the Labor government does the right thing by Western Australia.

As quorum has been lost in the House of Representatives, proceedings are suspended until the chair is resumed.

Sitting suspended from 17:33 to 17:35

I was quite taken aback by the last speaker and by how wonderful and marvellous it is for Western Australia and how good it is—and we're not allowed to have it. It was quite fascinating. Only Western Austrade is allowed to have it; the rest of us are not. Every country on earth has a reserved resource policy for gas. Once again, Australia and New Zealand are the two free-market countries. Everyone else on earth is wrong, but the Australian and New Zealand governments are right. Well, I very much doubt that.

Why I have been so obsessed with it—and I don't apologise for being obsessed with it—it that Mount Isa is the fourth-biggest industrial centre in this country. No. 1 is Port Kembla. No. 2 is Newcastle Port, which is owned by China. It is worth absolutely nothing to Australia, because the people in this parliament gave the biggest port in Australia to China. Shame! But I won't go sideways on that; I'll refocus. No. 3 is Gladstone, which is one of the three biggest power stations in Australia. It generated the cheapest electricity in the world because it was run on free coal. The state government called us bushrangers. I suppose they were right. We just took the coal for free. Too bad about the big corporation! They were making plenty out of the coal that they were exporting, so we took it for free. Because of the massive scale—it's one of the biggest power stations in the world—the labour costs were negligible. There were huge economies of scale, and, of course, it was built with government finance, so there were negligible repayments. So we had the cheapest electricity in the world, which enabled us to get, arguably, one of the five or six biggest aluminium smelters in the world at Gladstone.

Let me return to Mount Isa, because that's the fourth-biggest industrial centre in Australia. It relies entirely on gas for its energy, for its electricity, for the heat for its mineral processes and for the chemistry it requires. We should have the biggest phosphate plant in the world. The fertiliser is diammonium phosphate. That's two parts ammonia, which is natural gas, and one part phosphate. The whole of the Northern Territory-Queensland border is alive with phosphate. It's everywhere. So we've got miles of phosphate, and, of course, we've got miles of gas, but big corporations have sold it overseas. The important point to make here is that we sold the gas for 6c a unit and we buy our own gas back at $16.60 a unit. Who is running this country? We import all of our petrol. We export our oil for $8,000 million. We import our petrol for $62,000 million. Who is running this country? The answer, of course, is 'nobody'.

Let me return to the gas. I give praise to the Prime Minister. We're the fourth biggest industrial centre in Australia, and we're closing down. The phosphate plant has announced its closure, and the copper plant has announced its closure. It's a silver, lead and zinc operation, but it's nowhere near as big as the other two. Mount Isa, the fourth biggest industrial centre, is closing down. Two days later, the Prime Minister announced the reserved resource policy on gas on the east coast of Australia. We put on record our thanks and appreciation of the excellent and immediate—but there was no price. So two weeks later I went back to Prime Minister and said, 'You've given us a reserved resource policy, but we got this huge price.' That is being discussed now as a matter of public record. The government has put on the record that they're discussing that issue now. We're heading in the right direction. We just haven't quite got there yet.

The first public activity that I was ever present at was an address by the acting head of Mount Isa Mines, which was then the third biggest mining company on earth. He said that industry follows cheap power and that so long as we've got cheap power we will have a great industry in Mount Isa. That was fine when we had the gas for $6 a unit. I speak with authority because I was the minister that signed that agreement, and I thought it was a bit steep at the time. But it was a 20-year agreement, so really it was a pretty good deal. Now it's $16.60, and there aren't brutal bastards like myself around to just do it. Where we stand at the present moment is: God bless the government for giving us the reserved resource policy, but we need a price that we can live with.

It's the fourth biggest industrial centre in Australia. That phosphate plant should be doing $5,000 million a year, which I understand Western Australia will be doing. Maybe my information is incorrect there, but that's what I've been informed. We are doing $800 million only and we need to—but we can't ramp up unless we've got a price for the gas. We've got the phosphate super cheap—huge, unlimited reserves. We have got the gas. We thank the government for that, but we haven't got a price. That's where the situation lies at the present moment. We hope that the government moves forward with aggression on negotiating a price.

The big boys on the block in fertiliser, Russia and the United States, are getting their gas for $6. We're paying $16.60. Obviously, we need $6. The companies that got this gas got it for nothing. This is an Australian resource. They took it up. I'm not knocking them for that, but now they're making a squillion dollars out of it. If you take it up for nothing and you're selling it for $16.60 a unit when the rest of the world's paying $6 a unit—this is obscene, the current situation.

It's wrong.

Yes, it's obscene and wrong. We would ask the government to speed up, with aggression, their negotiations. It's the idea that powerful, slithering suits in Sydney run this country, which of course they do. They can manoeuvre and manipulate. I mean, we're going like a hundred miles an hour in the right direction. Now, suddenly, we're going slow. The government must be the government. You're the government of Australia. You're there to look after the people of Australia. We are talking here about billions, tens of billions or maybe even a hundred billion dollars on the gas. It's not just the gas. It's the downstream industries. I make the point that, when we provided supercheap electricity in Gladstone, it became the third-biggest industrial centre in Australia. It was because we gave them cheap electricity. If you give us cheap gas in Mount Isa, we'll give you back a result similar to what the Australian people got when we moved on the electricity in Gladstone. This place should be about creating wealth for the people and jobs for the people.

Easily the most important person in Australian history was 'Red Ted' Theodore. I didn't say that; Paul Keating said that. I didn't say that; Malcolm Fraser said that. The only thing I'd ever agree with those two people on is 'Red Ted' Theodore. Theodore wrote to Chifley, who he had put in for the prime ministership—he was getting very old at that stage—that it is the job of government to provide meaningful work for their people. Remember, that was in the Depression years, in the early forties. Actually, it was 1940 that the statement was made. That's what it is our job to create.

As a kid, I hated university. I didn't want to become a lawyer. All I wanted was a job. Please, someone, give me a job! In those days, of the great Bjelke-Petersen government, you could ring up on Thursday and start on Monday. I was an unskilled labourer at Mount Isa Mines. I rang up on Thursday and got a start on Tuesday. In terms of today's money, I was on $235,000 a year, paying very minimal tax, and we had free board and accommodation—three meals a day, seven days a week. Now, if you can get a job, I'd say you're looking at maybe four or five months to get a start in the mines. We were putting down a thousand kilometres of rail line every two years. The rail line was being put down into new mines so that they could get their product to the coast. We were making a lot of money out of it. We were a bit naughty—we made a lot of money out of the rail lines!—but no-one was complaining because we were putting up the money to build the railway line to get the coal out.

Every two years, we put down a thousand kilometres of rail, and that went on for 18 straight years. We started in the mines. Of course, the wages were going through the roof. People say, 'Oh, we can't afford to pay these wages.' Well, I say to the businessmen—and I was once a small-business man and my family before me, going way back 150 years in Australia—'More money will be going through your till.' If the people have got more money, they will spend more money. Enlightened businessmen should say, 'Oh, that is good; the cake has been made bigger, and we will profit from that cake.'

In moving a motion on the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, we applaud the government for already moving in this direction with aggression and expedition. They've been very fast on it. I mean, I spoke to the Prime Minister, and three days later they were moving on it. You can't ask for a better deal than that. Of course, the government realises the importance of what is going on here. Unless we have cheap coal, unless we have cheap gas and unless we have cheap electricity, we are simply not going to have any industry in Australia. If we provide those things at a reasonable rate, then we will have it. I was the minister for mines and energy in Queensland, and I'm very well aware of the fact that we paid extremely high wages in the Gladstone Power Station, but there were hardly any jobs. It was all mechanised, so it didn't cost the people anything to provide extremely generous wages. And, to the shock and horror of a lot of people, I'm a very active member of the CFMEU. We want decent wages and safe conditions for our people, and we are entitled to that. And government should be striving tooth and nail, fang and claw, every minute to open new industries and provide employment for their people. This bill is to do exactly that. I thank my crossbench colleagues for their initiative with this bill and commend it to the House.

I move the resolution circulated in my name:

That the following words be added after paragraph (4):

(6) further calls on the Government to ensure that:

(a) no gas may be exported unless sufficient supply is reserved to meet current and future Australian domestic demand;

(b) Australian consumers have first call on Australian gas resources;

(c) sufficient gas is reserved to guarantee long-term domestic energy security for households, manufacturers, primary producers and regional communities;

(d) domestic wholesale gas prices are capped at a level comparable to those available in Western Australia, adjusted only for reasonable transportation and distribution costs; and

(e) Australia's gas resources are developed and managed primarily for the benefit of Australian households, manufacturers, primary producers and regional communities before the interests of overseas customers".

Is the motion seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I move amendment to the motion for the second reading in my name, That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (1) notes that (a) the gas supply and price pressures that this bill seeks to address are an east coast problem which needs an east coast solution, not a west coast solution; (b) Western Australia's gas market is not connected to the east coast, and Western Australia has had its own domestic gas reservation policy in place since 2006 requiring LNG exporters to make gas equivalent to 15 per cent of their exports available to Western Australian households and businesses; (c) instead of respecting a Western Australian policy that works, the bill leaves the fate of Western Australian Gas to ministerial discretion in Canberra, adding another layer of big government red tape and uncertainty for the projects Western Australia depends on; and (d) the government is yet to approve the Browse Basin development, and this bill will further deter the investment needed to get more Western Australian gas out of the ground; and (2) calls on the government to (a) carve Western Australia out of the reservation scheme in legislation for as long as Western Australia's own reservation policy remains in force, unless the Western Australian government requests otherwise; (b) ensure that carve out covers new projects and expansions, not just existing ones; (c) spare Western Australian producers from duplicate Commonwealth compliance and reporting obligations; and (d) get out of the way and let Western Australia get on with getting gas out of the ground.'

I'm sorry, Member for Hinkler, but that is not in order, so I cannot accept it. We are going to move on and proceed. I will give the minister the call at this point, and then we will progress from there. The Clerk has just informed me that you're entitled to speak, but you can't move that amendment because it's not in order. It hasn't been circulated. The member for Kennedy is seeking the call.

I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

I just need to emphasise that we have massive phosphate deposits. We cannot sell those that phosphate. It's too cheap, and we're 1,200 kilometres from Townsville. It's going to sit in the ground forever. But if we convert it into diammonium phosphate—it sure would be helpful if we had a short rail line into the gulf. But, even under present circumstances, I emphasise that massive phosphate deposits are there. The country has massive gas deposits.

I thank the member for Kennedy for that. You've made those points very eloquently and very forcefully.

I think you're being kind to me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I'm going to ask you to leave it there now. I'm going to give the call to the minister. But I thank you for the contribution, Member for Kennedy, which you've made so passionately and eloquently this afternoon.

I want to start by thanking all those members who have contributed to this debate on Domestic Gas Reservation Bill and related bills over the last day or so. At its core, this package is about ensuring Australian gas delivers for the Australian people, for Australian households, for Australian businesses and for Australian industry. It is about ensuring Australian households can heat their homes and keep the lights on at a reasonable price. It is about ensuring Australian manufacturers, processors and industrial users have access to the gas they need to invest, to create jobs and to drive our economy forward. It is about ensuring that a country with abundant gas resources can rely on those resources to strengthen its own energy security while supporting the energy security of our region and remaining a trusted trading partner.

The need for reform is clear. For more than a decade, governments of different political persuasions have grappled with the challenge of ensuring sufficient domestic gas supply in a market increasingly connected to global demand. In 2017, the Turnbull coalition government introduced the Australian domestic gas security mechanism, and, in doing so, thereby acknowledged the need for government intervention to ensure domestic gas supply by restricting the export of LNG out of Queensland's Curtis Island facilities should there be issues with supply. In 2022, the Morrison coalition government entered into a new heads of agreement with the east coast LNG exporters to secure additional gas for the domestic market. After being elected in 2022, the Albanese Labor government extended and reformed both of these mechanisms. Firstly, to make sure the ADGSM was available to be used in case of shortages, as it was expiring, and, secondly, so that that mechanism could be used more than once a year. Around the same time, Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine led directly to a global crunch in gas supply, and the ripple effects landed squarely on Australia's shores. Gas prices skyrocketed. We then introduced price controls, and indeed members who were here then will remember that we recalled parliament to shield Australian households and businesses from the worst impacts of these global price shocks.

These measures have served Australia well, particularly in the face of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, helping to keep prices relatively stable. However, those measures are neither a long-term nor a sustainable solution to Australia's gas security challenges. Governments continue to confront concerns around domestic supply, affordability and energy security. The simple fact is that, if those arrangements had solved the problem for the community or industry itself, this parliament would not need to be considering this package of bills today.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering the structural reform needed to fix this and deliver enduring and appropriate market regulation for the benefit of all Australians. These bills replace temporary and reactive interventions with an enduring, transparent and predictable framework. We will do this while respecting our commitments to trading partners and maintaining Australia's position as one of the most, if not the most, reliable LNG exporters in the world. Australia's LNG exports play a critical role in supporting energy security throughout the Indo-Pacific, and these bills have been informed by extensive consultation with industry, manufacturers, producers, exporters, unions and trading partners. Throughout that consultation, we have carefully considered our domestic energy needs alongside our responsibility as a trusted supplier of energy to our region. We have struck an important balance.

The framework also recognises the realities of Australia's gas markets. Australia does not have a single nationally integrated gas market. Rather, we have two distinct gas markets—one in the east and one in the west—shaped by geography and infrastructure. The east coast gas market is connected by an extensive pipeline network linking Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Western Australia, by contrast, operates as a separate market because it is not physically connected by pipelines to the east coast gas system.

It's funny—Western Australia is doing a wonderful job now!

I agree with the member for Kennedy in that regard. Different regions face different circumstances, infrastructure constraints and demand profiles. That is particularly true in Western Australia. Western Australia's longstanding domestic gas reservation arrangements have demonstrated that indeed it is possible to support a strong export industry while also ensuring a reliable supply for domestic consumers and industry. Indeed, Western Australia's experience shows that strong domestic supply obligations and a successful export industry can co-exist. Consistent with that reality, the bills provide flexibility to adjust the demand supply obligation downward to reflect a well-supplied Western Australian market.

The bills recognise and respect the existing Western Australian policies and the unique characteristics of Australia's west coast market, while establishing a durable national framework that strengthens energy security right across the country. Importantly, there is recognition across this parliament that action is needed. While views may differ—

A point of order. The minister is giving a wonderful expose, but she's not addressing the critical point. Are we going to get the same rules in Australia that they enjoy in Western Australia?

Member for Kennedy, the minister has every right to be heard. I'd ask you to resume your seat.

As I was saying, there was recognition across parliament that action is needed, and while views may differ on particular mechanisms, there is increasing agreement that the status quo has not delivered the level of energy security Australians deserve and that manufacturers need. Securing more Australian gas for Australian consumers and Australian manufacturers at a reasonable price should be a bipartisan objective.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Susan McDonald and members of the opposition for their constructive engagement in relation to this package of bills. I want to acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Wannon during yesterday's debate. He recognised both the importance of these reforms and the importance of getting them right. We will continue to discuss the legislative package in good faith with the coalition and indeed any member of parliament or senator who wishes to do so.

This is a reform that will shape Australia's energy security for decades to come, and one that will deliver the greatest and most enduring benefits for Australians if it is supported across this parliament. Ultimately, these bills are about ensuring Australian gas delivers for Australians. They will provide greater certainty for households, businesses and industry, strengthen Australia's energy security and establish an enduring framework that recognises a simple principle: Australian gas should benefit the Australian people. I commend the bills to the House.

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Ryan moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The immediate question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026; Second Reading Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Are we talking about my amendment?

Thank you, Member for Kennedy. Because of your amendment, the matter is contested and unresolved. That will now be referred to the main chamber for it to go to a formal division. This is a cognate debate, so we've now gone to the accompanying bill. As there are no more speakers, just to be clear, I'm putting the question on the accompanying bill, that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I'll put the report question immediately. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm—

Does the member for Kennedy wish to speak on the consideration in detail?

Well, yes. As I understand it, I'm entitled to do that.

Member for Kennedy, we've moved on to the second of the two bills. The first of the two bills, which I understand you have an amendment to, has been referred to the main chamber, and we're now on the consideration in detail, seemingly at your request. Do you wish to consider this bill in detail and make a statement of some kind?

If we're going to discuss this proposal in the House, then I'm happy to go with the flow. But I need assurance—

Member for Kennedy, just resume your seat for now. Minister?

I may be able to assist the member for Kennedy. The bill we're onto now is the second of the package of three bills. The bill that you've moved an amendment to is the first bill, the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026. That will be debated in consideration in detail in the main chamber tomorrow, and that will be the opportunity that I think the member for Kennedy is seeking.

And this change that we want in there—

That will be circulated.

Member for Kennedy, please. Through the chair, you have the call.

I just want clarification from the minister that the issue of price will become part of the bill. That's our amendment, and I can't see any reason why the government shouldn't accept that proposal. I think you're onside with us. You've already done it in Western Australia, so we would like very much for the government to accept a little tiny amendment there that guarantees the price. The price is the issue. If we could clarify that, please, we then won't take up the time of the House here or in the other place.

I totally accept the member for Kennedy's intent here, but we will wait to see these amendments that have been circulated and we'll look at them and debate them tomorrow. In the meantime, if we could deal with the two accompanying bills that I think we're going through a process of dealing with, then we'll move onto that consideration in detail in the morning. I believe that is the plan.

Yes. Member for Kennedy, just to be clear, we've reached the consideration in detail of the second bill, so I think we're going to just rewind a bit and I'm going to say: if no member wishes to consider this bill in detail, I will put the report question immediately.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026; Second Reading Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026

Just to clear up any confusion, there are three bills. It's been a cognate debate. We've dealt with the second of three bills, and I'm now moving to the third bill, which, to be clear, is the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026.

I wanted to ask a question before we vote on it. Can I do that?

Member for Kennedy, out of courtesy to you, you may ask your question.

I ask this of the minister, through the chair. They've got an agreement on price in Western Australia. We are asking here for some assurance on the issue of price. We're very supportive of the bill—

Member for Kennedy, resume your seat. I thought we'd resolved this matter. The minister has been very clear: there will be an opportunity for this to be pursued in the main chamber, I presume tomorrow. So what you're requesting has been dealt with, and I think it's exactly what you're seeking. I do want to deal with this third bill. I'll start again. This is the Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

We got there! Member for Kennedy, you'll have ample opportunity to explore this important issue in the main chamber tomorrow.

If I have—I might've been conned, I think!

No, no, no. That would never happen in this place.

Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026; Second Reading Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026

I rise today to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026. We know that Australia's defence capability must be delivered differently to meet the demands of a more dangerous and unpredictable era where the consequences of delay, costs, and capability underperformance are more serious than they have been in generations. Legacy capability systems, optimised for deliberation and risk minimisation, are not well suited to an environment that demands speed, integration and disciplined execution.

In reflection of this changing need, on 1 December 2025 the government announced significant reform to capability development and delivery, including the establishment of the Defence Delivery Agency from 1 July 2027, with an interim step of the formation of the Defence Delivery Group within Defence from 1 July this year; the establishment of a national armaments director to lead the new agency, responsible for providing advice to ministers on the delivery of acquisition and sustainment projects following government approval; and the centralisation of capability development and contestability functions under the Vice Chief of the Defence Force to support clearer prioritisation, streamlined decision-making and accountability.

This announcement followed the 2023 Defence strategic review and the 2024 National defence strategy, and it was reinforced by the 2026 National defence strategy. This found that defence acquisition and sustainment arrangements were not fit for the scale, complexity or urgency of Australia's strategic circumstances.

The key pillars of the 2026 National defence strategy are clear, urgent and unavoidable. First and foremost is increasing Australia's self-reliance over the longer term. Now, self-reliance doesn't mean fighting or facing threats alone; it means having the homegrown industrial strength to sustain the fight. So inextricably linked to this is another critical pillar from the 2026 National defence strategy, which is to grow Australia's sovereign defence industrial base by shoring up our sovereign supply chain and an appropriately skilled and qualified workforce. Other features of the 2026 National defence strategy include strengthening our bilateral and multilateral security partnerships in the Indo-Pacific.

The government has also directed the ADF to maintain the capacity to defend Australia and our immediate region; to deter, through denial, any potential adversary's attempt to project power against Australia through our northern approaches; to protect Australia's economic connection to our region and the world; to contribute with our partners to the collective security of the Indo-Pacific; and to contribute with our partners to protecting and upholding global rules and norms. So what is required to focus on that is speed to capability. Speed to capability has two parts.

The first element of speed to capability is minimum viable capability. This phrase is sometimes misunderstood because of the word 'minimum'. In this context, minimum viable capability does not mean the bare minimum in terms of operational functionality. It does not mean procuring substandard or barely passable capability for our defence force. It doesn't mean that at all. Minimum viable capability means fit for mission, a capability that achieves a threshold capability effect inclusive of all fundamental inputs of that capability in the required time. Minimum viable capability delivers what Defence needs to achieve a military effect. It can be further developed, scaled and built up, and it includes materiel and sustainment elements so that the management, support and maintenance of the relevant military equipment and platforms can be achieved. In short, it's procuring something that can do the job well by the point in time it is needed.

The second element of speed to capability is minimum viable processes. Again, this does not mean poor or ill considered processes; it means the implementation of targeted and efficient processes that are smooth and that facilitate the delivery of the capability and its ongoing sustainment. Minimum viable processes can ensure that the capability is safe to operate, that it's fit for mission and that our Defence Force personnel have trust and confidence in it no matter the domain. It also ensures that risks and issues associated with that capability are always managed at the appropriate level within the organisation.

The reforms outlined in this bill have at their heart a focus on speed to capability. The development, testing and introduction of new capability just has to take place at a greater pace than ever before. A new capability has to operate in a meaningful and effective way with Australian industry and with our international partners. A framework to facilitate this requires careful thinking. In this respect, the bill establishes new legislative foundations that will enable Defence to develop and secure that capability at pace. It's a key enabler to the full implementation of the National Defence Strategy and the delivery of pillars I and II of the AUKUS trilateral security agreement and partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom.

A central objective of the bill in this respect is to replace fragmented and inconsistent legislative arrangements with clear statutory frameworks supported by defined safeguards, oversight and accountability mechanisms. The reforms improve transparency, consistency, accountability and certainty by establishing these transparent statutory decision-making processes that identify what activities can be carried out, the circumstances in which they may occur, the conditions that apply and the oversight mechanisms. The reforms reduce reliance on complex multijurisdictional exemptions, implied authorities and administrative arrangements that might otherwise be required to support defence activities. They're focused on defence activities, and they provide the legislative support to facilitate them. What does that look like?

Schedule 1 of the bill will create a defence capability framework, a fit-for-purpose capability development and testing framework including for activities conducted with industry and international partners. It is going to streamline the current patchwork of federal, state and territory legislation, which was not necessarily designed with defence purposes in mind and especially that need for speed to capability. Importantly, the framework will operate to remove legal and regulatory hurdles that adversely impact on that speed of capability development. The era of multiple exemptions, licences and approvals from different state and territory authorities for a single activity will come to an end under this framework and with it the corresponding delays, inconsistencies and uncertainties.

Australians expect a properly equipped defence force that uses the best available equipment that is fit for mission. It cannot be that the ADF and its defence industry partners are unable, or limited in their ability, to develop and test advanced capability here in Australia, because this limit would also have the effect of limiting or overly complicating the commercialisation of technology here in Australia, which does nothing to promote our competitiveness or provide incentives for industry to invest.

Importantly, the framework is also critical to enabling the delivery of AUKUS Pillar II signature projects—those being the development of cutting-edge payloads and enabling systems for uncrewed undersea vehicles—with delivery starting in 2027. These uncrewed undersea vehicles will support a range of missions, including to protect critical national seabed infrastructure; deploy cutting-edge surveillance, reconnaissance and strike capabilities; conduct logistics operations; and bolster superiority in antisubmarine and antisurface warfare, mine countermeasures, electronic warfare and contested littoral manoeuvre. All of this further enhances the asymmetric capability of Australia and its partners.

Pillar II often gets lost in the excitement of Pillar I, but Pillar II, with its focus on advanced capabilities and emerging technologies, offers a critical opportunity for Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to pool resources, accelerate innovation, share technology and compete effectively with potential adversaries in areas such as cyber, autonomous capability and artificial intelligence. We've already seen what can go right in this respect, with the relaxation of export controls to enable smoother and faster collaboration and joint collaboration in a licence-free environment. Pillar II offers potentially more transformative impacts for the Australian defence industry and capability because, if it goes right, Australia will be in a position to develop world-leading defence capabilities, including autonomous capability, through growing its defence industrial base, encouraging innovation and then integrating this industrial base with that of its partners. Pillar II could transform the strategic balance in not only the Indo-Pacific but the broader Asian region, because it will illustrate that the world's leading liberal democracies, of which Australia is one, can innovate together to facilitate speed to capability, to deter aggression and to shape the future of warfare by detecting, deterring and responding to threats to critical infrastructure like undersea cables and pipelines.

With respect to Defence bases, the bill also establishes a modern Defence Security Zone Framework that consolidates and replaces a number of fragmented security regimes across defence legislation. The framework applies a consistent approach to security measures across Defence, ADF and relevant foreign partner assets, and it supports tailored security arrangements for Defence facilities, activities, infrastructure and capability. It also provides contemporary powers to address threats posed by drones and other uncrewed systems, including powers to detect, monitor, track, seize, recover, interfere with and, where necessary, neutralise uncrewed systems that present a security threat to Defence personnel, assets or sites.

The work that the men and women who are on our Australian Defence Force bases are doing is truly excellent, and it's non-negotiable that these bases, which house our personnel but also our assets and other Defence infrastructure, should be properly protected. This is urgent because the development of adverse drone and other uncrewed technology is happening rapidly, and our protection of Defence bases cannot lag behind this any more than it already does. Defence needs enduring legislative authority that allows personnel to protect Defence sites, Defence personnel and critical assets from drones and other uncrewed systems. This bill builds on the interim measures the Albanese government has already implemented through the Defence Amendment (Counter-UXS Measures) Regulations 2025.

The reforms in this bill move us further forward by modernising security arrangements currently spread across multiple Defence statutes and consolidating them into a single Defence Security Zone Framework. This provides a contemporary and consistent framework that enables Defence security zones to be established in order to protect locations, assets, personnel and capabilities, as well as foreign partner assets.

The reforms also support increasingly important security requirements associated with AUKUS activities, visiting US and UK nuclear powered submarines and major Defence industrial precincts. To be clear, the reforms do permit the detection, identification, monitoring, tracking and response to drones and uncrewed systems, including through destructive means if necessary, at defence bases that may be at risk, but this is entirely appropriate, and there are safeguards which provide that the action must be proportionate to the risk. The reforms in this bill will enable Defence to act before an authorised system compromises sensitive information, disrupts an activity or causes harm. Defence must work with other agencies including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to ensure the safety of civilian aircraft when conducting these activities at shared facilities.

Australia's strategic environment is changing rapidly. It's characterised by increasing strategic competition, accelerating technological change, growing reliance on sovereign defence industry and deeper cooperation with allies and partners. The reforms in this bill are not only critical enablers of the National defence strategy and AUKUS. They support Australia's national security by facilitating speed to capability and giving authority to our defence personnel under rightly controlled circumstances to protect that capability and the defence bases on which they live and work in the interests of our country. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Australia's national security depends on our ability to respond to an increasingly complex and uncertain world, and ensuring our Defence Force has the capabilities, resources and protections it needs to keep Australians safe is one of the most important responsibilities of any government. But protecting Australia today requires more than maintaining the Defence Force we have always known. It requires us to prepare for the challenges of tomorrow and recognise that the nature of modern warfare is changing faster than ever before.

Across the world we're seeing new technologies fundamentally changing how military operations are conducted. Drones, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence and cyber capabilities are no longer technologies of the future. They're being used in conflicts the world over. As these technologies continue to evolve, Australia must ensure our Defence Force is equipped to respond, because we cannot expect our Defence Force to meet the challenges tomorrow while operating under legislation designed for the past. That is why the reforms before the House are so important. They will ensure Defence has the legislative foundations it needs to develop new capabilities, work more closely with Australian industry and protect our national security.

The Albanese Labor government understands that Australia is facing one of the most challenging strategic environments in generations. We're seeing increasing strategic competition across our region, rapid technological change and emerging threats to our critical infrastructure. Through the 2026 National defence strategy, our government is taking the steps necessary to strengthen Australia's defence capabilities and prepare for the challenges ahead. But delivering these capabilities requires more than investment alone. It requires legislation that supports innovation, rather than creating unnecessary barriers.

Right now, Defence can face a complicated combination of Commonwealth, state and territory laws when developing and testing new technologies. Many of these laws were never designed with modern defence capabilities in mind, and in some cases Defence must obtain multiple licences, exemptions and approvals simply to undertake a single testing activity. Different requirements can apply depending on where an activity takes place. This creates delays, additional costs and unnecessary uncertainty. At a time when defence technology is advancing so rapidly, those delays matter, because every unnecessary barrier can mean more time before an important capability reaches the people who need it, and every delay can mean a missed opportunity for Australian businesses developing the next generation of defence technology.

That is why this bill establishes a new defence capability framework that will provide a clearer and more consistent process for Defence to develop, test and evaluate new capabilities here, in Australia. It will support emerging technologies including autonomous systems, guided weapons, cyber capabilities and electronic warfare. Importantly, it will make it easier for Defence to work alongside Australian businesses and our trusted international partners. Take, for example, an Australian company developing an autonomous maritime vessel, which is a technology that could play an important role in surveillance, reconnaissance or protecting the water around our island home. Under existing arrangements, Defence and that company may need to navigate multiple layers of regulation before the vessel can even be tested, and these requirements can delay development, increase costs and make it harder for Australian innovations to become practical defence capabilities.

The new framework will help address these challenges by providing a clearer pathway for appropriate testing and development activities. This matters not just for Defence but for Australian industry because, when we make it easier to develop and test advanced technologies in Australia, we're creating opportunities for Australian workers and businesses. We're supporting researchers, engineers, manufacturers and the next generation of skilled workers, and we're strengthening Australia's sovereign industrial capability so that we're better equipped to develop and maintain the technologies our Defence Force relies on. This is particularly important when we consider the opportunities presented by AUKUS.

Our partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom represents a generational opportunity to strengthen Australia's national security. While much of the public discussion focuses on nuclear powered submarines, AUKUS extends well beyond submarine construction. Through pillar II, Australia is working with our closest partners to accelerate the development of advanced military technologies, including autonomous underwater vehicles, artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities and other emerging systems. But to take full advantage of these opportunities, Australia needs the ability to develop, test and integrate these technologies efficiently. We cannot afford to have Australian innovation held back by outdated regulatory arrangements, and we certainly don't want to see opportunities for Australian businesses move offshore simply because our legislation hasn't kept pace. These reforms will help ensure Australia remains an active participant in the development of the next generation of defence capabilities, and, importantly, they'll help ensure the economic benefits of these investments are realised here at home.

For my home state of South Australia, these reforms are particularly significant. South Australia is already playing a central role in Australia's defence future. From our naval ship building industry to the growth of advanced manufacturing and defence technology, South Australia is helping build the capabilities Australia will rely on for decades to come. While much of this investment is concentrated around major Defence precincts, the opportunities extend well beyond them. Across the northern suburbs of Adelaide, including communities in my electorate of Spence, defence investment has the potential to support local manufacturers and create highly skilled employment opportunities—opportunities for young Australians looking to enter the workforce, apprentices learning a trade or a small business looking to become part of Australia's defence supply chains. Because strengthening our national security and supporting Australian jobs are not competing priorities; they go hand in hand.

By strengthening Australia's ability to develop and manufacture advanced defence technologies, we are building a stronger economy and a more secure nation. But developing new capabilities is only one part of the challenge. We must also ensure that the people, facilities and infrastructure supporting those capabilities are properly protected. Increasingly, one of the most significant threats facing defence installations around the world comes from drones and other uncrewed systems. These technologies have become more affordable, more accessible and more sophisticated. While they have many legitimate recreational and commercial uses, they can also be used for surveillance, espionage and sabotage.

We've seen in conflicts around the world how relatively inexpensive drones can pose serious threats to sophisticated military equipment and critical infrastructure. As these technologies become more widely available, our Defence Force must have the tools necessary to respond. A drone operating near a sensitive Defence facility could potentially gather intelligence, disrupt operations or threaten personnel and equipment. Yet the legislation governing Defence's ability to respond to these threats has not always kept pace. That's why this bill establishes a modern defence security zone framework.

This framework will bring together and modernise existing security arrangements, providing Defence with clear authority to protect its personnel, facilities and sensitive activities. It will allow appropriate security measures to be applied to Defence bases, important industrial facilities and other locations where sensitive defence activities are being undertaken. Importantly, it will provide authorised Defence personnel with the ability to detect, monitor, track and, where necessary, neutralise drones and other uncrewed systems that pose a genuine security threat. Because Defence should not have to wait until sensitive information has been compromised or personnel have been placed at risk before responding to an emerging threat.

The framework also recognises that defence activities don't always take place within the boundaries of permanent military bases. There may be circumstances where sensitive equipment is being transported, where an Australian company is undertaking important capability trials or where an emergency requires temporary security arrangements. The ability to establish permanent, temporary or mobile and emergency defence security zones will allow security measures to be tailored to these different circumstances. This is particularly important as Australia continues to deepen its defence cooperation with the United States and the United Kingdom through AUKUS. As our partnerships expand, so too does the importance of protecting visiting military assets, sensitive technologies and major defence industrial precincts. We have a responsibility to ensure these activities can be undertaken safely and securely and that Australia remains a trusted and capable partner.

While these reforms provide Defence with important new authorities, they also recognise that those powers must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. Strengthening national security should never mean abandoning accountability, and providing Defence with the powers necessary to respond to modern threats does not mean those powers should be unlimited. The defence capability framework does not provide a general authority for Defence to undertake any activity it chooses. Activities must fall within the legislative framework and be specifically authorised. It cannot be used to authorise domestic policing functions, compulsory acquisition of land or the use or threat of force against people in Australia. When authorising capability activities, decision-makers must consider whether the impact on people in Australia is reasonable and proportionate. They must also consider whether those undertaking the activities are suitable and whether appropriate safeguards are in place. These are important protections that ensure the development of new defence capabilities is accompanied by clear responsibilities.

The same principle applies to the defence security zone framework. Security zones must be geographically limited and no more extensive than necessary to achieve their intended purpose. There are also requirements for consultation with people who may be affected and time limits on temporary and emergency arrangements. Importantly, the legislation recognises the need for Defence to work with other agencies, including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to ensure that security activities don't unnecessarily compromise civilian aviation safety.

The bill also strengthens independent oversight through expanded functions for the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, alongside parliamentary scrutiny through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, because Australians should have confidence not only in the capabilities of the Defence Force but also in the systems of accountability that govern its activities.

These reforms have not been developed in isolation. They follow a consultation across government, including with 19 Commonwealth departments and agencies, as well as a public consultation process undertaken by Defence in 2023. That consultation has helped inform legislation intended to balance the operational needs of Defence with the rights, interests and safety of the Australian community.

Ultimately, these reforms reflect a simple but important principle. If Australia is serious about strengthening our national security, we must ensure our legislative framework is capable of supporting the defence force we need for the future. We cannot expect our military personnel to operate with tomorrow's technology while navigating yesterday's laws, and we cannot expect Australian defence industry to compete internationally if unnecessary regulatory barriers prevent innovation from progressing here at home.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to building a defence force that is capable, adaptable and prepared for the challenges ahead; a defence force supported by advanced technologies, strong international partnerships and a growing sovereign industrial base; but also a defence force operating within a clear legislative framework, with appropriate safeguards and strong independent oversight. These reforms are an important part of delivering that commitment. They will help accelerate the development of new capabilities, strengthen the protection of Defence personnel and infrastructure. and create greater opportunities for Australian industry. As Australia's strategic environment continues to evolve, they will help ensure that our Defence Force has the authorities it needs to respond effectively, because, ultimately, our responsibility is not simply to respond to the security challenges Australia faces today; it's to ensure our nation is prepared for the challenges we may face in the decades to come. That means making the investments, building the partnerships and delivering the legislative reforms necessary to keep Australia safe. That is what these reforms seek to achieve, and that is why I commend them to the House.

I rise to support the Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026. The bill should be understood as part of something much larger. It is yet another positive step in the transformation of Australia's defence posture that has been underway since the Albanese Labor government took office.

We are spending more on defence, but the challenge before Australia is not simply to spend more on defence. It is to identify the capabilities our nation needs, acquire them faster, build and sustain more of them here at home, reduce sovereign risk, firm up supply chains, work effectively with our allies and trusted partners, and protect those capabilities, the people behind them and, importantly, the places from which they operate. That takes investment, and this government is providing it at a level unprecedented in living memory. But it also takes strategy, industry, skills, partnerships, accountability and, saliently, laws that are fit for the strategic environment in which the Australian Defence Force now operates.

The bill establishes a new defence capability framework to support capability development, testing, evaluation and preparedness, alongside a defence security zone framework to better protect defence personnel, the facilities, the information, the activities and the capabilities. Importantly, the bill also provides for independent oversight by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force.

I've spoken in this House before about Australia facing the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War. In fact, there are more conflicts right now than there ever have been since the Second World War. This is not a slogan. It is the starting point for serious defence policy—policy based on our own needs and interests and the development of a sovereign capability.

Since 2022, the Albanese government has been systematically answering some fundamental questions: What kind of Defence Force does Australia need? What capabilities must it possess? How rapidly must we acquire them? What must Australia do to build and sustain ourselves? And how do we make our Defence Force, our economy, our infrastructure and our communities more resilient? There is a clear chronology to what then followed.

In 2022, one of the first actions of the Albanese Labor government was to commission the Defence Strategic Review, led independently by former defence minister and former foreign minister Professor Stephen Smith and former Chief of the Defence Force, Sir Angus Houston. I know both of these men, and I know the seriousness and the expertise they bring to their work. That review was commissioned within the government's first 100 days. We did not begin with an arbitrary spending figure. We began by examining Australia's strategic circumstances, determining the force structure needed to respond to them, and then identifying the capabilities required to make that force credible.

The Defence Strategic Review was released in April 2023. It identified six priorities for immediate action: nuclear powered submarines, through AUKUS; longer range strike and Australian munitions manufacturing; strengthening our northern bases; growing and retaining the defence workforce; translating disruptive technologies into military capability more rapidly; and deepening Australia's diplomatic and defence relationships across the Indo-Pacific. As I've said previously in this House, thanks indeed to the extraordinary leadership of ministers Marles, Conroy, Keogh, Kahlil and Thistlethwaite, a great deal has followed on from that strategic review process.

In March 2023, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom announced the AUKUS optimal pathway. That pathway provides for increasing submarine visits; the Submarine Rotational Force-West, from as early as next year; Australia's acquisition of Virginia class submarines, from the early 2030s; and, ultimately, the construction of SSN-AUKUS. For Western Australia, this is very real. HMAS Stirling will sit at the centre of the Submarine Rotational Force-West, with a planned rotational presence from as early as next year of one UK and up to four US conventionally armed and nuclear powered submarines. That means infrastructure, engineers, apprentices, nuclear stewardship, security, maintenance, sustainment and Australian supply chains. It means the development of sovereign Australian capability.

In April 2024, the government delivered Australia's first national defence strategy, establishing a strategy of denial as the cornerstone of defence planning and directing the ADF towards becoming an integrated, focused force. Modern deterrence requires integration across maritime, land, air space and cyber domains. It requires intelligence, resilient infrastructure and supply chains, advanced technology and a strong Australian industrial base, and that requires investment. The 2024 National Defence Strategy provided an additional $5.7 billion over four years and $50.3 billion over the decade above the previous Defence funding trajectory. The Australian Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Plan committed $16 billion to $21 billion across the decade, including Australian manufacture of the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System missiles and maintenance of the Naval Strike and Joint Strike missiles. Buying capability is one thing; being able to replenish it, repair it, modify it and sustain it in a crisis is another.

That same year, Labor also introduced legislation for a dedicated Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence modelled in significant respects to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on which I serve, and able to deal with the classified information. A statutory Defence committee had been a bipartisan recommendation actually over several parliamentary reports. When we build capability, we also have to build proper parliamentary oversight. The coalition, unfortunately though, played politics and failed to support the bill at that time and delayed the establishment of the committee.

In 2025, much of this planning became increasingly tangible. In January, the government committed another $262 million to develop Australia's AUKUS submarine supply chain, supporting around 125 Australian businesses with the skills, security, accreditation, manufacturing, equipment and qualifications for international submarine supply chains. Then, in September, the Prime Minister announced $12 billion in new funding for the Henderson defence precinct in Western Australia. By then the additional Defence investment over the decade had reached $70 billion.

Henderson will support continuous naval ship building, AUKUS, surface-vessel sustainment and future submarine support, with the government projecting more than 10,000 local jobs. On any visit there, you will see the place and how it's transforming. The energy, the absolute dedication and focus across all tiers of government—local, state and federal—is actually an extraordinary example of how we can work fast and collaboratively where it's needed on such a priority project.

The Prime Minister spoke of investment in both our capability and our relationships. That is an important distinction. Sovereign capability does not mean strategic isolation. Australian capability becomes stronger when Australian industry and workers are connected to the technology, the expertise and the scale of trusted partners. We are also seeing emerging technology move from theory to practice. During Exercise Talisman Sabre in July 2025, AUKUS partners deployed autonomous and remotely operated underwater vehicles and advanced algorithms aboard an Australian P-8 maritime patrol aircraft. Later that year, more than 200 defence personnel, scientists and industry participants tested around 30 next-generation capabilities through Maritime Big Play.

In December, the government announced major reform of capability acquisition and sustainment, including the creation of a dedicated Defence Delivery Agency and Australia's first National Armaments Director. Labor also reinforced the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence legislation in October 2025, and it finally passed both houses on 4 March this year. So today Australia has a statutory Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence with legislative scrutiny and parliamentary oversight, and that matters. The larger Defence becomes, the more sophisticated its capabilities become and the more tax money we obviously invest, so a stronger case is made for rigorous parliamentary oversight. Supporting Defence and scrutinising Defence are not competing objectives. Strong accountability makes Defence stronger.

Then we come to this year. The government has again increased the scale and pace of reform. The 2026 National defence strategy and Integrated Investment Program bring the combined additional investment to $117 billion over the decade to 2035-36. The 2026 strategy places greater emphasis on self-reliance, sovereign industrial resilience, international industrial partnerships, national civil preparedness and resilience. Under the NATO methodology, Defence spending is projected to reach three per cent of GDP by 2033. That is why the acquisition reforms matter.

The Defence Delivery Group commenced on 1 July 2026, with reforms intended to provide clearer accountability, stronger contestability and better cost estimation and assurance as Defence transitions towards the Defence Delivery Agency. The government's Rebuilding defence capability report says that with increased investment comes a clear responsibility to ensure Defence has the structures, the skills and the systems necessary to turn that strategy into real capability for the ADF. That task, of course, is made more urgent by the speed of technological change. Artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, quantum technology, hypersonics, long-range strike, undersea warfare and directed energy systems are developing extraordinarily quickly.

That brings us directly back to the bill. Modern military capability is increasingly developed with Australian companies, scientists, universities, researchers, engineers, startups, major primes and international partners. The new Defence Capability Framework provides a statutory foundation for developing, testing, evaluating and sustaining that capability. But speed must not come at the expense of safeguards, so the framework does not authorise military operations, intelligence collection or law enforcement activity, nor does it create a general exemption from Australian law or remove environmental heritage or native title protections.

The Defence Security Zone Framework addresses the other half of the equation: protecting what we build. Existing Defence security laws were written in years past, and Defence has identified gaps and inconsistencies, including in responding to contemporary threats such as drone incursions. It makes little sense to spend billions developing sophisticated military capabilities while leaving the people, the places and the technology supporting them vulnerable because our laws have not kept pace. The bill addresses that gap.

I just want to return to WA, because for Western Australia sovereign capability is already becoming real. Henderson and HMAS Stirling, as I said, are central to the story, but so are Western Australian businesses. I've spoken previously in this House about Hofmann Engineering in Ashfield and Bayswater, in my electorate of Hasluck, becoming the first qualified Australian company to receive a request for a quote to supply parts into the United States submarine supply chain. The Hofmann story demonstrates what sovereign capability can mean. A business that began as a backyard operation developed into an internationally connected Australian engineering company—Australian engineering, Australian workers and Australian skills connected into one of the most sophisticated defence industrial networks in the world. That is what AUKUS can look like in an Australian suburb, and that is why defence industry policy is a national security policy. Our security depends not just on what Australia can buy but on what we can build, what we can repair and what we can sustain and replenish.

Amid all of these strategies, investment programs, submarines, missiles and technologies, we should never lose sight of one thing: Defence is ultimately about people. Before coming to this place, I served in the signals reserves, and that experience gave me an enduring appreciation of the responsibilities that come with service and of the people who put on our nation's uniform. Since coming to parliament, I have continued to maintain that connection, including through Exercise Pitch Black, the ADF exchange programs and hosting officers from the ADF through the ADF parliamentary internship program. I'm also engaged through the ANU national security program, and I encourage every MP and senator in this place to participate in the same.

So this bill matters. Capability matters because we may ask our Australian service men and women to use it. I will conclude by saying that we are working now to develop that capability faster and to protect the capability better. I commend the bill to the House.

At the outset, I want to say I support this legislation. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 and related bills are about protecting our defence bases, our personnel, our critical assets, as well as accelerating development of the capability that Defence needs to keep Australians safe. Why is it important for my electorate? Because my electorate is home to the biggest operational air base in the country, RAAF Base Amberley, which hosts a number of strategic fleets there such as the Super Hornets, the Growlers, the Globemasters et cetera.

Nearly one in 10 of the jobs in the city of Ipswich are created directly or indirectly by the presence of RAAF base Amberley. Of course, there are very strong defence related industry partners in the area, from Boeing to Rheinmetall to Saab to so many others in the Ipswich area. The contribution of RAAF Bass Amberley to the Ipswich economy is nearly $1.4 billion annually, so it's crucial. The expansion of the base since it was first created in June 1940 has been absolutely astonishing. Over the last two decades, we've seen a massive growth in the military base. It was crucial during World War II as it served the Australian and the United States militaries, and in operations in Papua New Guinea as well.

RAAF base Amberley is crucial, and this legislation is very important for my home city of Ipswich as well. It establishes a modern legislative framework. As a recovering lawyer, if I can put it like this, I'm always happy to see legislative frameworks in place to buttress rather than relying on regulations. I'm someone who truly believes that if the likes of Barton and Deakin and Parkes and Clarke et cetera were around here today, they would say that they had done a pretty good job on the Australian Constitution, but they could have mentioned local government and perhaps they might have given the federal government a few more powers. The relationship between local, state and federal governments in this country obviously bedevil, at times, the operation of military assets, so making sure we have a legislative framework in place is crucial. I know that the assistant minister did a regulation in relation to these matters, but making sure we've got a proper legislative framework is absolutely important.

The legislation is also important because we have bipartisan commitment to AUKUS pillars 1 and II. It provides that authority for countermeasures against drone technology. Drones aren't just about assistance in getting photographs at events to put on social media. They can be invasions of privacy and they can be threats to military capability. The ability of our military to detect, to monitor, to track, to take necessary action against drones is absolutely vital, not just in offensive operations but also in defensive operations and in the operations of our military technology. Countermeasures will be done safely and appropriate safeguards put in place here.

There are additional oversight powers in this legislation for the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The legislation ensures there's a self-reliance and support for the defence industry as well. It fulfils our mission. I think it's got important capabilities. This is a very important piece of legislation.

I know we're in the Federation Chamber, but let me tell you it's important that we have the legislative authority to do what we need to do. This legislation allows us to operate effectively with industry and international partners. We know that legislative frameworks change. I mean, we've seen the laws in this country evolve over years. The Commonwealth has greater powers. Sometimes that's been through cooperative federalism, sometimes that's been through constitutional change, sometimes that's been through High Court decisions, but it's important that the Commonwealth has those powers in relation to defence capability to make sure that our defence security arrangements are strengthened and that we have parliamentary oversight. The previous speaker, the member for Hasluck, spoke about the Joint Standing Committee on Defence. That is also great initiative of this Labor government. These establish the foundations, of course, and implement our National Defence Strategy, including making sure that we have capacity to interrelate with and be interoperable with our AUKUS partners as well.

This legislation will provide oversight. It implements decisions agreed to by the National Security Committee of cabinet in December last year to modernise defence legislation and support delivery of the strategy in AUKUS. There are two frameworks: the Defence Capability Framework and the Defence Security Zone Framework. Other speakers have gone through that, and I don't intend to delay the House about that. I just want to let them know that it is really important that we have this capacity to protect our personnel, because we want them to be serving in uniform. We want them, whether they're overseas or domestic, to be protected. We don't want our security assets to be vulnerable. The framework also provides information sharing.

The second schedule provides Defence with an enduring legislative authority and allows defence personnel to protect defence sites. That's crucial. We need Defence to do that. We can't just rely on the local police. I've got a lot of respect for the Queensland Police, but we've got to have the authority to take down drones and other uncrewed systems. It's important. If you went to the RAAF Base Amberley, you would see that there are homes around there. There's the Ivor Marsden cricket centre not far from RAAF Base Amberley. There are farms not far away from the base—to periurban area. There are plenty of opportunities, if someone wants to do the wrong thing, to do it, so we need the capacity to take down those drones if necessary. We want to make sure that we can detect, monitor, track and respond to that drone technology, which is used to undermine our national security.

There are safeguards, as I said, in relation to the scope and powers of the frameworks, and they're established in schedules as we normally do. There's the legislative criteria to which the minister or an authorised decision-maker has to have regard in decisions they make and activities under the framework. In relation to that, in terms of the authorisation of the capability activity, there's a 'reasonable and proportionate' test there as well. There's an appropriate safeguard test as well in relation to it. In relation to schedule 2, there's a requirement that the zone be geographically limited. I've just mentioned that cricket complex not far from RAAF base Amberley and Beams Road.

I'm sure Billy Beam, who lives on Beams Road and has been a regular member of the Amberley consultative committee with me over many years, has great proprietary interest in what happens right beside the RAAF Base Amberley on Beams Road. It's important that we get this right. The minister is required as far as practicable to consult with those people affected by the creation of the zone. I'm sure the minister would like to have a meeting with Billy to discuss those issues. I'm sure Billy will let him know next time he's at RAAF Base Amberley. I have been to RAAF Base Amberley with the assistant minister, and I'm sure Billy will be delighted to have a conversation with him in relation to it.

I want to get this passed by the end of the year because it's important for the legislative requirements. I want to comment in the minutes that remain about the importance of the RAAF base there and our defence spaces and what they do in terms of our defence estate. As I said before, RAAF Base Amberley has been important for Ipswich for over 85 years, and it plays an important role in our defence and security and also the humanitarian assistance disaster responses both locally and internationally. One of the things that is a really big issue for RAAF Base Amberley and around there—and I won't go on to the PFAs issue, because the assistant minister is taking action. We are engaging in litigation there on PFAs. I feel that we have historically let our local residents down in relation to that, but we are taking action.

The other issue is the need for noise attenuation in and around RAAF Base Amberley for local residents who are affected by extreme noise in relation to that. We have made an election commitment, and I'm looking forward to that being fulfilled as well. One of the things that really, really affects the personnel that we're talking about, who are affected by incursions on RAAF Base Amberley by these drones, is the Amberley Interchange right there on Cunningham Highway just beside the base. We've made a $200 million commitment to fix this interchange and build a graded separation interchange.

I am calling on the Queensland government, which has gone very quiet, to match our federal funding on the Amberley Interchange. It would really assist those men and women whose protection is going to be covered by this legislation. If you want to protect them in terms of legislation to protect them from drone incursions, you should also protect those people as they're entering the base and leaving the base on the road that leads to the base. I'm calling on the Queensland government to match our funding commitment to get on with the job, finish the planning work and get construction started. It's really important in relation to our local area.

To sum up, I want to thank the minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the assistant minister for bringing forward these critical reforms. They are very important. As I say, they provide a legislative framework, and I think that we need to be very vigilant and very contemporary in the way we do things in relation to our defence. We cannot be stuck in an era where, in terms of our mentality, we rely on the way in which our forefathers and foremothers engaged in warfare and operated our defence. Every country that does that ends up being destroyed and degraded because they are not advancing in terms of military technology and military capacity. So I applaud the minister and congratulate him and I commend the legislation to the chamber.

I thank all the members who've contributed to the debate on this bill, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026. The bill responds to the very real and very immediate threats that Australia faces now, particularly from malicious actors utilising drone technologies. These are very significant and urgent reforms that are critical to implementing the National Defence Strategy and ensuring progress on pillars I and II of AUKUS. Importantly, as we've heard, they help protect our defence bases, our significant sites, our defence personnel, our people, our capability and our assets.

They also support defence capability development and preparedness by allowing Defence to test advanced capabilities here in Australia. This is critical to ensuring we can provide Defence with the capabilities that it needs. Schedule 1 enables capability declarations to support the development, testing, evaluation and sustainment of defence capabilities. It also establishes a specialised framework for certain electronic capability activities. Schedule 2 modernises and consolidates existing security arrangements, improving Defence's ability to respond to emerging threats, including those posed by uncrewed systems such as drones and other evolving technologies.

These powers have clear statutory limits, conditions, privacy protections and other additional safeguards. Schedule 3 provides robust and independent scrutiny, oversight and review mechanisms for these powers through enhanced roles for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence and the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. Schedules 4, 5 and 6 make the consequential regulatory and contingent amendments necessary to support the effective implementation and operation of the measures contained in the bill. Importantly, these reforms are appropriate, they're proportional and they are necessary to keep Australians safe, to keep our defence personnel safe and to keep our defence bases safe in what is a very challenging strategic environment. I commend the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026; Second Reading Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026

I'm pleased to speak on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2026. At the outset, I want to say that we need a dedicated national criminal intelligence agency to counter the growing threat posed by serious and organised crime. Sometimes when we look at Hollywood movies or the movies of yesteryear and see bushrangers or the mafia—movies like The Godfather and others—we think that the criminal gangs aren't too sophisticated. They're lumbering Luca Brasi types, as in The Godfather part I. But it's not like that. Criminal activities and criminal enterprises are very sophisticated, very organised and very threatening. We need to really modernise our capacity and our agencies to meet those challenges.

One of the challenges in relation to this particular body is that it's almost been serving two masters. Is it policing? Is it investigation? Or is it intelligence? What we're trying to do is recalibrate it to the intelligence agency it was always intended to be. We're giving it some extra powers as well in searching, warrants and the like in this legislation. So it's very, very important, and the people that work for this agency are at risk, because we have seen bombings and injuries to people in its predecessor. We have seen criminal convictions arising out of people who worked for our criminal intelligence agencies, who had been targeted. So this is a very important piece of legislation, and it's extremely important that we get it right.

The legislation ensures that the ACIC has the intelligence focus, as I said, functions and capability to respond to the threatening environments, which are ever evolving and ever changing. And we need to make sure that's the case. What might happen in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, in Europe, Africa or the Middle East affects us. The days when we as a country had to rely on telegrams or someone had to sit beside the phone are gone. People have mobile phones these days. International commerce happens in an instant—in a blink, a second or even a nanosecond. Borders are porous. We really have a borderless world, in many respects, in terms of digital technology. And we've got such complexity in terms of these issues.

Serious and organised crime threatens the safety and wellbeing of Australian communities and has significant financial impact. As the assistant minister said, $82.3 billion in 2022-23 was the cost to the Australian economy. The bills will ensure that the ACIC is able to collect and share intelligence on serious and organised crime but also contribute to critical national policing information systems and undertake national coordinated criminal history checks to keep Australians safe. That information is absolutely vital. Serious and organised criminal groups are opportunistic. They're highly adaptive. They're sophisticated. It's borderless, and they embed themselves in legitimate systems. It is obvious how clearly they do that, in terms of people's finances, in terms of scams and in terms of embedding themselves in financial institutions, in organisations and elsewhere to get access to information to commit criminal activities.

The bill underlines the government's commitment to protect the Australian community by ensuring that we're taking action to adapt and respond to this landscape and the changes that we experience. It's the latest iteration of our national intelligence community and agencies, which have always historically focused on combating serious and organised crime. We need our institutional arrangements and our agencies to be up to date, be contemporary, be modern and have the capacities they need, in terms of the legislative framework.

The ACIC commenced as Australia's National criminal Intelligence Agency a couple of decades ago, in 2003. It replaced the National Crime Authority, the NCA, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments. On 1 July 2016, the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Act amended the ACC Act and merged CrimTrac and its functions into the ACC. Just as a reminder of the threats that these agencies have had, a former NCA chairman once said, 'We are dealing with the most evil, calculating and manipulative people, who have significant financial resources and good reason to stop us in our work or harm us as individuals.' And, as I said before, investigators have been killed and injured by organised criminal elements, and there have been criminal convictions in relation to these events.

The ACIC has two main functions, and we're reiterating that: to collect, analyse and communicate intelligence relating to serious and organised crime impacting our country, particularly where there's a transnational dimension to it, and to ensure there are systems and services that enable criminal intelligence and policing information to be shared across jurisdictions—absolutely vital. Australia is made up of six states and two territories, and we have to share information with our Five Eyes partners and other agencies across the world as well. We need a national coordination of criminal history checks. The ACIC conducts criminal intelligence assessments to determine if intelligence held by the agency suggests a person may commit serious and organised crime or assist a person to commit serious and organised crime. The recent Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026, which responded to the shocking Bondi terrorist attack, introduced a revised criminal intelligence assessment framework under part III of the ACC Act. From 1 July 2022 to 12 May 2025, the ACIC was part of the Attorney-General's portfolio and reported to the Attorney-General. But, on 13 May 2025, the agency was mogged or moved, as they say, to Home Affairs, and it now reports to the Minister for Home Affairs. Lest anyone think that this is the only body that we have in terms of criminal intelligence and other agencies that combat crime, I say that this is one of 10 agencies that comprise our National Intelligence Community.

The legislation implements the government's response to the independent review undertaken by former Defence Signals Directorate director Mr Stephen Merchant PSM and intelligence expert Mr Greg Wilson. It was a first-principles review commissioned by the government, and it recognised that the functions and powers vested in the ACIC are no longer fit for purpose and this inhibits it from effectively fulfilling its intelligence mandate. Submissions to that review are interesting. The stakeholders made the point that the ACIC was 'neither fish nor fowl' and was 'trapped between a rock and a hard place'. The review agreed with these findings and concluded that, as currently operating, the ACIC is 'neither a first-class investigative agency nor a first-class criminal intelligence agency'. That's that conflict I referred to in terms of the duality. It needed to change.

In its submission, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, ASPI, noted:

The transition of the ACIC to an intelligence-focused agency offers a strong opportunity to strengthen Australia's response to organised crime.

However, in order to do this, they argued that the government must first address a number of challenges, which included redistributing the ACIC's operational functions to other agencies; ensuring the ACIC's intelligence is actionable and integrated into the broader national security and law enforcement framework; securing a long-term funding model; and recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce.

In November 2024, the Attorney-General published the unclassified report—we couldn't get the classified report; we could only get the unclassified aspects of it—and the government responded to the review's 29 recommendations. The government broadly agreed or agreed in principle to the majority of the recommendations. The review concluded:

… the ACIC is inhibited from fulfilling this intelligence mandate by a lack of clarity about its role, complicated legislative frameworks and uncertainty about its funding.

So the review recommended that, effectively, the ACIC Act be repealed and that there should be an objects clause and an addressing of that duality in relation to it, confirming that it is an intelligence agency, not an investigative or law enforcement agency. The review recommended:

… the new legislation should specify that the intelligence role encompasses undertaking Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Checks … and the preparation and provision of individual criminal intelligence assessments.

This is a response to that review. The ACIC will remain subject to oversight, including by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

I won't go through all the necessary schedules. There are a number of different parts, including parts 1 and 2. There are parts that deal with coercive powers, controlled intelligence operations and search warrants. Interestingly enough, in part 5 it establishes a new framework for the ACIC to execute search warrants, as I indicated earlier, on persons and premises, removing their reliance on existing law enforcement powers. I think that's a good initiative as well, by the way.

Part 6 enables it to provide national policing information, which is absolutely vital, and also to engage in national coordination of criminal history checks. There's some streamlining of communication frameworks as well, in relation to it.

The legislation has been subject to appropriate consultation. The Department of Home Affairs consulted a plethora of Commonwealth agencies. The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for an inquiry, on 30 March. The committee reported back on 21 October, recommending this legislation be passed and making a number of recommendations. I'm pleased that the coalition members, the Liberal and National Party members, on the committee recommended this also, and they were doing the right thing in supporting the bill.

In summing up, I want to thank the Minister for Home Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs for bringing forward these important reforms. I want to acknowledge their strong stance in standing up to criminal elements in our society and ensuring our government agencies have all the capability and resources they need to do this. The measures in this bill will fundamentally recast the ACIC as Australia's national criminal intelligence agency and focus it on what it always should have been focusing on: countering the scourge of serious and organised crime and looking at the intelligence aspects that are necessary to do so. The reality is that serious and organised crime costs the Australian public, economy, businesses and families billions of dollars, and it's crucial that we engage in activities to prevent this. So we are equipping our agency here with the appropriate powers and intelligence capability. It's imperative we equip all our agencies with the appropriate powers and capability. We want to put the serious and organised criminal groups on notice: 'We are coming after you.' This legislation is absolutely vital. It's an overhaul long overdue. It modernises the commission's operations. It will no longer be in a position where its capacity is undermined. And we are cracking down on criminal ventures accordingly.

It takes a network to break a network, so collaboration is essential in the fight against serious and organised crime. This legislation will deliver a more networked and nationally-coordinated approach. It will ensure the agency, the commission, has effectively got the capacity to share intelligence with partners and it will put law enforcement another step ahead of organised crime. I commend the legislation to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28