On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's report No. 36, Annual report 2025-26.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
On behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the committee's report, Report concerning a subpoena issued by the Federal Court of Australia and possible issues of parliamentary privilege.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Australia opposes the death penalty in all circumstances for all people. This is not the position of one government or one party; it is a longstanding bipartisan commitment grounded in our belief in the inherent rights and dignity of every person. When serious crimes occur, the grief and anger are real, and the desire for justice is entirely human.
But when we look at how the death penalty is used around the world, it becomes clear that it does not deliver justice; it is an affront to it. First, the evidence shows that the death penalty is too often applied unfairly to people facing economic or educational disadvantage; people living with intellectual, cognitive and psychosocial disability; foreign nationals; women; and ethnic minorities. Second, when mistakes are made—and they are—there is no undoing them; there is no second chance. Third, the death penalty offers no prospect of rehabilitation. Fourth, the death penalty does not make communities safer; there is no evidence that it deters crime more effectively than other serious penalties. Finally, in some countries, people can still be put to death for who they love, for what they believe or as a form of political persecution. That is not justice.
Australia works for global abolition through every channel available multilaterally, regionally and bilaterally. We use international forums, particularly the UN, to call for universal abolition. We raise our position directly with retentionist countries, including our close partners. These conversations are often private, but they matter. And we do this work alongside civil society, whose efforts are vital.
Australia's own journey is one we can be proud of. Our last execution, of Ronald Ryan, took place in 1967; the 60th anniversary of this event is coming up next year. The death penalty was abolished across every Australian jurisdiction in 1985, and in 2010 parliament legislated to ensure it can never return. In 2018 we launched our first strategy for the global abolition of the death penalty under then Foreign minister Bishop. In 2022 we co-led the UN General Assembly resolution on the death penalty, and a record number of nations voted in favour.
Last year, the Prime Minister and the Foreign minister asked me, as Special Envoy for International Human Rights, to take on a special advocacy role for universal abolition. Today I'm proud to announce another milestone, the launch of Australia's refreshed strategy for abolition of the death penalty. Under this refreshed strategy, Australia will broaden and strengthen our abolition efforts. This will include deepening our engagement with civil society, countering the disproportionate and discriminatory application of the death penalty on certain individuals, combating efforts to subvert international human rights obligations and ensuring abolition is a whole-of-government effort. The refreshed strategy is closely informed by the recommendations of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, which the government welcomed earlier this year. This occasion is an opportunity to reflect on global progress. There are 146 countries which have now abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Lebanon abolished it this year, becoming the first country in the Middle East to do so. I was honoured to personally congratulate Lebanon's ambassador to Australia a few weeks ago. Vietnam has reduced the number of offences carrying the death penalty, and Zimbabwe has abolished it for ordinary crimes. In 2023, Malaysia abolished the mandatory death penalty, and Pakistan repealed it for drug related offences.
In these times, when so many hard won gains are being tested, we must guard against backsliding. Progress is not inevitable. Amnesty International reports that executions worldwide in 2025 were the highest since 1981, a 78 per cent increase on 2024. Drug related offences accounted for at least 46 per cent of them. Our home, the Asia-Pacific, remains the region with the most executions. Given this, Australia's leadership remains crucial. Today I remember those who have been put to death, including Australians. I also think of those who remain on death row worldwide. I recognise the tireless advocates, lawyers, parliamentarians and civil-society organisations who refuse to look away. Abolition has been achieved by countries in every region of the world, across different cultures, traditions, religions and legal systems. It is not the project of one group of states. It is a global movement rooted in the protection of human rights, so I repeat: Australia opposes the death penalty in all circumstances for all people. Under our refreshed strategy, we will continue working until universal abolition is achieved. I ask leave of the House to present a copy of Australia's strategy for global abolition of the death penalty 2026.
Leave granted.
by leave—In his recent encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, published in May this year, Pope Leo XIV wrote:
No sin, failure, humiliation or exclusion can diminish the profound value of a human life …
I reflect on these words as I rise to acknowledge the government's tabling of Australia's strategy for global abolition of the death penalty 2026. I oppose the death penalty, and while I open with the words of Pope Leo, my opposition is driven not by my religion but by my conscience. Indeed, allow me to quote from another great theologian, John Henry Newman, who famously declared, as if he were proposing a toast:
I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.
When the former coalition government launched Australia's strategy for the abolition of the death penalty in 2018, it outlined four compelling reasons for opposing capital punishment. First, the death penalty is irrevocable. When justice fails and an innocent person has been executed, there can be no remedy. Second, it denies any opportunity for rehabilitation, redemption or reform. Third, there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment. And, fourth, it is disproportionately imposed upon society's most vulnerable, including the poor, minorities and those least able to defend themselves.
These were compelling arguments in 2018, and they are compelling still today. I acknowledge that the government's updated strategy reaffirms these principles, but, personally and guided by conscience, I believe there is a fifth. Although in order of importance, I put this one first, right at the top. That is that the death penalty is inherently inhumane. It violates the sanctity of life and the fundamental dignity of the individual. This is not to diminish the gravity of heinous crimes nor the suffering of the victims and their families. Justice must be served. The gravest crimes demand the most severe penalties. The rights of victims must be honoured, and society must be protected, but we can condemn the crime, punish the offender and uphold justice without resorting to taking a human life. Human dignity is not something bestowed by governments. It is not something earned through good behaviour. It is not something forfeited through wrongdoing. I believe no state should possess the power to extinguish it.
My office received the government's strategy only last evening, affording me limited time this morning—indeed, little more than the past hour—to take a quick read and formulate my remarks this morning in response to the tabling of the report by the special envoy. My colleagues and I will therefore examine the strategy in detail before offering a formal response on behalf of the coalition, but I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tireless work of those who have championed this cause over many years, in particular the Parliamentary Friends of Global Abolition of the Death Penalty, co-chaired by the envoy and Senator Dean Smith. I also want to acknowledge the fine work of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, particularly their Human Rights subcommittee, which tabled a comprehensive report in December 2024 on its inquiry into Australia's efforts to advocate for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. Their work reminds us that some causes are greater than partisan politics.
Each of us is privileged to serve in parliament, and we carry a responsibility to uphold and promote the values that define Australia as one of the world's greatest liberal democracies—values of freedom, equality and a fair go. I have long argued that a nation's foreign policy is an outward expression of its values and interests, and, if we believe in the sanctity of human life and if we believe in the dignity of the individual, then those convictions must find expression in our dealings with the world. That is why advocating for the global abolition of the death penalty must remain a core tenet of Australian foreign policy, not because we seek to lecture others but because we have a responsibility to stand for what we believe is right and because the universal dignity of human life knows no national borders.
Justice must always be pursued, but justice must never come at the expense of our humanity. That is the principle I stand for, and it is the principle Australia must continue to advocate for.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member from Wannon from moving the following motion immediately—
The member will pause. The minister.
Under standing order 45(c), I move:
That order of the day No. 1, government business, be called on immediately.
No, I get to move this motion.
The standing order does allow for a minister to intervene even before a motion is read out.
But there's no question before the House. This is just a gigantic gag—
Order! The manager will resume his seat. Under the standing orders, the minister is entitled to do that. I'll just, for the benefit of the House, state the standing order, so we are crystal clear. Standing order 45(c) reads:
When there is no question before the House, a Minister may move, without notice, that a government business notice or order of the day be called on immediately. The question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.
This is what the minister has done. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, I shall put the question immediately. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.
The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the House will now consider the bill in detail as a whole. The question is that bill be agreed to. The question now is that the opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.
(2) Schedules 1 to 3, page 3 (line 1) to page 46 (line 29), omit the Schedules.
The idea that this Albanese government would continue to increase costs to small business at a time when they are desperate and begging for relief—the only answer from this Albanese government is to turn around and impose higher taxes on them. We believe that there should be a splitting of this bill because we believe that measures that are necessary to protect small business should be excluded. Instead, the government is only piling on the pressure and breaking small business. We only heard yesterday of new inflation data which outlined the higher pressures and higher costs that are going to be imposed on small businesses. The solution from this government is to turn around and say: 'It's fine. We're going to impose higher taxes, higher costs, $50,000 per Australian small business, to navigate and steer through the higher costs being imposed by this legislation.' We're not just hearing that; we're hearing about a $13.3 billion deadweight cost to the entirety of the Australian economy. What is it that this government doesn't get? What don't they understand about the laws they're introducing? Why don't they understand they're breaking families, breaking small businesses and breaking people's hopes, dreams and livelihoods? Hundreds of thousands of small businesses across this country are being targeted and attacked, assaulted by the Albanese government, because it cannot control its spending addiction. As a consequence, they are being sent to the cleaners.
We know how bad things are now. It's only going to get worse, because every time inflation goes up, interest rates go up. We know next Tuesday, while many people are hoping for a win from the race that stops the nation, what they're going to be at risk of is further punishment by the Albanese government and its inflation addiction. We always come into this parliament and talk about the problems of addiction. We always come in and say, 'We've got to support people through their pain and make sure they're not exposed.' When is this Treasurer going to have his spending addiction brought under control? When are we going to see legislation from the other side of the chamber saying that we've got to control this Treasurer and his spending addiction because he is sending Australian families backwards?
If it was a gambling company, they'd be straight on their feet and acting. Even worse than that, they'd turn around and make sure that there was intervention and action every step of the way. But we don't see similar action when it's their own, because, at the end of the day, in their lust for power, the Labor Party will focus on one thing, which is: how can they feed themselves at the expense of the Australian people? They're turning around to the small businesses of the nation, who are already struggling to keep their doors open, already struggling to pay their costs, already struggling to pay their tax bills, struggling to pay the tens of thousands of dollars of surcharge fees, struggling to meet their basic needs so they can pay their staff before they even give a second to thinking about paying themselves. And what's the answer from this government? What's the answer from this Treasurer? It's to impose higher costs so the government can pay themselves first.
We do not believe in that vision or that future for this country—sorry! We do not believe the strength of Australia is built from a government that cannot control its spending addiction. We believe in a nation where we back families, communities and small businesses as the foundation of this nation's success. We are completely unapologetic about splitting this bill so that we can make sure we protect Australian families, small businesses and households. We have no apology for standing up against this Treasurer and his inflation addiction, because if we don't stand up, then no-one will.
We've seen too many times—we just saw in the chamber then—Teal MPs once again betraying their constituents, as they're so wont to do, by voting for a minimum tax on small business. You look at it and think, 'What is wrong with these MPs?' They do not understand the consequences. Neither do members of the Labor Party. I can assure members opposite, on the other side, that they might carry on with their hubris and, lemming-like, follow this Prime Minister and this Treasurer off the political cliff, but the small businesses of this nation will remember at the next election what you did. They will be able to say, 'We know what you did in the last parliamentary term.' They will look at you and say: 'You betrayed the Australian people. You betrayed Australian small businesses. You betrayed the families that depend on them. You betrayed the employees that depend on them.' And for what purpose? So that you can rapaciously satisfy the needs and the spending addiction of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.
The game is up. We're going to fight and we're going to fight all the way to the next election.
The question is that the opposition amendments be agreed to.
The question now is the amendments circulated by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.
Member for Curtin's circulated amendments—
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:
(a) 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
(b) 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".
I support the intent of this bill, which is to tax income in a broadly similar way whether it comes from work or from wealth, and I welcome the changes the government has made following consultation, including the electable regime and rollover relief. But we're asking family businesses to make significant decisions quickly without knowing what those decisions will cost—Treasury puts the average cost of restructuring at around $11,000; COSBOA puts it at $15,000 to $50,000 before stamp duty—and the window for making a decision closes early, with rollover relief ending on 30 June 2030.
My amendments would make sure we find out how this reform is affecting small business while there's still time to fix any problems. These amendments insert a new schedule, 3A, which sets up two reviews. The first is an early inquiry by the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. The minister would ask the ombudsman by 1 July 2029 to inquire into how the trust changes are affecting small business, using the ombudsman's existing inquiry powers. The ombudsman would report by 31 March 2030, three months before rollover relief closes, and the report would be tabled in parliament. The ombudsman would look at how small businesses are using rollover relief and the option to fix beneficiaries and stay outside the minimum tax and whether those settings, including the June 2030 end date, should change. It would look at what businesses are really paying to adjust, including professional fees and state stamp duty, it would look at whether ATO guidance and support are adequate, and it would look for any unintended consequences. The amendment also lets the ombudsman request aggregate data from the Commissioner of Taxation on rollovers and elections. No individual or business would be identified, but it would give the ombudsman hard data to consider alongside what small businesses are saying. The timing of this review is important. If costs turn out much higher than expected or ATO guidance arrives late, we need to know before the deadline for rollover relief passes, not after businesses have made decisions that they can't undo. A report in March 2030 gives the parliament time to extend the deadline if it needs to do so.
The second review is a full, independent review of the trust amendments. At the moment, the bill requires no review at all, which is a significant gap for a reform that impacts 840,000 discretionary trusts. This amendment would require an independent review to begin between July 2030 and January 2031, once there's tax data to show how the new rules are working in practice. It must be conducted by people who are not officials of Treasury or the ATO, completed within nine months and tabled within 15 sitting days. The review would go back to the purpose of the bill and ask: has it brought the taxation of trust income closer to the taxation of income from work? It would compare actual revenue and compliance costs with the published estimates and identify which income and wealth groups have ended up paying more. On small business, it would look at how much additional tax has been paid, what restructuring really costs and the effect on investment and succession planning. It would examine how people have changed their structures, including any shift towards companies, and it would examine how the commissioner and the minister have used their discretionary powers under the rollover and election regimes—because powers of this kind should be open to scrutiny.
These amendments don't change the tax, and they don't cost the budget. They simply make sure parliament sees the real-world impact of this reform, not just the modelling, and has the chance to respond. Getting the detail right is how this reform can keep the community's support. I call on the government to support these amendments and commit to these reviews. I commend the amendments to the House.
Once again, we have a problem where we have—I don't know what we call them these days, community Australia, strong community Australia, I think, or teal Independent MPs. Whatever they're called, once again they're betraying their small-business constituencies. We saw, in the last vote, the member for Curtin, the member for Wentworth, the member for Warringah and the member for Kooyong all betray their small business constituencies and vote with the Labor Party to separate out components of the bills that would actually give more protection to small businesses. We saw that in the last vote on the substantive issue. We saw—
Member for Goldstein, I remind you to keep your comments to the details of the amendment rather than general debate, please.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker Garland. Indeed, I am addressing the different components of the detailed amendments, because what we've seen is small business continually being portrayed as part of the substantive issue of this legislation. What we want is to see a pathway for this legislation to be defeated and, more importantly, for it to do as little harm as possible. Instead, what we've consistently seen from this government—
Member for Goldstein, this isn't a policy debate. I would invite your comments on the detailed amendments, please.
I'm offering them, which is a part of how it adopts them and changes the legislation or fails to change the legislation. It's a critical—
I'm listening very carefully.
We have a substantive piece of legislation—
I understand. Thank you so much.
then we have an amendment to that substantive legislation. What I am saying is I would like to see a change to the legislation, so it becomes less damaging—
We're asking you to comment on the member for Curtin's detailed amendments.
Exactly! We have consistently supported changes to the legislation to minimise the—
To the review that the member for Curtin is discussing, not the policy at large.
Just to be clear, Deputy Speaker Garland, I'm allowed to make a contribution in this debate, and it's currently—
To the detailed amendments.
It seems to me that the chair is reflecting on the substantial nature of debate. We have a piece of legislation. We have an amendment. I am talking about the amendment—
It needs to be on the details.
And I'm talking specifically about the amendment, except for when I'm constantly interrupted—
I call the minister. Please take your seat, Member for Goldstein.
It's a simple matter of respect for the chair, Deputy Speaker. It is not appropriate for the honourable member to assert that you're reflecting. In fact, it's a reflection on the chair.
Thank you. Again, I invite the member for Goldstein to reflect on the detailed amendments as put forward by the member for Curtin.
Once again, Deputy Speaker Garland, I am reflecting on the amendment, which is around a review. We support the proposition of a review, like we have sought to try and contain the damage of this legislation. But the problem we consistently have had is not just that this legislation does enormous damage; it's, again, that we have had individual members who claim to want to do the same thing not achieving that purpose. As a consequence, this legislation continues to do damage and will target and hit the small businesses of Australia. Even if there is a review—of course we would like there to be one—small businesses of this country are going to be hit by a 30 per cent minimum tax, in part because of the decisions of this Labor government and, of course, the crossbench members of this parliament.
Member for Goldstein, I really don't appreciate having to call you up so many times to remind you to listen to what I have to say and to listen to what the member for Curtin has to say. It's very disrespectful behaviour. Whether that will make a difference to your future conduct, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The question is that the amendments circulated by the member for Curtin be agreed to.
The question is that the bill be agreed to.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, I will put the question immediately.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Curtin 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. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, I will put the questions immediately. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the House will now consider the bill, as a whole, in detail. The question therefore is that the bill agreed to, and the question now is that the amendments circulated by the member for New England be agreed to
Member for New England's circulated amendment—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 83 (after line 28), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 6 — Super Pay Boost
Part 1 — Main amendments
Taxation Administration Act 1953
1 After Division 131 in Schedule 1
Insert:
Division 132 — Super Pay Boost
132-1 Making and changing a Super Pay Boost election
(1) An individual may make a Super Pay Boost election by giving an election in the approved form to a participating provider.
(2) The election is valid if:
(a) the individual is housing eligible; and
(b) the individual has had fewer than 36 participation months; and
(c) the individual does not already have a Super Pay Boost election in force; and
(d) the election includes:
(i) a declaration that the individual is housing eligible; and
(ii) details of an account with an ADI, held by the individual alone or jointly, to which payments are to be made; and
(iii) any evidence required by the Super Pay Boost rules.
(3) A valid election takes effect by force of this section. Neither the provider nor the Commissioner has a discretion to accept or approve it. A participating provider must not refuse to receive or give effect to it.
(4) The election is in force when it is given and becomes active on the first day of the next calendar month, or a later calendar month specified in the election. The individual may suspend, resume or cancel the election, or vary the nominated account, by giving notice in the approved form to a participating provider. The rules may prescribe when a notice takes effect.
(5) If the individual ceases to be housing eligible, the election is suspended and the individual must notify a participating provider within 14 days. It may resume only after the individual becomes housing eligible again and gives a resumption notice.
(6) The election ceases to be in force at the earliest of:
(a) a cancellation taking effect; or
(b) the end of the individual's 36th participation month; or
(c) the death of the individual.
(7) A suspension, or a change of employment or participating provider, does not reset the number of participation months.
132-5 Housing eligibility
(1) An individual is housing eligible at a time if:
(a) the individual is an Australian resident; and
(b) the individual occupies a dwelling in Australia as the individual's principal place of residence; and
(c) any of the following applies:
(i) the individual is liable, alone or jointly, to pay rent for the dwelling under a genuine residential tenancy or occupancy agreement; or
(ii) the individual is liable, alone or jointly, to pay principal or interest under a loan secured by a mortgage over the dwelling or the land on which it is situated; or
(iii) the individual's spouse meets subparagraph (i) or (ii), both ordinarily live in the dwelling and the individual regularly contributes to the rent or loan payments.
(2) For subparagraph (1)(c)(iii), it does not matter whether the individual is named in the agreement, loan, mortgage or title.
132-10 Register and notices
(1) A participating provider that receives an election or notice under section 132-1 must give it electronically to the Commissioner by the end of the next business day.
(2) The Commissioner must maintain an authoritative electronic Super Pay Boost register recording each election, its status, its participation months and the nominated account.
(3) The Commissioner must record an election as soon as practicable after automatic identity, duplicate-election and 36-month checks. Recording the election is not an approval or determination.
(4) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable, give an authenticated electronic notice of the election and each change to every participating provider that the Commissioner has reason to believe holds a superannuation interest for the individual. This also applies if the provider is identified after the election ceases to be in force.
(5) The election applies to the provider that received it from the day it becomes active, and to another provider when the Commissioner makes the notice available. It also applies to qualifying employer contributions already held by that provider.
(6) If an employer contribution is not otherwise identified to a participating provider as attributable to an employer's superannuation guarantee obligation, the Commissioner must, by automated electronic notice, identify so much of the contribution and the relevant pay period as existing information allows.
(7) The Commissioner may correct the register to give effect to this Division and must notify the individual and affected providers. An individual dissatisfied with a correction may object under Part IVC.
(8) If a participating provider acts reasonably in reliance on an election it received, the latest authenticated notice made available by the Commissioner, or information used to identify a qualifying employer contribution:
(a) the provider is not liable for a failure caused solely by that material being incorrect or out of date; and
(b) a payment is taken, for the purposes of this Division and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and regulations under that Act, to have been required by section 132-15 to the extent that it does not exceed the amount that would have been required if that material had been correct.
(9) The Commissioner and a participating provider may collect, record, use and disclose the individual's tax file number to the extent reasonably necessary to administer this Division.
132-15 Payment by participating provider
(1) For each payment month in which a participating provider has one or more qualifying employer contributions for an individual to whom a Super Pay Boost election has applied, the provider must pay the individual the monthly Super Pay Boost amount.
(2) The provider must make the payment as soon as practicable and no later than 10 business days after the end of the payment month. An amount remains payable if the election is later suspended or ceases to be in force, unless the individual dies before payment. The rules may prescribe circumstances in which the time limit does not run because payment is legally or practically prevented.
(3) The payment month for a qualifying employer contribution is the latest of the calendar months in which:
(a) the contribution is received; and
(b) the contribution is allocated; and
(c) the election first applies to the provider; and
(d) the contribution is identified as a qualifying employer contribution.
(4) The monthly Super Pay Boost amount is 85% of one-quarter of the total qualifying employer contributions for which that calendar month is the payment month, rounded once to the nearest cent.
(5) The provider must pay the amount to the nominated account without requiring any further application or approval from the individual, the Commissioner or any other person.
(6) Before making the payment, the provider must allocate the full qualifying employer contribution to the individual's superannuation interest. The payment is attributable only to the corresponding qualifying employer contributions and must not reduce any other benefit of the individual.
(7) An amount not paid by the time required by this section is a debt due by the provider to the individual. The provider must not charge the individual a fee for an election, notice or payment. A fee charged in contravention of this subsection is a debt due by the provider to the individual.
(8) An overpayment may be set off only against a later Super Pay Boost payment and must not be debited against another benefit. If it resulted from a materially false or misleading statement that the individual knew, or was reckless as to whether, was false or misleading, it is a debt due by the individual to the provider.
132-20 Effect on contributions, employers and funds
(1) A Super Pay Boost payment does not reduce or alter the amount or character of the corresponding qualifying employer contribution, affect whether or when the contribution was made, received or allocated, or constitute a refund, return, reversal or reduction of the contribution.
(2) The full qualifying employer contribution remains included in the assessable income of the fund and the individual's concessional contributions. An election or payment does not reduce, vary or discharge an employer's obligation or liability under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, an industrial instrument, a contract of employment or any other law.
(3) Nothing in this Division requires an employer to be notified of an election, calculate or pay a Super Pay Boost amount, split a contribution, change payroll or provide information additional to information otherwise required under a law of the Commonwealth.
(4) Section 307-125 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 does not apply to a Super Pay Boost payment. The payment is taken to consist wholly of the element taxed in the fund of the taxable component of the superannuation interest from which it is paid.
(5) A provision of the governing rules of a fund has no effect to the extent that it would prevent compliance with this Division. The trustee has all powers necessary to comply. A payment made in compliance with this Division does not contravene section 62 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 or constitute a breach of trust or of a covenant, duty or obligation.
132-25 Super Pay Boost rules
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules (the Super Pay Boost rules) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Division to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient for carrying out or giving effect to this Division.
(2) The rules may deal with evidence and verification; the register, notices, reporting and records; identifying qualifying employer contributions from existing information and data standards; payment cut-offs, outages, failed payments, corrections, reversals, recovery and set-off; and rollovers, transfers and death.
(3) The rules must not change the amount in subsection 132-15(4), extend the limit of 36 participation months, alter housing eligibility, make an election or payment subject to discretionary approval, impose an obligation on an employer or permit another superannuation benefit to be debited for an overpayment.
132-30 Definitions
In this Division:
participating provider, in relation to an individual, means a superannuation provider that is the trustee of a complying superannuation fund that is a regulated superannuation fund within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and holds a superannuation interest for the individual that is not a defined benefit interest.
participation month means a calendar month during which a Super Pay Boost election is active for the individual for at least one day. A calendar month is counted only once.
qualifying employer contribution, for an individual, means so much of a contribution made by an employer for the individual as:
(a) is identified to the participating provider, from information given under a superannuation data and payment standard, a notice under subsection 132-10(6), or records prescribed by the Super Pay Boost rules, as attributable to the employer's superannuation guarantee obligation; and
(b) is received by the provider and allocated to a superannuation interest for the individual that is not a defined benefit interest; and
(c) relates to a pay period ending on a day on which the individual's election was active; and
(d) has not been reversed before being included in a payment.
Super Pay Boost election means an election under section 132-1.
Super Pay Boost payment means a payment required by section 132-15.
132-35 Compensation for acquisition of property
(1) If the operation of this Division would result in an acquisition of property, within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, from an entity otherwise than on just terms, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the entity.
(2) If the Commonwealth and the entity do not agree on the amount, the entity may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, for the recovery of such reasonable amount as the court determines.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
2 At the end of the table in Subdivision 303-B
Insert:
303-25 Super Pay Boost payments
3 At the end of Subdivision 303-B
Add:
303-25 Super Pay Boost payments
(1) A superannuation member benefit that is a superannuation lump sum is not assessable income and is not exempt income to the extent that it is paid under section 132-15 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
(2) Despite sections 304-5 and 304-10, subsection (1) also applies to a payment covered by subsection 132-10(8) in that Schedule if the individual acted in good faith, but only to the extent that the payment does not exceed the amount that would have been required if the material relied on had been correct.
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994
4 Paragraph 6.01B(3)(b)
After "107A", insert ", 107B".
5 After regulation 6.17D
Insert:
6.17E Super Pay Boost payments
(1) For the purposes of subsection 31(1) of the Act, the standard set out in subregulation (2) is applicable to the operation of regulated superannuation funds.
(2) The trustee of a regulated superannuation fund must comply with Division 132 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 so far as that Division applies to the trustee.
Note: See item 107B of Schedule 1.
6 After item 107A in Schedule 1 (table)
Insert:
Part 2 — Application provision
7 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to:
(a) Super Pay Boost elections made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and
(b) qualifying employer contributions for pay periods ending on or after that commencement.
I just want to run you through some certain issues. This is obviously about getting access to some of your super, and it's not all your super. It's a portion of your super for a portion of time, because we firmly believe in One Nation that your super is not a national asset, it's your asset. One of the classic examples of where we've seen the government bereft of control over people's private assets would be in the Shield and First Guardian issue. I bring this up as an example because quite often I see the Assistant Treasurer going to the dispatch box talking about the sanctity of super, and what they've missed is that $1.2 billion was stolen from super. People were left with no money.
I want to give you an example of one. There's a company called Sequoia. It owns InterPrac, which is a licensed adviser for First Guardian and Shield. Now, here's an example of what has happened under this government's watch. There's a gentleman, Mr Richard Orr. He's 53 years old. He's terminally ill with cancer. He most likely won't make it till February. Instead of accessing his super to make his final memories with his wife and children, he is forced to battle Sequoia and InterPrac to have any of his super returned. Sequoia had sold InterPrac a fortnight ago to their former CEO who registered a new company, Bellbird, just one day prior to the sale. The sale means Sequoia's parent company of InterPrac are no longer liable for debts owed to victims like Mr Richard Orr, who is terminally ill with cancer. Investors like Melinda Kee are left to fight this injustice while these companies make a mockery of our government and the financial industry. These people have no money. They are broke. If the Labor Party believes in super so much, why don't you give these people who have been nurses and who have been teachers back the money that was stolen from them? They do not have the resources to pursue these people. They're making it so hard for Mr Orr to even get access to the court, just playing the game till Mr Orr dies.
That is why One Nation says this is your personal asset, a personal asset that must be protected, and an expression of a personal asset is your capacity to have access to it when you need it, when you're under the pump, when it looks like you might lose your house or be kicked out into the street because you can't pay your rent—a portion of it for a portion of time. Now, if you believe absolutely philosophically that this should never happen, well, you already allow it to happen. You already allow it to happen under items of distress. In fact, record numbers under this current economic environment are getting access to it, but it's so convoluted and it's so restricted.
There is an implication that it's the government's asset, the national asset. The great fear that so many people have as the government gets further and further and further into debt is that they'll look for a way to try and pay the debt off. And there's this big cherry sitting out there, $4.5 trillion in super. To pay off their trillion dollars in debt, they'll start reaching into the super. And you might say, 'That's paranoid.' No, it's not. They've already started. They've already started the legislation to get access to your super, changing the tax rates, changing the capacity for you to get [inaudible]. They changed it for people over $3 million, and they changed it for another level for people over 10. And you say, 'That's just the edge.'
So what we are doing here in this amendment is reinforcing our belief that super is actually an asset of the individual. It comes from their money that they earned. It's not from the taxpayer. If the government believe their protection of super and how they look after it is so paramount and that you should never get it out, then I challenge them to go to those people who were in First Guardian and Shield who still have not got a cent from the government, have not been paid out, are still bereft and are going to go into their retirement after being a teacher or a nurse their whole lives without a cent. Somebody in this building has got to stand up for these people. I intend to do that. I intend to do it deliberately. I intend to do it consistently. This is yet another example of reinvesting in the individual. It's their asset. If the government believes that they've got the greater protection on it, then it should go out and protect those people.
I would like to second the motion. I agree with it and support the member for New England on the motion. I welcome it going to a debate.
I actually agree with the member for New England that super is Australians' money. It is not a national asset, as the government wishes it to be. It is actually people's money and it's there for their determination. We know that under legislation Australians can already access their super in times of hardship and difficulty. The problem I have with this amendment for the Australians who are doing it tough right now is it does nothing to improve their access to super. What it does do is actually let the Treasurer off the hook. Australians are doing it so tough right now because of the Treasurer's inflation and spending addiction. If we increase the number of people who can then take super as they see fit under this legislation, what we're actually going to do is let the Treasurer and the government off on the problems of their inflation and spending addiction, and we're going to let the Treasurer stay addicted to spending more money and continuing to increase the hardship for the Australian community. I think that would be a disaster. It won't be any good for the people who withdraw their super. It will actually make it even harder for all Australians to get ahead. It's one of the basic truisms of inflation. Inflation doesn't hit anybody specifically. It hits everybody in the most catastrophic way.
Small businesses in this nation now are struggling. They are barely able to keep their heads above water. What we have is a government that is continuing to spend. We don't have a cost-of-living crisis; we have a cost-of-government crisis. I don't want to make it any easier for this Treasurer to keep on with his addiction. I want to make sure that Australians have relief, and the only way we're going to be able to achieve that is not by increasing access, which is already provided for in the legislation. What we're going to end up with is a situation where we let the government off the hook and somehow people have a short-term reprieve and the only consequence they're going to be left with is continued punishment and pain from this government and its spending addiction.
This is the problem with the Albanese economic model and the economic model that operates under this government. It stokes inflation, it taxes inflation and it spends inflation. Making sure that Australians have access to be able to financially support themselves is corroded by the impact of inflation every step of the way. Until we get the government to control its spending addiction, Australians will continue to suffer under this government. Australians will continue to have higher costs when they go to the supermarket. They're going to pay more and get less whether they have access to their super or not. Small businesses are going to continue to have rising energy bills. They're going to have rising rents. They're going to have rising insurance premiums. They're going to continue to experience the cost of rising wages to try and keep up with the pressures of inflation, and, the more that happens, the more the government will continues to win.
Inflation continues to outstrip wages. Inflation continues to take away from the wealth of Australians. So many small businesses and so many Australian households are struggling and drowning under the pressure of inflation right now under the Albanese government. It's not because of an accident; it's by design. The government has an economic model that seeks to send Australians under financial water, and it gets to increase its tax take of the hard work, savings and sacrifice of Australians. I don't want to give this Treasurer some sort of green light. I don't want to give this Prime Minister a buck pass or the opportunity to move on. We have to—
The time for the debate has now concluded. There are 10 minutes available, and we'll make sure that each mover of an amendment does get 10 minutes to speak. The question now is the amendments circulated by the member for New England be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than seven members on the side of the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the amendment circulated by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.
Member for Wentworth's circulated amendment—
(1) Schedule 1, page 48 (after line 22), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 5 — Independent review
31 Review of capital gains tax amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of:
(a) the amendments made by this Schedule; and
(b) the amendments made by Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026 relating to cost base indexation and the minimum tax on capital gains.
(2) Without limiting subitem (1), the review must consider the effects of the amendments on investment, formation and employment in start-up and scale-up companies and small businesses more broadly.
(3) The review must commence as soon as practicable after 1 July 2028.
(4) The review must be completed, and a written report of the review must be given to the Minister, within the period of 6 months starting on the day when the review commences.
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.
(6) In this item:
Minister means the Minister administering the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
I support the government's intent to rebalance Australia's income tax system. Making our tax system fairer and more sustainable is long overdue, though I will continue to argue that you're not rebalancing the tax system and until you commit to giving back every tax dollar you raise to income tax cuts. Otherwise, you are just raising taxes. But rebalancing the system can't come at the expense of Australia's dynamism and capacity to innovate, and it shouldn't need to. That's why my amendment requires a review of the IBCC and of indexation model more broadly as it affects innovation and small business as soon as practicable after its first year of operation.
I acknowledge the government's efforts in designing the IBCC. Its purpose is to shield productive innovative businesses from an indexation system that could otherwise subject Australian founders, employees and investors to some of the highest taxes of capital in the world, but the concession is deliberately narrow, riddled with tripwires and adds complexity. I'd like to give you an example. Yesterday, I was contacted by the founder of a small, profitable Australian digital health company. It's about a decade old with customers here and overseas, and about 95 per cent of its profit comes back to Australia. The company has just won a contract with an American client that will make it double in size. To service it, the company needs operational staff on the ground in the US. The founder now believes he may fail the predominant activity test because slightly more than half his team could end up in the US, even though the profits still come home, so, instead of celebrating, he's talking to lawyers and accountants about restructuring so the business can stay in Australia and still qualify. He's wading through this legislation at the same time I am, trying to work out if the carve-out will protect his business.
This shows that the IBCC risks undermining its own aims. It's meant to support companies scaling here and internationally, yet one of its innovation principles requires to a company to show international competitiveness, while the predominant activity test requires half of its people to be in Australia. Succeed overseas and you risk losing the concession.
Good intentions are not enough. The design of the IBCC will have real, if unintended, consequences for Australian innovators. We need a system that is fair, simple and predictable. This is what encourages innovation and investment. The truth is the IBCC is just trying to patch a flawed system. The indexation on capital gains tax is just the wrong way to tax risk taking, especially in low-capital businesses. The combination of the IBCC and indexation has three major flaws. It is complex, which chases away capital and risk taking. It is unfair. It allows a government to determine which businesses are innovative and which businesses are not. As someone who has run businesses, I tell you every single business takes risk, takes guts and is bloody hard to do. Thirdly, it is uncompetitive. We are ending up in low-capital rates, in low-capital businesses, with people paying in the 40s potentially in capital gains tax. That is uncompetitive around the rest of the world, and we cannot pretend that won't have real impacts in this country.
I urge the government. There are better ways of doing this. I have put one forward myself. I don't know that it is perfect, but it is a darn sight better than what the government is proposing right now. The government should fix this because, whatever happens, believe me, this bill will come back one day, because the IBCC and the indexation of capital gains on risk taking just make no sense.
I also want to challenge the opposition on this. You have voted against this bill, and the IBCC is as flawed as it comes, but it is the one thing that might protect some tech companies staying in this country, so do not ignore this bill. I cannot see how you would vote against this bill, because it makes a difference to innovative businesses. I hate the bill. I hate the taxation of capital gains via indexation on risk taking, but the government and certainly the shadow Treasurer should know that, if you vote against the IBCC, technology businesses that are relying on this to try and help stay in this country really matter and will be hurt by it. And if you vote against the ESVCLP and VCLP changes in this bill, that will also hurt the venture sector, which we need to support right now, because the government has made a whole bunch of mistakes in this space.
I urge the government to accept this amendment. It is very reasonable. It is asking for a review after one year, because this legislation will affect productive businesses, and this is a real challenge to the economy, and I think it is one that absolutely needs to be dealt with.
Before I call the member for Goldstein I want to remind all members—I didn't want to interrupt the member for Wentworth when it occurred—about language, to ensure that no swearing is used in the chamber.
[inaudible]
I thank the member for Wentworth for her apology to the House.
We'll be supporting this amendment, but I've got to say, it's somewhat galling to take lectures from the member for Wentworth about voting records on higher taxes when she has consistently supported, in the chamber today, the government's higher taxes on small businesses, particularly innovative small businesses. The member for Wentworth laid the groundwork—
The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The member for Kooyong on a point of order.
I was just wondering the relevance of the personal attacks by the member for Goldstein on the member for Wentworth to the amendment we're considering at this point.
The amendment was moved by the member for Wentworth. She spoke about the amendment She did raise a number of issues, I think including the shadow Treasurer, in her debate. And as members know, I like a free and fair debate. The member for Goldstein obviously won't be able to talk about just that one aspect, but he is entitled to respond to the issues raised, and I'll allow him to do so.
Thank you, Speaker, for the consistency we're getting now in decision-making from the House, so that we can have free debate. I simply cannot understand: the member for Wentworth has laid the groundwork for higher taxes on her constituents and of course constituents in Kooyong, Curtin, Warringah, Wentworth and other seats, like Bradfield, and now they're trying to patchwork it and cover up the tracks of the higher taxes that are being imposed on small businesses, on innovative businesses, by making relatively minor amendments about structural problems. The issue and the challenge we face right now is that early-stage startups, innovative businesses—those most likely to contribute to economic growth, future jobs and employment, particularly in sectors like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and technology overall—have put their faith in the member for Wentworth. What has happened in practice is that the Treasurer has played her like a fiddle on these tax reform measures. As a consequence, all those businesses are now paying higher taxes.
The member for Goldstein will resume his seat for a moment. We'll take a point of order from the member for Warringah.
I'd ask that the member for Goldstein withdraw the unparliamentary inference he just made.
We'll do this in a systematic way. The remark the member for Goldstein made has caused some offence, and perhaps, to assist with the debate, he could assist the House by withdrawing.
To assist the House, I will withdraw—just as I wish the federal member for Wentworth could withdraw the legacy she has whereby she laid the groundwork for the Treasurer to increase taxes on small businesses and innovative businesses, and now they're trying to cover their tracks. We know that every step of the way the Treasurer has taken support from the member for Wentworth to put higher taxes on her community. The consequence now is that they're trying to find a way to get out of it. But they still go and vote for the substantive legislation in this chamber of 30 per cent minimum taxes on small businesses and innovative businesses. This is going to hurt the future job growth, future economic opportunity and future employment in this country.
This is a legacy between the Labor Party and the strong communities Australia party or whatever they like to call themselves—the teals—that is trading away the future of this nation. It is not something to be proud of.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members can make as many interjections as they want—and we've got another one. They simply do not want to be held to the scrutiny and standard that they expect.
If the member for Mackellar wants to raise a point of order, she will need to return to her seat first. The member for Goldstein.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The problem we have is that, while we want to see changes to these tax laws, we don't want to see changes that simply make little tweaks. We want to see them completely scrapped.
The point of order concerns misleading the House. There's been a constant reference to the word 'teals', when he knows perfectly well that I voted with—
Order! There are other forms of the House, if you believe—
The member for Goldstein should address members by their proper titles—and maybe more specifically.
Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. It's not a point of order. The member for Goldstein didn't refer to an individual. If he did refer to a member by their incorrect title, I would ensure it was corrected, but, at this stage, he is making—the member for Mackellar?
The point of order concerns misleading the House, because—
I appreciate that this is a spirited debate, but we need to follow the forms of the House. I appreciate that the emotions and issues are passionate, but we need to make sure we follow the standing orders and all forms of the House.
The time allocated for this debate has expired. The question now is that the amendment circulated by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.
The question now is that the amendment circulated by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.
Member for Kooyong's circulated amendment
That all words after "notes that" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
(b) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 have been referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, but this bill has not; and
(c) Schedule 2 inserts a power for the Minister to determine, by legislative instrument, kinds of activities that are integral to R&D, after consulting only another Minister; and
(5) calls on to government to:
(a) refer its bill to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, so that provisions of Schedule 2 of the bill can be properly examined; and
(b) require the Minister to consult Industry Innovation and Science Australia, the Commissioner of Taxation, and industry, before making any determination under proposed subsection 355-25(7) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997".
This amendment is modest, practical and reasonable. The bill removes supporting R&D activities from the R&D tax incentive. R&D activities are the supporting work that makes medical research, engineering and innovation possible. Since the exposure draft of this legislation was released, it's now been garnished with a new power allowing a minister to determine by legislative instrument which kinds of activities are integral to R&D under the R&D tax incentive. This legislative instrument is presumably the government's answer to the concerns raised in consultation regarding the removal of supporting R&D activities. The minister's determination will determine which activities stay inside the incentive and which fall out. It will shape how much support Australian businesses can receive for their research and development.
But under the bill, as it is currently drafted, before making that determination the Treasurer need consult only one person: the industry minister. The minister is not obliged to consult Industry Innovation and Science Australia, the expert board that this parliament established to actually decide what is and isn't research and development. The minister is not required to consult the tax office, which administers the offset and will have to apply whatever the minister determines. The businesses, the scientists, the medical researchers, the academics and the engineers who understand better than anyone in this place what research and development needs will not be consulted on those activities which are integral to their activities. A decision made that way risks picking winners and losers. The industries with the best access to ministers' offices may well see their sorts of activities recognised, but the small manufacturer in a regional town, the startup without a lobbyist and the researcher perhaps working in a hospital or in a university department who doesn't happen to know anyone in Canberra won't be represented, and they won't have a voice. I'm very concerned that this process will just invite lobbying and the corrosion of a process which should be independently adjudicated to reward excellence, not influence.
My amendment will ensure that the definition of R&D activities will be subjected to due process. Before making a determination, the minister should have to consult widely—with the minister for industry, as the bill already provides; with Industry Innovation and Science Australia; with the Commissioner of Taxation; and with any bodies representing relative and relevant industries, along with any other industries and entities that the minister considers likely to be affected. The amendment also requires the minister to publish draft determinations on the department's website and allow for at least 28 days in response in written submissions. My amendment does not stop the government from making determinations, and it doesn't change what the government can put in those determinations. It simply means that those people with the expertise and the knowledge relevant to those decisions are heard before the decision is made, not after.
The government has said that it intends to consult on this instrument. The amendment also ensures that this government and future governments hold fast to that commitment. The R&D tax incentive changes won't apply until 1 July 2028. A 28-day consultation period will not delay this legislation, but it will give businesses planning multi-year R&D programs some certainty about how the rules will be set. The government's own Ambitious Australia review called for the R&D incentive to be rendered simpler and more predictable for those companies who claim it and who rely upon it. Ministerial discretion exercised without consultation could be capricious, and it could be compromised. Confidence in government decision-making is built on transparency and consultation, and so I commend this amendment to the House.
I pick up exactly where the member for Kooyong made her remarks. Her remarks were that this amendment is designed to make sure that there's proper consultation in this legislation and its effect and to not give unrelenting power to the minister. Of course, that has a very good basis. We should see more of that. There's just one fundamental problem, which is that the Australian people were never consulted in this legislation and its development. The Australian people were actually told this legislation was not going to be introduced before the last election. In fact, I believe it was 50 times over, to quote one eminent political figure, otherwise known as the Prime Minister. Now we have this additional tax, this extra tax burden, that is hitting research and development of the future of our country. Speaker, I don't know about you, but I cannot think of anything more outrageous than a direct tax assault on the initiative research basis of this country if we want to have an economy that is global, that is outward looking, that is competitive and has a focus on building the jobs and economic opportunity in the future of this nation. Instead, what we have is the cosy relationship and provision of a gliding pathway by certain MPs, teal MPs, Community Strong MPs—whatever we want to call them—and the government to increase taxes on the Australian people, particularly on research and development businesses.
The member for Kooyong on a point of order?
I understand that the member for Goldstein is enjoying his repeated ad hominem attacks this morning. He's not speaking to my amendment.
I need you to state the point of order.
The point of order is relevance. He's not speaking to my amendment. He's not actually even referring to it.
I've been very lenient with this consideration in detail because of some of the issues being raised. We're just going to have to return to the standing orders. It is specific. It's not a general debate, as the member for Kooyong is rightly pointing out. If any member wishes to enter the debate, they really—the purpose of this is to go through the detail that is being presented to the House, not to get into a more general debate about the reasons behind the bill or your thoughts on why the bill is there. It's got to be a technical debate. That's the purpose of this. If the member could refer to the clauses within the amendments before the House, I think that would assist the House in this debate.
Indeed, we are talking about an amendment to a tax bill specifically related to research and development and the need for consultation. I am agreeing with the proposition that we should have consultation about legislation associated with research and development that directly affects innovative businesses. Part of it is how we got here, the components of the legislation and the practical consequences of their interrelationship. What we know is that research and development communities, exactly as the member for Kooyong has correctly identified, were not consulted and have not been consulted under this legislation into the future. I will accept that point from the member for Kooyong. All I am simply highlighting is the inconsistency in the behaviour to get to that point and that we wish to have consultation into the future under this legislation, like how we would like to have had consultation in the lead-up to this legislation. We know that the practical effect of not having consultation under this legislation is that businesses are going to pay higher taxes, and, if we don't have consultation in the lead-up to the legislation, during the legislation or its implementation or practical consequences, small businesses, innovative businesses, and research and development in this country is going to find it harder to get ahead and build the future economic growth of this country. I am simply stating, for the member for Kooyong's needs, that some of us see that as enormously problematic, and we really would rather, instead of providing amendments to try and cover the tracks of the member for Kooyong and other members, simply oppose the bill.
The question is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.
The question now is that the bill be agreed to.
The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy to the amendment to the second reading motion moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.
The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the House will now consider the bill in detail as a whole. The question now is that the amendments circulated by the member for Ryan be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 15, page 22 (after line 24), after the heading "Other obligations", insert:
Licence holders (as well as persons that have, within the previous 12 months, applied for a licence or for renewal of a licence) are prohibited from making certain kinds of political donations. One purpose of these prohibitions is to prevent the making of donations that might influence the exercise of discretions by Ministers under this Act.
(This Part imposes these obligations relating to political donations by applying certain provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to licence holders and to persons that have applied for a grant or renewal of a licence within the previous 12 months.)
(2) Clause 15, page 22 (line 25), omit "A licence holder must comply with other obligations", substitute "A licence holder must also comply with certain other obligations".
(3) Page 59 (after line 17), after Division 3, insert:
Division 3A — Political donations
40A Covered gas entities must not make political donations to members of Parliament etc.
(1) In addition to the way that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies apart from this section, that Act also applies as if a reference in that Act to a foreign donor included a reference to a covered gas entity.
Note: Among other things, a foreign donor commits an offence, and is liable to a civil penalty, under Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 if the foreign donor makes a gift to certain persons (including a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator) for certain purposes (see section 302F of that Act).
(2) For the purposes of applying the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, a covered gas entity is a person that:
(a) is a licence holder for the purposes of this Act; or
(b) in relation to a provision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that applies in relation to a gift made by, or on behalf of, a foreign donor—has, within the period of 12 months ending on the day on which the gift is made:
(i) applied under subsection 46(1) of this Act for an export licence; or
(ii) applied under subsection 52(1) of this Act for a renewal of an export licence.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) of this section, it does not matter what the outcome is of the application mentioned in subparagraph (2)(b)(i) or (ii).
(4) Clause 18, page 25 (line 5), omit "subsection (2), (3) or (4)", substitute "subsection (2) or (3)".
(5) Clause 18, page 26 (lines 24 to 26), omit subclause (4).
(6) Heading to subclause 19(5), page 28 (line 19), omit "Rules or gas market code", substitute "Gas market code".
(7) Clause 19, page 28 (lines 20 to 26), omit subclause (5) (not including the heading).
(8) Clause 19, page 28 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (6).
My amendments deal with some serious flaws in this bill. By setting up extensive new ministerial powers, including the power to exempt individual gas companies from regulations, this bill creates fertile ground for favours. Some would call it corruptibility. It would build a favour factory between gas companies and resource ministers: 'A few hundred thousand dollars in donations? Thank you very much. We'll put a carve-out in the regulation for you.' Specifically, this bill allows the minister to exempt gas corporations from the proposed domestic supply obligation. The entire purpose of this bill is to increase domestic gas supply, yet it gives the minister the power to exempt any company they like. We know that the gas companies are very generous donors to both sides of politics—and One Nation, too. They have covered all their bases, hedged their bets. This set-up means it doesn't matter if the government changes; decisions will always be made in the gas corporations' favour.
To dismantle this favour factory between the gas industry and political parties, my amendments prevent all political donations by the gas exporters regulated by this gas reserve legislation. My amendments also remove the open-ended ministerial discretion to create any circumstances in which a gas company meets its obligations to supply gas. We're deeply worried about this, because the minister can say to Santos, for example, 'If you promise to build a pipeline to open up Beetaloo Basin and release its 27 billion tonnes of emissions, we'll give you an exemption from the scheme for a few years.' In short, these powers, as they exist, can be used to encourage new gas development and create an incentive to open up new fields, even if they aren't economic.
I thank the member for Ryan for her amendment and engagement with the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026. I reject entirely the implication around corruptibility or other things she has put onto the record. The bill that is before parliament today is a landmark economic reform in the form of a domestic gas reservation. The simple matter is that this bill is about getting more Australian gas to Australian consumers and Australian industries. This is not a bill in regard to electoral reform or donations. That is an important matter, and it warrants careful consideration and proper scrutiny. Agreeing to these amendments would bypass the consultation, analysis and scrutiny that good lawmaking requires. Labor has had a position for years, and the government has followed that, that we do need to stop the influence of big money in politics and improve transparency across the system. With the help of the parliament, this was achieved through the passage of the legislation at the end of the last term.
The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.
The question now is that the amendment circulated by the member for Curtin be agreed to.
Member for Curtin's circulated amendment
(1) Clause 27, page 43 (line 30) to page 44 (line 2), omit subclause (3) (not including the heading), substitute:
(3) The Minister may only make a DSO adjustment determination for a licence holder for a domestic gas market for a regulated period or extended period for the reason set out in paragraph 26(1)(b) if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) the demand and supply conditions for natural gas in the market over the regulated period or extended period are such that it is appropriate to make the determination; and
(b) there are arrangements in place for the licence holder to supply, or arrange to supply, natural gas to the domestic gas market during the regulated period or extended period in accordance with the existing domestic gas reservation arrangements that apply in relation to the licence holder.
This is a modest amendment about the interaction between WA and this national domestic gas scheme. Technically, the domestic gas reservation would apply nationally, but the bill gives the minister the power to carve out facilities covered by an existing scheme. It's clear that the minister's intention is to carve out WA facilities, and I support this. WA has had its own domestic gas reservation policy since 2006, and it makes sense not to simply impose a second overlapping obligation on exporters operating under that scheme.
But the WA scheme has its problems. It generally requires LNG exporters to make the equivalent of 15 per cent of their gas exports available to the domestic market, but the obligation is measured over the life of the project rather than year by year. The terms are negotiated project by project and they're confidential, and there are questions about whether some exporters are delivering what Western Australia needs. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis estimates that WA gas producers supplied five to 10 per cent of their production to the domestic market between 2018 and 2024—clearly below the 15 per cent target. The DomGas Alliance, which represents major gas users, including Alcoa, Wesfarmers and Yara, says that since 2017 Woodside's Pluto LNG project has supplied just 3.7 per cent of the gas it's exported to the domestic market. If the Commonwealth is going to rely on the WA scheme as the reason for exempting exporters from the national scheme, we should have some confidence that the WA scheme will be honoured. That's the issue that my amendment addresses.
As the bill currently stands, the minister can reduce an exporter's federal obligation because an existing domestic gas reservation arrangement applies. The minister doesn't have to be satisfied that the exporter has arrangements in place to supply gas under the state scheme. That creates a fairly obvious gap. An exporter could receive relief from its federal obligation because the WA scheme exists without having arrangements in place to provide the gas that the WA scheme is supposed to secure. The exporter gets the benefit of the carve-out, but Western Australians may not get the gas. My amendment adds a simple safeguard; it keeps the government's existing test but requires that the minister be satisfied of one additional thing—that arrangements are in place for the exporter to supply or to arrange to supply gas to the domestic market in accordance with the reservation arrangements that apply to it. Importantly, this does not change the WA scheme. It doesn't remove the WA carve-out and it doesn't impose new obligations on WA exporters. It simply says that, if an exporter is going to receive the benefit of the carve-out, there should be arrangements in place to meet the WA scheme.
I acknowledge that this amendment doesn't solve every problem with the WA scheme; it only tests whether those arrangements are in place. It's a very low hurdle to meet, but that should make it easier to accept. This amendment will become more important as WA's gas market tightens. The Australian Energy Market Operator projects gaps in the WA market from 2030, with those gaps growing in the years that follow. Before projected shortages are used to make the case for new gas developments like Browse, with the significant climate pollution that that would bring, we should make sure exporters are delivering the gas they have already agreed to provide to Western Australians.
This is a modest amendment. If the WA scheme is the reason an exporter receives relief from the national obligation, the minister should at least be satisfied that the arrangements are in place to honour that scheme. I'd hope that this outcome would be supported by both sides of the House as well as the people and government of WA. It tells the gas exporters who are not delivering on their state based obligation that this isn't good enough. This is an improvement that delivers for Western Australians and Western Australia, and I commend the amendment to the House.
I thank the member for Curtin for her engagement in relation to this package of bills. The domestic gas reservation scheme does apply nationally. Our constitution prevents, quite rightly, the Commonwealth from giving states and territories preferential treatment. This bill defines a domestic gas market as a market and a part of Australia where natural gas is acquired and supplied by means of a physical network of interconnected gas pipelines. Under the legislation, all LNG exporters will be required to hold an export licence regardless of their location.
In practice, as the member will know, the east and west coast markets are physically separate, certainly in terms of those interconnected pipelines, and conditions in one market do not necessarily reflect conditions in the other. The scheme has the flexibility to recognise this, and it is fit for purpose. The legislation does recognise existing reservation arrangements and allows for domestic supply obligations to be adjusted in appropriate circumstances to take into account demand and supply conditions in the market. Domestic supply obligations are linked to the domestic market from which the LNG is exported, meaning exporters continue to supply the market to which they are physically connected.
Western Australia introduced its gas reservation policy many years ago and has largely managed its supply well. I accept too that it has not been perfect, and I acknowledge the comments of others, especially those from Western Australia, about that. However, it does have a system, and it's different to the system we're proposing, with different means of addressing demand over time and their demand calibration. Whilst working not perfectly but largely well, it is wise to let that remain in place. For these reasons the government will not be supporting the amendment, but I thank you for your contribution.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.
I once again remind all members that, once I give the instruction to lock the doors, that is the instruction not to enter the chamber. If this continues—there have been some close calls—I will continue to remove members. I remind all members that, once I say, 'Lock the doors,' that means, even if the door is not closed, do not enter the chamber. The question now is the amendments circulated by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.
Member for Mackellar's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 2), omit "liquefied natural gas.", substitute "liquefied natural gas; and".
(2) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 2), after paragraph (c), insert:
(d) to achieve these objects in a way that does not jeopardise the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
(3) Page 4 (after line 13), at the end of Division 1, add:
4 Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets
(1) This section applies:
(a) to a Minister (the relevant Minister), in relation to the exercise of powers, and the performance of functions, by the relevant Minister under, or in relation, to this Act; and
(b) to the Regulator, in relation to the exercise of powers, and the performance of functions, by the Regulator under, or in relation, to this Act.
(2) The relevant Minister and the Regulator must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the exercise of the powers, and the performance of the functions, does not result in this Act operating in a way that jeopardises the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
(4) Clause 9, page 8 (after line 28), after the definition of Australian territory, insert:
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets has the same meaning as in the Climate Change Act 2022.
(5) Clause 45, page 65 (lines 10 to 11), omit "at least 20 regulated periods", substitute "no more than 10 regulated periods".
(6) Clause 47, page 67 (lines 28 to 33), omit subclause (4) (not including the note), substitute:
(4) The expiry day must be the last day of a regulated period, where that regulated period is no later than the tenth regulated period beginning on or after the day the licence came into force.
(7) Clause 52, page 72 (lines 15 to 19), omit all the words from and including "where that regulated period is:" to the end of subclause (5), substitute "where that regulated period is no later than the tenth regulated period beginning after the initial expiry day.".
I rise to speak to my amendments to the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026. These are relatively straightforward amendments that seek to improve the operation of the scheme and ensure it remains responsive to changing circumstances over time. The first amendment would limit LNG export licences to a maximum term of 10 years, rather than allowing licences to be issued for periods of 20 to 50 years. This amendment reflects recommendations from stakeholders including Climateworks and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Australia's gas market will not look the same in 10, 20, 30 or 50 years as it does today. We know the LNG export sector is projected to decline over the coming decade, including under assumptions outlined in the government's Future Gas Strategy. Given the uncertainty, it makes sense to periodically reassess export licences rather than lock in arrangements for several decades at a time.
A 10-year licence period would reduce the risk of government needing to intervene to amend or revoke long-term licences as domestic gas market conditions, reserve estimates or emissions policies change. It would also allow consideration of the impact of proposed exports on Australia's emission reduction targets as circumstances and policy settings evolve. Importantly, it would provide a clear and predictable review process, allowing licences to expire and be reassessed rather than relying on governments having to intervene ad hoc if circumstances change significantly.
At the same time, the amendment would continue to provide certainty for industry and LNG export contracts. Most east coast LNG sale agreements are due to expire by 2036, and there are currently no new major LNG export projects under development. The amendment would also ensure there is an opportunity to periodically assess whether licence holders remain fit and proper entities to hold an export licence.
My second amendment would make clear that the reservation scheme should operate consistently with Australia's emission reduction commitments. Specifically, it would add an object to the act requiring that its objectives be achieved in a way that does not jeopardise Australia's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It would also require the minister and regulator to take all reasonable steps to ensure decisions made under the act do not undermine achievement of those targets. Decisions made under the gas reservation scheme should take into account Australia's existing emissions reduction commitments, and measures designed to improve domestic gas supply should not have unintended consequences for those objectives.
These amendments reflect recommendations made in the ongoing inquiry into this bill and would, in my view, strengthen the bill in a practical and sensible way. I commend the amendments to the House.
I thank the member for Mackellar for her engagement on this package of bills. We all want, and agree that there should be, an orderly and ambitious energy transition, and that's why the Albanese Labor government has legislated emission targets; reformed the Safeguard Mechanism; and published the Future Gas Strategy, which mapped out the role of Australian gas in the energy transition and, of course, the transition of our whole region and our regional trading partners. We have also invested heavily in electrifying homes and installing batteries, with record take-up right around the country, and we've invested in building renewables at record rates.
The Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme will ensure that Australians can still access affordable gas while they still need it. Five million homes in this country still rely on gas for heating; that's especially the case in Victoria and here in the Australian Capital Territory. They also rely on gas for cooking and hot water. Cheaper gas prices will help some industries decarbonise. For example, decarbonising steel production involves switching from coal to gas.
The bills do include demand calibration to ensure gas prices are lower but do not sink to levels that would undermine, in particular, the economics of renewable energy and energy storage products or further undermine investment in other projects. Additionally, renewable gases and demand reduction will be able to be used to equip domestic supply obligations under the reservation. Together, these features ensure affordable, secure gas supply is achieved in a way consistent with our net zero and renewable energy ambitions.
The member's amendment also proposes limiting export licences to a maximum of 10 years.
It's important to our economy and to our country's future that Australia does remain a reliable trade and investment partner, so, in designing our domestic gas reservation scheme, the government has sought to balance protecting domestic supply while maintaining investment certainty and supply to nations that absolutely depend upon our country's energy exports for their long-term energy security. The long-term export licences within the regime provide the long-term regulatory certainty that is key to attracting investment to this country and to ensuring we have a energy-secure region. For these reasons, while I appreciate the input, the government will not be supporting the amendment.
The question is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.
The question now is that the amendments circulated by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.
Member for Bradfield's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 27, page 43 (line 16), omit "the licence holder.", substitute "the licence holder; and".
(2) Clause 27, page 43 (after line 16), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:
(c) if a gas market code has prescribed circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 19(7)(a)—the licence holder is unable reasonably to bring it about that the licence holder is taken under paragraph 19(7)(a) to have made a DSO supply of natural gas in the market during the regulated period or extended period.
Note: For paragraph (c) of this subsection: paragraph 19(7)(a) allows a gas market code to prescribe circumstances in which a licence holder is taken to make a DSO supply of natural gas in a domestic gas market during a period. The circumstances must relate to supplying renewable gas in the market or reducing demand for natural gas in the market (see subsection 19(8)).
(3) Clause 27, page 43 (line 28), omit "natural gas.", substitute "natural gas; and".
(4) Clause 27, page 43 (after line 28), after paragraph (2)(b), insert:
(c) as mentioned in paragraph (1)(c)—take into account:
(i) if the gas market code has prescribed circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 19(7)(a) that relate to a matter mentioned in paragraph 19(8)(a)—the options available for supplying renewable gas in the market during the regulated period or extended period; and
(ii) if the gas market code has prescribed circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 19(7)(a) that relate to a matter mentioned in paragraph 19(8)(b) or (c)—the options available for reducing demand for natural gas in the market during the regulated period or extended period.
(5) Clause 27, page 44 (after line 13), after paragraph (4)(b), insert:
(ba) if a gas market code has prescribed circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 19(7)(a)—the Minister is satisfied that it would be uneconomic for the licence holder to bring it about that the licence holder is taken under paragraph 19(7)(a) to have made a DSO supply of natural gas in the market during the regulated period or extended period; and
Note: For paragraph (ba) of this subsection: paragraph 19(7)(a) allows a gas market code to prescribe circumstances in which a licence holder is taken to make a DSO supply of natural gas in a domestic gas market during a period. The circumstances must relate to supplying renewable gas in the market or reducing demand for natural gas in the market (see subsection 19(8)).
(6) Clause 27, page 44 (before line 18), before subclause (5), insert:
(4A) The Minister must, in considering whether the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (4)(ba), take into account:
(a) if the gas market code has prescribed circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 19(7)(a) that relate to a matter mentioned in paragraph 19(8)(a)—the options available for supplying renewable gas in the market during the regulated period or extended period; and
(b) if the gas market code has prescribed circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 19(7)(a) that relate to a matter mentioned in paragraph 19(8)(b) or (c)—the options available for reducing demand for natural gas in the market during the regulated period or extended period.
I rise to speak to the amendments circulated in my name to the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026. In my second reading speech, I said that this bill is a step forward but that it leaves too much to ministerial discretion. These amendments deal with one of those discretions. Clause 27 lets the minister make an adjustment to an exporter's obligation to supply gas domestically under the reservation scheme. That means lowering or deferring the obligation. As drafted, the minister can do that in three ways: if the exporter can't reasonably supply enough gas to the domestic market because, for instance, of existing contracts, if it's already supplying gas under an existing reservation scheme like in WA, or if infrastructure constraints stand in the way. On their face, those are reasonable grounds, but the bill already recognises that there's more than one way to meet a domestic supply obligation. Under clause 19, the Gas Market Code can count things as domestic supply even though they aren't a direct gas sale—supplying renewable gas, reducing a gas exporters own gas use or helping other energy users cut their gas use, including through electrification.
I welcome this deemed supply provision because it recognises that the cheapest gas is the gas Australians never have to buy. The problem is that, in clause 27, the minister's discretion to adjust gas supply obligations ignores this part of the bill. An exporter could say, 'We can't get the molecules to market,' and have its domestic supply obligation reduced without the minister interrogating whether it could have met that obligation another way. My amendment seeks to strengthen the domestic supply obligation by ensuring that the minister can't make an adjustment unless the exporter is unable reasonably to meet its obligation through renewable gas or demand reduction. Before we let an exporter off the hook, we should check whether it could have helped a household switch to a heat pump or helped a factory electrify its process heat.
These amendments make the 'deemed DSO' component of the bill consistent with the 'DSO adjustment' part of the bill, and they ensure that, before companies are given a leave pass, they should try the cleaner options offered by electrification. Every adjustment to an exporter's domestic gas supply obligation is gas Australian households and businesses don't receive. So, if an exporter can still meet its obligation by lowering demand, the domestic market gets the same benefit, and a more enduring one, that lowers the cost of living, improves energy security and reduces emissions. While a gas reservation scheme might protect Australians from international gas prices, electrification means that they don't rely on that gas anymore. I commend the amendment to the House.
I thank the member for Bradfield for her engagement with respect to this package of domestic gas reservation bills. I understand the intent of the amendments proposed, and I agree with the member for Bradfield that there should be a very high bar when considering whether a domestic supply obligation should be varied. Variations for pre-existing contracts or infrastructure constraints should not be blanket exemptions—and, indeed, they absolutely are not. Additionally, there are disincentives in the scheme for seeking a domestic supply obligation variation, such as that exporters will not get the benefit of demand calibration where they already have a variation in place. Under the scheme, all exporters will be expected to make contributions to the domestic market commensurate with their export volumes. There are transitional provisions that protect existing commercial arrangements—that is, contracts executed before the scheme was announced on 22 December 2025—and that recognise that infrastructure constraints will take time to address. These provisions are transitional. Applications for variation are open only in the first year of the scheme.
As the responsible minister for each application I receive seeking a variation for a pre-existing contract, I will consider whether the full domestic supply obligation would cause the contract to be breached and whether there are practical alternatives to avoid a contract breach, such as bringing on additional supply or swaps. This ensures that supply obligations are met, including through demand reduction and renewable gas supply. Enabling more renewable gas supply is a really important part of this package, and I look forward to that. We absolutely support electrification. This government has invested heavily in batteries and solar panels for people's houses right around the county, and it's a really important initiative and part of our commitment to reaching net zero. This collection of bills, and the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 in particular, is a package around ensuring that Australians get benefit from the gas that belongs to this country and, in doing so, lowering prices and avoiding shortfalls into the future. So whilst I appreciate the amendments and the intent behind them, the government will not be supporting these amendments at this time.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question now is that this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question now is that this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Defence—Armoured Fighting Vehicles Facilities Program—Stage 3.
The Department of Defence proposes to deliver the third stage of major facilities and infrastructure supporting the Australian Army's armoured fighting capability program, which commenced in 2020. The project will provide vehicle maintenance, sustainment and training facilities at Lavarack Barracks, located approximately 10 kilometres south of the Townsville central business district. The estimated cost of the project is $231.1 million, excluding GST.
Through this motion, the government is referring the proposed work to the public works committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for consideration and report to both houses of parliament. Following that report, the House of Representatives must subsequently resolve that it is expedient for the work to be carried out before work may commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project is expected to commence construction by mid-2027 and be completed by late 2028. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Strengthening Australia's trade and investment relations with the countries of Africa.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I'm pleased to present to the House this report. Africa is undergoing a dynamic economic transformation. It is home to some of the world's fastest growing economies; a rapidly expanding population, particularly its youth population; increasing urbanisation; and a growing middle class. The African continent represents one of the most significant opportunities for Australia's trade and investment agenda. At a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty and shifting global supply chains, expanding engagement with African economies offers Australia an opportunity to strengthen existing relations and develop trusted new partnerships. However, despite our longstanding cooperation and diplomatic relationships, the committee found that Australia's economic engagement with Africa remains well below potential. The inquiry examined the current nature of Australia's trade and investment relationship with Africa. While Australia has maintained a substantial presence in the resources sector across many African countries and has developed valuable commercial partnerships over several decades, total trade and investment flows remain modest when compared with the scale and diversity of opportunities available.
The committee heard that Australian businesses often confront a range of barriers when seeking to enter or expand within African markets. These include perceptions of sovereign and commercial risk, regulatory complexity, logistical challenges and insufficient access to market intelligence and in-country diplomatic and trade support. We heard that many Australian businesses remain unfamiliar with the considerable economic diversity that exists across Africa's 54 nations. Importantly, the evidence demonstrated that Africa should not be viewed as a single market. Rather, it is a continent comprised of diverse economies at varying stages of development, each offering distinct opportunities for trade, investment and commercial partnerships. The committee was particularly encouraged by evidence regarding opportunities for Australian exporters to diversify beyond traditional sectors. Australian expertise is increasingly sought after in critical minerals, renewable energy, agribusiness, education and training, digital technologies, health care and infrastructure development. As African economies industrialise and modernise, demand for Australian expertise and skills is likely to grow significantly.
The inquiry also considered the role of the African Continental Free Trade Area. When fully implemented, the African Continental Free Trade Area will create one of the world's largest free trade areas, supporting greater economic integration, reducing trade barriers and facilitating more efficient regional supply chains. The committee heard consistent evidence that the African Continental Free Trade Area has the potential to make African markets more accessible, predictable and attractive for Australian businesses. Australia's memorandum of understanding with the African Continental Free Trade Area provides substantial opportunity for collaboration, particularly Australia's expertise in regulatory and technical standards, but we must engage early.
The committee found that realising opportunities for diversification will require more focused engagement from the Australian government. Success in African markets demands long-term commitment, strong relationships, informed risk assessment and coordinated government support mechanisms. A recurring theme throughout the inquiry was the critical role that government can play in unlocking opportunities and reducing trade and investment barriers. The committee heard support for strengthened trade promotion, enhanced market intelligence, greater diplomatic and trade representation and improved coordination between government agencies, industry, the Australian African diaspora and the tertiary and vocational training sectors.
This report presents a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening Australia's economic engagement with Africa. These recommendations seek to provide a road map to improve Australia's trade architecture, increase commercial awareness, support export diversification and strengthen investment partnerships. At its core, this report is about partnerships—partnerships that support diversification, resilience and future prosperity. As global economic conditions continue to evolve, Australia must broaden its trade and investment agenda. Africa presents not only a significant economic opportunity but also an opportunity to deepen partnerships with a region that will play an increasingly important role in the global economy throughout the 21st century. The committee believes that, with strategic Australian government engagement and a focused long-term vision, Australia can develop a more ambitious and mutually beneficial economic relationship with the countries of Africa.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who contributed to this inquiry, including Australian exporters and investors, industry groups, academics and government agencies. Thank you also to African diplomatic representatives and members of Australia's African diaspora community. Their evidence provided valuable insights into both the opportunities and challenges shaping Australia's economic engagement with the African continent. I thank my fellow committee members for their constructive and collegiate engagement throughout the inquiry and commend this report to the House. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Cambodia from 11 to 16 September 2025 and to the 46th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Malaysia from 16 to 22 September 2025.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, I present the committee'sReport on proposed recommendations for appointments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—As Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NACC, I'm pleased to note that the committee has unanimously supported the appointment of Deputy Chief Justice the Honourable Robert McClelland AO as NACC Commissioner and Mr Christopher Savundra as NACC Deputy Commissioner. The committee takes our oversight role seriously, including our responsibility under section 178 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 to approve or reject proposed candidates and ensure that appointments to these important roles are appropriate. The committee found candidates to be suitably qualified, bringing a high level of personal integrity together with a commitment to fairness, transparency and public confidence in the commission. We are also satisfied that the candidates were selected through a merit based process conducted by a panel with the appropriate standing and experience to recommend candidates for these roles.
I thank the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's Department for assisting the committee by providing appropriate and thorough information about the recruitment process and the recommended candidates. I also want to place on record my thanks to the Deputy Chair, the member for Indi, who has played an active role in this committee process. We wish her well in her recovery and eagerly await her return to the committee, whose work I know she is incredibly passionate about.
Having carefully considered the proposed appointments, we are satisfied that we have discharged our responsibilities under the act. We look forward to working with Deputy Chief Justice McClelland and Mr Savundra, together with the rest of the NACC personnel, to continue to build community trust and confidence in this important institution.
On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report, Report 519: Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Very, very quickly, before we run out of time, the NDIS is one of Australia's most significant public policy reforms, but the committee did, with the assistance of the Auditor-General's office, see some areas for improvement in governance not only in the NDIA but also in the safety commission as well. The committee made a series of recommendations, and, in the interest of time, I will just say thank you to the secretariat for all of their hard work; to the Deputy Chair; of course, to my friend the member for Dickson, who made some outstanding recommendations that were adopted by the committee; and to all committee members. We want the NDIS to be working and to be sustainable, but we want to make sure that the providers are held to a high standard and that the participants have the care that they need to excel in their lives. There are areas for improvement, especially around the way in which the commission is functioning, that will make a huge difference. I commend the report to the House, and I thank all members for it. In the interest of time, I'll leave my remarks there. I ask leave of the House to present executive minutes on reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
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.
I make this statement on behalf of the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, to continue her work. She has been a tireless advocate for equitable access to health care, regardless of where Australians live. Regional communities face critical shortages of GPs, specialists and allied-health professionals. Families are travelling hundreds of kilometres for essential treatment, facing long waiting lists and paying significant out-of-pocket costs. The member for Indi previously called our attention to the $9.23 billion annual health spending gap between metropolitan and regional and rural Australia. Where you live should not determine the quality of health care you receive, but there's no single fix. We need a coordinated approach that improves access and affordability, and injecting more spending in health is where it starts. The member for Indi has proposed a $2 billion building regional and rural hospital fund, a fully costed plan to help regional hospitals replace ageing infrastructure and plan for the future. In the member for Indi's words, regional Australians aren't asking for special treatment, just the same access to health care as everyone else. Today we stand together to carry that work forward. On behalf of the community of Warringah, I would like to join my community to the community of Indi in putting this request to the government.
I rise today to recognise the talented students from my electorate of Isaacs, whose artwork was shared with me by the Australian Conservation Foundation as part of the Wild At Art threatened species competition. I am really impressed by their creativity and their passion about the need to protect Australia's unique wildlife. Their paintings and drawings are a wonderful reminder of the important role young people can play in these conservation efforts. Australia's environment, from our coastlines to waterways and bushland, need to be protected, and climate change is a major threat to our native species. The Australian government is committed to preventing further extinctions and recovering endangered wildlife. We've protected an extra 95 million hectares of land and ocean. More than half of Australia's ocean waters are now protected. To the students who entered the competition: your artwork shows that you care deeply about our wildlife and its future. I encourage you to turn that passion into action. There are many groups you can volunteer with who care about nature and work together to protect it. You could contact Junior Landcare with a parent or carer to ask about ways to get involved. Your family and friends will be proud to see you using your creativity to speak up for a cause that you believe in. I certainly am.
I rise today in support of Australia's veterans, returned servicemen and -women, and ex-service men and women. There are three issues I think that need to be discussed clearly. First was the debacle, which was the $5,000 allied health issue. I have no idea why that cap was there. It was a bad policy when it came in. It didn't last. It was put aside. It should never have happened. The second thing is what on earth is going on with Victoria Barracks? How can you come into one of the icons of Australia and—I don't know what you intend to do with it—turn it into a theme park? Do we realise how pertinent that is to the defence of our nation and to the iconography of Sydney that it sees its attachments to the Defence Force? It's somewhere I believe even my grandfather, who was in artillery and came over here from New Zealand, spent some time with as a servicemen. It means so much to Australia. It's an absurdity.
The final thing is the so-called Frontier Wars, the wars of Australians against Australians. This should not be in the Australian War Memorial. This is an outrage. The Australian War Memorial is for Australians who served overseas and domestically in protection of Australia, not in some sort of domestic issue. No-one in an Australian uniform was ever directed by an Australian officer to serve in that conflict. Just don't do this to us.
Pusillanimous is a word that is not easy to say, let alone spell. But not for 13-year-old Charlotte Edwards from Braddon—in fact, from my home town—who entered the Prime Minister's Spelling Bee competition and went on to win the years 7 and 8 spelling category. She's the first ever national winner from Tasmania. Charlotte travelled to Canberra with her mum, Anna; her dad, Shaun; and little sister Lexie on Monday this week. The competition is in its sixth year, and it received a record 90,000 entries. This year, for the first time, the wins in all three categories were taken out by girls.
Charlotte attends Leighland Christian School in Ulverstone, where I'm sure they're all bragging about having the first ever national winner of the competition as a student of their lovely school. Charlotte brought along her dictionary, which she asked the Prime Minister to sign. I was there while he signed it, and she said to me:
It was very exciting but I was nervous because he is the Prime Minister of the entire country.
So I want to thank our prime minister for taking that time to sign Charlotte's dictionary, because I know it meant a lot to her. Charlotte said that, when she told her friends that she was coming to parliament, they were all pretty proud of her for getting so far in the competition. We are also very proud of you, Charlotte. Well done to you and good luck for your schooling future.
I want to recognise and thank the inaugural members of the Bradfield Youth Forum, a group that I established because a young constituent wrote to me, twice in fact, asking how young people in our community could share their perspectives and contribute meaningfully to local and national conversations. My sincere thanks goes to the 13 students who have given their time, their energy and their ideas and to their schools, Roseville College, St Ives High School, Glenaeon Rudolf Steiner School, Turramurra High School, Northern Beaches Secondary College, Knox Grammar School and Abbotsleigh.
This group has met several times, and they've chosen three priorities: the financial pressures on young people, particularly housing and HECS; transparency in government spending; and education funding and equity. But they weren't content just to identify problems. They researched and tested their ideas, and their final proposal is what I've called the 'Bradfield budget challenge', a competition that invites local students to imagine themselves as the Treasurer and build their own federal budget. The Bradfield budget challenge will allow young people to understand where public money goes and make the case for change. These inspirational young people may not be able to vote yet, but they have all the knowledge and the skills and the grit, frankly, that they absolutely need to make sure that they have a say in the decisions that they make here. On behalf of Bradfield, I'd like to congratulate them.
Tomorrow, 30 October, is World Teacher's Day here in Australia, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the incredible teachers and educators across my electorate of Banks, and indeed all across our great country, for the incredible work that they do. It's the early childhood teachers and educators, including more than 700 in my electorate of Banks, who are benefiting from this government's decision to fund a historic pay rise, meaning their skills and work are reflected not just in rhetoric but in their pay packets as well. It's the teachers in primary and secondary schools who are getting the resources they need as a result of this government's decision to put every single public school on the path to full funding. And it's the vocational education teachers at our TAFEs, whose students are able to get qualified without the burden of student debt as a result of fee-free TAFE. I say to all of the teachers across my electorate of Banks and all across this country: you do incredible work and at times very difficult and challenging work educating our next generation. We sincerely, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you for it.
Imagine a clean energy system so small it fits in the back of a ute but powerful enough to run nearly a thousand homes continuously for a whole five years without using a drop of water. That is the modern nuclear microreactor. An Australian team has actually built one in America in just over 155 days, proving how fast and safe and easy it is to move this technology and what it's become.
Our world and technology are changing rapidly. AI is booming and massive computer data centres need more power non-stop, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. While solar panels and wind turbines produce so-called green energy, computers, hospitals and factories cannot simply stop working when the sun sets or the wind drops. Around the world, companies already use these mini-nuclear generators to power data centres, remote mines and towns cheaply without polluting the air. Yet right here in Australia, old federal laws made decades ago keep this clean energy technology banned in Australia. It is time to update our laws by lifting the nuclear moratorium. We can power our digital future, lower our electricity bills, protect our environment and let Australian innovators build a cleaner, stronger energy system right here in Australia.
A fortnight ago I attended Brain Tumour Alliance Australia's Head to the Hill event here at Parliament House. It was a deeply moving reminder of the devastating impact this disease has on Australian families. I want to share the words of Jessica, from Greenslopes in my community, whose eight-year-old son Max underwent brain surgery recently:
A few months ago, Max was an ordinary eight-year-old boy, playing cricket and soccer, building in Minecraft and laughing with his friends at school.
Then an MRI we thought was checking for concussion revealed something no parent ever expects to hear; our son had a brain tumour.
Within weeks, Max underwent almost nine hours of brain surgery.
It saved his life, but his life is changed forever.
We are incredibly grateful that Max survived, but not every family gets that outcome.
Brain cancer has a five-year survival rate of only around 23 percent and remains the leading cause of cancer death in Australian children and adults under 40.
Australia has world-class doctors, scientists and researchers.
What we need is the investment to give them a better chance of changing these numbers.
I thank Jessica for sharing Max's story and also thank Pam Hubner for her tireless advocacy in memory of her daughter Angie.
The Albanese government has invested close to $20 million through the Medical Research Future Fund in childhood brain cancer research, supporting new treatments and a national clinical trial. We've also made a further $8.4 million available for brain cancer research and new therapies. We must continue investing in our research as there's more work to do to give people who have brain cancer more hope.
Yesterday the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box and tried to blame Australia's inflation crisis on a war overseas. But yesterday the Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, told Australians something very different:
Importantly though, it is not just these global pressures that are driving inflation in Australia.
She warned of persistent domestic inflationary pressures, weak productivity and demand exceeding our economy's capacity to supply—and she confirmed that government spending contributes to that demand. Yet the Treasurer wants Australians to believe this crisis is everyone else's fault but his own.
Inflation has risen to 4.3 per cent. The Foodbank hunger report tells us that one in three Australian households is experiencing food insecurity. Families are going hungry while this Treasurer plays politics with the truth. If Jim Chalmers cannot be honest with himself about—
Member for Lyne!
If the Treasurer cannot be honest with himself about the causes of inflation, how can he be honest with the Australian people? Australians are paying the price at the supermarket checkout, in their mortgage repayments and in the meals they can no longer afford. Australians deserve a Treasurer who takes responsibility, not one who twists the warnings of the Reserve Bank to suit his political narrative. Stop the excuses. Stop the blame-shifting. Take responsibility, because Australians cannot afford another four years of Labor's economic failures.
Today I rise to acknowledge Mr Mark Bonnici, who will retire as principal of St Edward's College in East Gosford at the end of the school year. Mr Bonnici has led St Edward's for almost a decade, but his service to the college began long before that. As a PE teacher, he taught young men about their physical health and mental health, and the importance of looking after both. As a doctor, I can tell the House that so much of a person's health is shaped long before they ever sit in a GP's surgery, and teachers like Mr Bonnici play a big part in that.
As a principal, Mr Bonnici placed social justice at the heart of the college. Under his leadership, St Edward's has stepped up its fundraising for disadvantaged communities in Kenya and its support for local organisations helping people doing it tough on the Central Coast. Leading a school is not just about the students in front of you; it is about an entire community of young people, their families and their staff who serve them. Over his career, Mr Bonnici has shaped the lives of thousands of young men, giving them quality education and a commitment to justice, to peace and to standing up for those who are less fortunate. Mr Bonnici, on behalf of the people of the Central Coast, thank you for your dedication, your leadership and indeed your service, and I wish you a long, happy and a well-earned retirement.
If excuses paid the mortgage, this treasurer would have every home in Australia paid for by Christmas, but, unfortunately, the bank only takes money. The PM has reportedly told Australians 'we've dealt with inflation'. He should try that line on a family working out which bill has to wait until the next pay day. Australians are expected to live within their means—if they overspend, they have to cut back—but this government overspends and comes looking for somebody new to tax, and God help you if you've worked hard and actually got ahead. Labor sees that as an invitation to help itself by picking your pockets.
The Treasurer can give all the speeches he likes. Nothing he says makes the groceries cheaper or takes a dollar off the mortgage. I want Australians to be able to build a decent life without being punished for having a go. That means cutting government waste and letting people keep more of what they earn. The coalition will axe Labor's toxic taxes, and we've put $31 billion in budget savings on the table, including cuts to corporate welfare and Labor's net zero obsession. That's how you fund better tax relief. We'll get businesses investing and hiring with lower taxes and cheaper power and get more homes built. We'll make sure you grow the pie instead of taxing the existing pie out of existence. The Treasurer can blame everyone he likes, but it's his name that is on the budget. This is his mess, and he doesn't have a plan to fix it.
This month marks the 25th anniversary of Australia's deployment to Afghanistan. Between 2001 and 2021, more than 46,000 Australians served in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East. Australian forces served not only in Operation Slipper in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014 but also in Operation Highroad in Afghanistan between 2015 and 2021, in Operation Falconer in Iraq in 2003, in Operation Catalyst in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 and in operations Kruger and Riverbank between 2009 and 2013. More than 40 Australians made the ultimate sacrifice, with many more sustaining serious wounds in conflict.
I recently had the solemn privilege of laying a wreath at the Engadine RSL sub-Branch's Afghanistan, Iraq and Middle East area of operations commemorative service to honour their service. The evening honoured those brave Australians who gave their lives in these conflicts and commemorated the more than 46,000 Australians who served during these operations, as well as acknowledging the sacrifices made by their families.
This year's theme was ' Twenty-five years of service. Twenty-five years of sacrifice. Twenty-five years of coming home.' It reflected not only the contribution of Australian soldiers overseas but also the enduring legacy, as well as physical and psychological scars of service, carried home by veterans and their families. They have sometimes struggled to adjust to civilian life, and it is my hope that our government can continue to work with networks such as the Engadine RSL sub-Branch to provide our veterans with the assistance and support they deserve. I want to recognise Brad Copelin, RSL subbranch president, and the team at the subbranch for the important and solemn service. I hope that this parliament can take the time to commemorate the contributions that Australians have made in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East area of operations. Lest we forget.
This month I heard from a 66-year-old widow I'll call Margie, who lives in Eumungerie in the electorate of Parkes. Margie lost her husband 16 years ago and is on a pension. When this couple were married in 1979, they took out private health insurance to prepare them for this day, nearly 50 years later, when one or both of them might need assistance. Now, Margie finds that, after decades of paying the ever-increasing cost of private health insurance, this Albanese Labor government have seen fit to cut the private health rebate for those over the age of 65. It's yet another kick at those who can least afford it, in this case a widower pensioner who is 66 and lives in a small regional town in New South Wales. Margie is joined in her frustration by other people over the age of 65 in this country who pay private health insurance to take responsibility for their own costs. This is their reward. The cost of everything—and we mean everything: basic groceries, electricity, fuel—is going up and up and up with no end in sight. All we hear in this place are excuses. If only Margie and every other Australian over 65, along with every other Australian who needs to pay their bills, who needs to eat and have a roof over their head, could pay their bills with this government's excuses.
Founded in 1951 as a volunteer based organisation teaching English to postwar European migrants, AMES has helped generations of people build new lives in Australia. Over the decades, its work has grown to include vocational skills training, employment services and programs that help people find their feet in a new community. I was proud to attend their 75th anniversary celebrations at the Immigration Museum and reflect on the incredible contribution AMES has made to this country. As a former AMES volunteer, I have experienced personally the difference that it makes in giving people the skills, support and confidence they need to build a future here. I continue to see that work today as the federal member for Holt. Seventy-five years is an incredible milestone, and I want to thank every staffer and every volunteer and supporter who has contributed to this work. Your efforts have changed lives, strengthened families and helped build the diverse, vibrant communities we are so proud to call home. Congratulations, AMES Australia. I look forward to seeing what the next 75 years bring.
This Labor government don't get it, and they won't listen, so let me spell it out. Australian families are hurting, and they feel poorer because they are poorer. Families are drowning in rent and mortgage payments. Their budgets are tighter than ever. Food prices are up. Power prices are up. Petrol prices are up. That's the cost of this Albanese government. And what's Labor's answer? It's more taxes, more spending and more excuses, higher taxes on savings, higher taxes on businesses, higher taxes on housing and higher taxes on families. But do you know what Labor's biggest tax is? It's sneaky. It's silent. It requires no policy announcement, just more spending. Do you know what it is? It's Albanese's inflation. Albanese's inflation is a tax on families every single—
Member for Canning, you'll remove the use of the personal name.
The Prime Minister's inflation is a tax on families every single day—at the supermarket, at the petrol bowser, when the power bill arrives. When Australians ask why life is so expensive, what does Labor do? They blame everybody but themselves. Families are trimming their budgets, but Labor keeps spending and taxing families with inflation, stealing their purchasing power and taking more tax through bracket creep. Families are making changes; it's time the Albanese government did the same. It's time for restraint. It's time for responsibility because families can't afford the price of Labor anymore.
I've been saying for years that the Hunter has the best wine in Australia; the best food, with so many hatted restaurants; the best people; and some of the most beautiful countryside you'll ever see. Well, guess what? We've now officially got some of the best places to stay as well. I want to give a massive shout out to the team at Hunter Holidays, who've just taken out the Property Management Company of the Year, Emerging at the 2026 Australia and New Zealand Short Term Rental Association Awards. That's right—a little business from the Hunter Valley has taken on the rest of Australia and come out on top. Here's the impressive part: they've done it in just 16 months.
Starting from scratch, Georgia and her team have built a business that's all about looking after property owners, making visitors feel welcome and delivering good old-fashioned customer service. They haven't done it alone either. Behind every great holiday property are cleaners, tradies, maintenance crews and local businesses that have helped keep everything running. They're the backbone of the tourism industry.
The Hunter Valley is already Australia's best wine region, and awards like this show we've got the hospitality to match it. It's local businesses, like Hunter Holidays, that bring visitors to our region, support local jobs and keep our economy ticking. Congratulations to Georgia and the entire Hunter Holidays team. You've done us all proud. Keep up the good work. I look forward to having a wine with you soon. Cheers!
I've got a confession to make to the House. I enjoy watching reruns of Seinfeld, and I've got a hunch. I've got a hunch that the Prime Minister does too, but there's a very different reason, because I watched Seinfeld for a few of the laughs, but I think the Prime Minister is watching Seinfeld for some political advice, because Seinfeld character George Costanza has a famous line: remember, it's not a lie if you believe it. This prime minister is loose with the truth. He's a bit deceptive. He casually misleads parliament and then refuses to say sorry when he gets caught.
Before the election, the Prime Minister ruled out changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing 50 times. He promised a $275 reduction in power bills 97 times. When the Prime Minister was caught out failing to declare an honorary membership of the Marrickville Golf Club, the same golf club that just happened to get a $6 million grant under a dodgy invitation-only grants program, the Prime Minister channelled his inner George Costanza—'Remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.' So he said the grant was for sewerage works, even though department officials confirmed that simply wasn't true. This is a Prime Minister who constantly gets caught out fudging the facts. Does anyone believe the story about the $5 honorary membership? The Prime Minister says he handed that back. But he kept the honorary membership to the Royal Sydney Golf Club worth $30,000. Well played, George, well played!
Somewhere in Australia right now there's a young retail worker. Let's call her 'Amanda'. She has a casual contract and a set rostered shift, but her manager has directed her to stay back after hours to continue stocking the shelves. She isn't sure she's going to get paid for it because she wasn't paid for the same last week. It's been a too-common story—until now. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association have shown us why workers need to unionise. The SDA have carried Amanda's story and 32,000 others like hers into the Federal Court against corporate giant ALDI, where a worker on their own would struggle—and they won. The Federal Court has approved a settlement of $55.2 million after years of failure by ALDI to pay for work done before and after shifts.
If you are working, you should be paid. The SDA's work continues, fighting for superannuation for workers under 18, fighting for worker protections from AI, fighting for a share for workers in productivity gains, fighting for better leave and fighting for stronger action against abuse and violence in retail. I join them in that fight. Together, through the Fair Work changes, we have strengthened workers' rights. People like Amanda deserve to be paid for the work that they do. Just as Labor fights in this place, the SDA are fighting across Australia. (Time expired)
On Remembrance Day, our nation will pause to honour all Australians who have served, suffered and sacrificed in wars and military operations for our nation. Remembrance Day is one of the most sacred on our national calendar. Yet, this Remembrance Day, protests have been planned by students and teachers across Australia. Freedom of speech and freedom of protest are core tenets of our democracy, but shame on those who abuse those freedoms and choose Remembrance Day, of all days, to protest. What disrespect to the fallen, what disrespect to veterans and their families and what ingratitude and historical ignorance it is choosing Remembrance Day, of all days. It's utterly disgraceful.
Let's not forget how these protests can quickly morph into violent unrest as extremists seize on the opportunity. We've seen that elsewhere. Don't think Australia is immune. We must protect our way of life. Remembrance Day must not be hijacked. I'm calling on the Prime Minister to join me in condemning these protests. Let's proudly protect and commemorate this most solemn day for our nation.
We on this side of the House know that the housing system has been broken for too long and we're focused on building more homes, including for essential workers and the vulnerable in our communities, and making it easier for first home buyers to get into the market. We're focused on solutions.
Those opposite have been out this week crowing about what they'll cut if they ever get back into government, and one of the things they've said they'll cut is the Housing Australia Future Fund, a fund that is building more than 55,000 social and affordable homes. That's homes for essential workers, like teachers and nurses, for women and children fleeing family violence and for our veterans. Those opposite built just 373 social homes in their nine years in government. That's a dismal record. We've already built more than 8,000 homes, with 22,000 more in planning and construction right across the country, and we've just approved another 5,600 homes. Those opposite have said that they'll cut the five per cent deposit scheme, a scheme that has helped more than 100,000 first home buyers get into a home of their own. Those opposite have said that they'll repeal reforms to the tax system and give property investors advantages first home buyers don't have. We're making things easier for first home buyers, not harder, while directing capital towards building more homes. Those opposite would seek to end the real progress we're making. They're against building more social and affordable homes, and they're against reform that will help Australians realise the dream of homeownership. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I agree with both the Minister for Education—who spoke this morning—along with the Leader of the Opposition that 11 November is a sacred day in our calendar; 11 November is not a day for protests. It is a day in which we give our thanks to all those men and women who have worn our uniform in pride, whether they be past veterans or indeed current. Last night, it was my great honour to join many people, including the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and other members including those who have served, at the Prime Minister's National Veteran Employment Awards. It was a great night at the wonderful War Memorial. It was the sort of occasion where our nation comes together in unity and cohesion.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed sewerage works were originally part of his $6 million invite-only taxpayer funded grant to the Marrickville Golf Club. Can the Prime Minister explain with a straight face—
Order! The member for Perth will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
Interjecting, no matter where you sit or who you are, is unacceptable. Whoever's laughing as well—the member for Reid is warned. We're not having the first question with interruptions. The member for Cook deserves respect, as every member does in this chamber. I'll ask him to begin his question again, and I would like it heard in silence.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed the sewerage works were originally part of the $6 million invite-only taxpayer funded grant to Marrickville Golf Club. Can the Prime Minister explain with a straight face why there's no mention of the sewerage works in the Prime Minister's own announcement of March 2025, no mention in the Inner West Council documents, no mention of sewerage works on the GrantConnect website, no mention of sewerage works on the golf club's website and no mention of sewerage works in the infrastructure department's decision brief?
On 27 April 2025, we made an election commitment to building and securing the Marrickville Golf Club precinct that went to a range of activities, including:
Today's election commitment will go towards delivering an upgrade of the entire precinct that everyone can share in and ensure this Inner West institution can be enjoyed for decades to come.
It included, as well, stormwater being harvested, the irrigating of the golf course, the upgrade of better indoor amenities with clubhouse renovations and the provision of community meeting and function rooms and went into boosting the health of the nearby Cooks River, and that was a part of the—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The members on my left will cease interjecting.
The mayor of the Inner West Council confirmed that that was a part of the project when he gave evidence before the Senate committee last week. This is a grant to the Inner West Council, an election commitment, just like the member for Cook's four election commitments during the campaign. During election campaigns—
I wish I got the funding you got.
Order! The member for Cook asked his question and was shown respect. I'm asking him to show the same respect to the Prime Minister.
If only the former member for Cook was in a position! Can I make this point: during election campaigns, people make election commitments. We made an election commitment. We will deliver on the election commitment. And after we made that commitment the state government, because it was well known that this had been an issue for a long period of time, stepped in, in September 2025, and made the commitment.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how does the proposed free trade agreement with the European Union benefit Australia's economic and security interests? And what support has this agreement received?
I thank the fantastic member for Bullwinkel for her question. This deal delivers real economic benefits for Australia: $10 billion in economic growth; 98 per cent tariff-free trade with the second largest economy in the world market, with 450 million people; investment in dynamic future industries, like critical minerals; and building on our record of growing agricultural exports. This is about more Australian jobs and lower prices for Australian consumers. Without this deal, other nations that have trade agreements with Europe will benefit instead of Australia.
I'm asked what support there has been for the Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement. Well, for one, Mathias Cormann, the OECD Secretary-General, said:
I would vote in favour. It is a very good deal for Australia …
… by any measure it would put Australia in a better position in a market of 450 million people.
… If we don't sign, we face another 10 years of the same poor access, while New Zealand, Canada … get further and deeper into that market ahead of us.
Simon Birmingham, chief executive of the ABA and former trade minister, said:
… in total, there is good to be had by getting an agreement like this in force and giving Australia that extra diversification, those extra trade markets …
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: 'Business is backing the Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement. Eight years in the making, it is time for parliament to get this deal done. Business wants this deal done. If we lose this opportunity we won't get it back.' And the Business Council of Australia:
The Business Council reaffirms its support for the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement …
This agreement is the result of years of complex negotiations … on balance we consider the overall economic benefits of the agreement better than the status quo, and that it should be ratified and implemented.
The Minerals Council:
Parliament's support for the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement (A-EU FTA) would send a clear message that Australia wants to supply more minerals—especially critical minerals—at more competitive prices to growth markets in Europe.
AUSVEG, the peak body for 3,600 farming groups: 'We want to see this FTA enacted because it has the potential to bring tens of millions of dollars in benefits.' The Australian Automotive Dealer Association:
We urge the Parliament to support the agreement and provide greater certainty for businesses to continue investing in these relationships into the future.
This is in Australia's national interest. It should be agreed, and everyone in this parliament should back it.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has claimed that the sewerage works was originally part of the Prime Minister's invite-only, taxpayer funded $6 million grant for the Marrickville Golf Club. Why won't the Prime Minister provide a single document confirming that the money was to pay for the sewerage works?
I thank the member for the question. However, the premise of the question is wrong. This wasn't about invite-only. This is an election commitment, just like the 1,000 election commitments made by those opposite, worth a total of $1.644 billion.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! When the House comes to order—
The minister for infrastructure! When I'm bringing the House to order, that is not the time to interject.
My question is to the Minister for Resources. How is the Albanese Labor government securing more Australian gas for households and businesses while supporting more manufacturing jobs, putting downward pressure on energy prices and boosting our economy?
I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. She is a great supporter of the mining and resources industry in her home town of Bendigo and across her whole electorate, which is vast. Today is a very significant day for Australia's energy security. Today, the first Australian national gas reservation scheme passed through this chamber. This is a landmark reform of this Albanese Labor government. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of securing more Australian gas for Australian households, businesses and manufacturers. Australia has abundant gas resources and Australians should benefit from them. Australian households and industry should have access to the gas they need at affordable prices. That means reliable and plentiful energy for households, certainty for manufacturers and industry, and support for Australian jobs and investment. At its heart, this national gas reservation scheme is about making sure Australian gas delivers for Australians.
There are some steps remaining in delivering this scheme. When it goes to the other place, every single senator in that place will have the opportunity to support our landmark legislation establishing a long-term and enduring domestic gas reservation scheme, under which LNG exporters will be required to make a genuine contribution to the Australian market through a domestic supply obligation. It will be linked to their export volumes. The obligation will be flexible, with the Australian Energy Regulator able to calibrate the obligation to reflect the domestic demand, supply and market conditions. More gas available to Australian customers means a better supplied domestic market and downward pressure on prices.
I want to thank all the MPs in this chamber for their constructive engagement on this important reform. The problem of gas supply in this country has been recognised for some time and it has taken some time for a government to step up and take up the responsibility to fix it. And that is what this government is doing. This is a Labor government that gets things done. This is a Labor government that delivers and delivers for the Australian people. For years and years, across multiple governments and many parliaments, a national gas reservation scheme has been too hard—a bridge too far. But we have taken up the challenge. We have done the hard work and produced a gas reservation scheme that will deliver Australian gas for Australian people.
Before I call the member for Kooyong, I will welcome some guests. We have a group of representatives from the Riverina Eastern Regional Organisation of Councils, led by the Mayor of Temora, Rick Firman OAM, as guests of the member for Riverina. We've got students from Jerrabomberra High School as guests of the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories and member for Eden-Monaro. I'd also like to acknowledge guests of the member for Macarthur—some of the Queen's Scouts who attended the 3rd Summer Hill Scout Group alongside the member for Macarthur—and also, as guests of the Attorney-General, representatives from Knowmore legal service, a national organisation providing free, confidential and trauma informed legal and support services to survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Welcome to question time.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia is the largest seaborne importer of diesel in the world. Many of our data centres are powered by backup diesel generation. That adds more sovereign risk and cost to a vulnerable supply chain. Most communities want any new data centres to be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy. Will the government legislate to ensure that new data centres are not permitted to use expensive, polluting backup diesel generators?
I thank the member for her question. The minister will supplement the answer. We are very determined to develop AI standards which are for Australia and which are world's best practice. That includes making sure that we deal with issues such as energy, water and location to make sure that it truly serves Australia's national interest. AI can drive our productivity and can make an enormous difference for Australia given the comparative advantage that we have in this country. One of the issues we have to deal with—and it's being dealt with as well by the committee that's dealing with it across the parliament—is the issue of energy, and I'd ask the minister to supplement.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, we are absolutely determined to make sure that the very significant pipeline of data centre investment in Australia is in the best interests of Australians, and that means ensuring that these data centres bring their own new energy. That energy should be the cheapest form of energy, which we all agree with and which is a good thing, and I'm sure honourable members will therefore agree with the approach of the government. The approach of the government, agreed through the energy ministers council, is to send a rule change to the Australian Energy Market Commission, which has gone. If it's approved by the Australian Energy Market Commission, it will require new data centres to bring their own new energy with a particular focus on renewable energy, with, as I'm sure honourable members would agree, gas as an appropriate peaking and firming facility. It's a sensible approach.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.
I apologise; I've triggered them. That's my fault, Mr Speaker. We will continue to work through the consultation paper that the Prime Minister has released on AI standards. He's very clear about our approach, as is the rule change and as is the legislation that the government has made clear we are developing, which will make its way through the House in due course.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Innovation. How will the Albanese Labor government's landmark national gas reservation scheme power Australian jobs, manufacturing and long-term economic security and resilience?
The Australian Labor government is committed to rebuilding our industrial base. We want to be a country that makes things. Anyone who lived through COVID or is looking at the disruptions caused by the Iran conflict can see that we need more resilience and more sovereignty through making more things here. Aussies don't want our nation to just be a farm and quarry, and our landmark gas reservation scheme will help achieve this goal. Requiring gas exporters to reserve up to 20 per cent of their exports will ensure that our domestic gas market is always modestly oversupplied. This will secure the gas we need, pushing down prices for households and industry and delivering real change for Australians. Today is an historic day with the passage of this legislation through the House.
This is Australian gas and it should be available to Aussies first, whether it's Australian households or Australian industry—Australian resources working for Australians. Australia has always been a country that makes things. For generations, workers in our factories, smelters, refineries and workshops helped build this country, and the government is committed to rebuilding our industrial base. We know that countries that make things are stronger. Australia has the workers, resources, energy and ideas to build new industries here, and we have a plan that is delivering. Our Future Made in Australia policies are delivering real results. Led by this prime minister, we're fighting every day for Aussie jobs and Aussie industry, and all of this supports well-paid, secure jobs, especially in regional communities.
The gas reservation scheme is an important next step in our plans, delivering a reliable supply of affordable gas, driving new manufacturing investment and protecting existing capability while giving certainty to LNG exporters. This is Australian resources powering Aussie jobs and driving Aussie manufacturing and Australia's long-term security and resilience. Australian industry needs a reliable supply of gas and greater certainty of the future, and this legislation will secure the gas we need.
We're working constructively across the parliament to get this legislation passed, but this legislation is a test for the parliament. A vote against gas reservation is a vote for higher gas prices and fewer manufacturing jobs. If you're pro manufacturing, you need to be pro gas reservation. If you're pro jobs, you need to be pro gas reservation. A vote against gas reservation is a vote against jobs and a vote against Aussie manufacturing. It's time for all senators to decide which side they're on.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised he wouldn't change CGT or negative gearing before the election. Then he did. He promised a $275 cut to power bills, which he never delivered. He said he didn't mock the Japanese prime minister, when he did. He said he didn't fall off a stage, when he did. He said his $6 million grant to the Marrickville Golf Club was to fix sewage flows, when it wasn't. He said the relevant program wasn't invitation only, when it was. Why does this Prime Minister have such a difficult relationship with the truth?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I too saw pages 6 and 7 of the Daily Telegraph today.
I saw you fall off the stage!
Might I say this—during the election campaign they ran ads on that, and how did that work out for them? What we are focused on is the issues of concern for Australians. Frankly, on the day after we had yesterday's inflation figures, where the government is dealing with an economic response to that, it is astonishing that they continue to get their advice from their friends who used to have a role in this place and don't anymore but have slots on media. What we do is focus on the big issues facing Australians. How do we, at a time of global inflationary pressures, get inflation down? How do we, at a time of fuel insecurity, secure fuel for Australians? How do we, at a time of cost-of-living pressures—
The member for Goldstein is warned.
give support to people in ways which don't put pressure on inflation but which deal with short-term issues and providing short-term relief while building longer-term support? That's why we do things that are serious, such as free TAFE, which lowers the costs of people undertaking TAFE but builds our skill base. That's why we tripled the bulk-billing incentive, so that more people can see a doctor for free whilst building Medicare for the future. That's why we're building agreements, such as the EU free trade agreement, which are not only important for our jobs and our economy but also about building a national security, because what that does, that diversification of trade, is it builds the diversification of those relationships and makes us less reliant at the end of supply chains.
This is a government that is serious about meeting the challenges which modern Australia is facing and doing it in a way that protects, as best as possible, the people that we are elected to serve. We take these issues very seriously, just as we take seriously issues of protecting children through the digital duty of care. This is a government that is focused on the needs of Australians. Those opposite are just focused on themselves.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the guidelines for the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program showing this was an invitation-only program to correct the record, because the Prime Minister just misled the House.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Treasurer. Why is tax reform and responsible economic management so important at a time of global economic uncertainty?
I thank the member for Melbourne for her question and for the really important role that she plays on our team on this side of the House. This morning, and through the course of the day, two very important tax reform bills passed the parliament. Both of those bills were about funding income tax cuts for workers. They were about making the housing system fairer for first home buyers. They were also about incentivising more investment and more innovation in our tax reform package.
These ambitious tax reforms from the budget are a really important way that we are making the tax system stronger and fairer, making the budget stronger and fairer and incentivising investment, particularly when it comes to start-ups and innovation. All of this work that we are doing has been the subject and the outcome of some very substantial consultation. I thank people who were engaged in that. In many instances, the reforms that we put to the parliament today came from decades and decades of recommendations of different reviews and reports.
At a time when the global environment is particularly uncertain and volatile and when the pressures on people and the budget—generational pressures and global pressures—are intense, our economic plan and our reform agenda is more important than ever across all five areas. There's our energy security and energy transformation agenda. Gas reservation more important than ever in the context of higher prices and stretched supply chains. There's our cost-of-living agenda via the tax system, income tax cuts and the health system. That's more important than ever in the face of persistent price pressures. There's our productivity agenda and our trade agenda—absolutely central to raising living standards over time. Our budget repair agenda is finding $180 billion in savings, including a record $63 billion in the last budget. It's more important than ever in the context of intensifying budget pressures. There's the tax reform agenda as well, which, as I said, is cutting taxes for workers, making the tax system fairer and making the housing market fairer for first home buyers at the same time as we better align the tax treatment of income from working and income from assets.
We know that tax reform in this country can be difficult. We know that economic reform in this country can be difficult. If it weren't, those opposite would have done some in their nine years in office. But they didn't do any economic reform or any tax reform. They didn't lift a finger to make the housing market better for first home buyers. We've taken on some difficult reforms in this legislation that passed the House today, not because it was easy but because it was the right thing to do in the context of an uncertain global environment. The intergenerational pressures are piling up. The budget pressures are intensifying. That's why our responsible economic management and our tax reform is so important.
Order! The members for Goldstein, Forrest and Herbert are on warnings, as I indicated to the House. The member for Forrest ignored that warning and interjected right throughout that answer. So he'll now leave as a consequence of his actions.
The member for Forrest then left the chamber .
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasury has confirmed your government has spent over $100 billion more than it has saved, fuelling inflation and driving up interest rates. Next week, after the Prime Minister has jetted off to the Caribbean, the RBA is expected to raise interest rates for the 17th time under Labor to the highest levels since 2008. Will the Treasurer finally take responsibility and admit his out-of-control spending is forcing Australian families to pay more for everything?
Time! Time!
Order! Member for Isaacs and Member for Calwell, do not interject when there are people on their feet asking questions. You're both warned. I'm well aware of the clock and the time. If any member wants to have that debate again about people going over time for questions or ministers going over, we can have that. But I'm trying to be fair to all sides of the House. So, if you wish to test me on that point, go right ahead. The Treasurer has the call.
You can tell from that question that nothing makes the shadow treasurer happier than the prospect of an interest rate rise. You can tell from his question that that is the case. When it comes to responsible economic management, I would stack up our record on managing the budget against their record any day. Their last budget didn't have any savings in it. We've had savings in all eight of our budgets and budget updates. We have had eight in a row—eight budgets and budget updates with every single one of them having a budget saving in it. Their last budget didn't have any savings in it. That's the first point.
The second point is that, in our last two budget updates, the net policy decisions have been positive rather than negative, not something that those opposite were able to manage—$180 billion in savings, including more than $60 billion in savings in our last budget, which is a record for the Commonwealth. That goes to our responsible approach to managing the budget. The reason that their argument about spending and inflation, like the Liberal Party itself, is falling down all around them is that, even after the half-baked so-called announcements of savings that they made on Monday, they still have $110 billion of unfunded commitments just since the election. So, by their own logic, the policies that they have announced would mean $110 billion in bigger deficits and, by their logic, higher inflation and higher interest rates.
On the number that the shadow treasurer refers to, the reason they sometimes use these numbers is that they are implying that some of the spending in the budget, which is the indexation of the age pension and other pensions—that somehow they wouldn't see the indexation of the pension. So let every pensioner in this country know that when they try to make up the difference, the $110 billion that they have committed to, they don't support the indexation of pensions and payments in the budget. They've got a $110 billion hole in their budget. They cannot fill it without going after Medicare again or without going after pensions and payments again, because that's how they roll. If their argument is that bigger deficits mean higher inflation, then they have to explain why they've got $110 billion extra bigger deficits in their proposals that they put before the Australian people.
The member for Maranoa is warned.
We've got a record of managing the budget responsibly, and they don't.
Order! There was far too much noise during that answer. If that persists, no-one will be warned; they'll just be asked to leave.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How is the work of the Australian Federal Police helping to keep Australians safe, and how is this work being recognised?
I thank the member for Reid in raising issues that were honoured last night when the Police Federation of Australia held this year's National Police Bravery Awards, where we acknowledge the work not only of the Australian Federal Police but of all those who form the police services and police forces around the states and territories. In referring to police bravery, I specifically acknowledge the members of this House who have worn the uniform: the members for Richmond, Tangney, Wide Bay, Cowper, Hinkler and La Trobe.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The National Police Bravery Award is an award by police for police. Last night, there were two different groups—one individual and one group of officers—who were honoured. The group that was honoured, who were represented last night by Andy Williams from the Queensland police force, were those officers who responded to the Wieambilla shooting. In December 2022 four police officers arrived and, without warning, were shot at. While doing their jobs Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow were murdered. After the initial barrage of fire, Constable Keely Brough and Constable Randall Kirk found cover in nearby bushland at separate locations. With gunfire continuing, Randall Kirk found cover on the ground behind a tree, withdrew to his police vehicle, got the radio from the vehicle and called through essential intelligence to the rest of the force. That was notwithstanding the fact that he'd been shot in the hip as he ran.
Constable Kirk made radio contact with other police, providing the intelligence. Constable Keely Brough remained undiscovered by the offenders, hiding in the grass. The response from the offenders was to set fire to the bushland, hoping to bring her out. She called triple zero as she hid in the grass, at times whispering to the operator essential intelligence as the offenders searched close to her hiding place. That information made sure that, as other officers arrived and headed towards danger, as much intelligence as possible had been shared. In total, 54 police officers participated in that response, and we all honour them.
Last night we also honoured senior constable Bikash Bharati from Burwood Local Area Command in the electorate of Reid. On Sunday 5 October last year police were called to Georges River Road near the intersection of Brighton Street after reports of a shooting. One of the first officers on the scene was Senior Constable Bikash Bharati. He directed the junior probationary constable who was with him to take cover and then, having protected the junior, went out to danger himself, under fire, to assist a victim trapped in a vehicle. It was only when he was given orders to take cover that he did so himself. We have only been privileged to have Bikash Bharati here in Australia since he arrived in 2015 from Nepal, but we are very proud to have you as a fellow Australian.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Also joining us, representing all the commissioners, is the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Krissy Barrett. Commissioner, we thank you for your continued service to the Australian people, and through you we thank every single member of the blue family throughout Australia for the way they keep us safe every day.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
on indulgence—I want to join the minister in saying that it was my great honour to attend the Police Bravery Awards last night at the Hyatt Hotel with AFP commissioner Krissy Barrett and Police Federation of Australia head Scott Weber and to hear the remarkable stories.
Bikash is based in Burwood in the electorate of Reid, but he also serves part of my electorate of Grayndler. To Senior Constable Bikash Bharati and his wife, who I had the opportunity of meeting as well—we need to remember that the families of police officers, just like the families of our Australian Defence Force, do a remarkable job—that was a story I well remember. I was with the Premier of New South Wales when that occurred. The actions that Senior Constable Bharati took were brave and extraordinary. Last night his speech about coming here as a migrant from Nepal and making a contribution to Australia, his new home, was very moving indeed.
Similarly, Andy Williams spoke on behalf of the 54 Queensland police officers about the siege that took place at Wieambilla, and the loss of life due to murder of Constable Matthew Arnold and Constable Rachel McCrow. He acknowledged that even more loss of life and injuries would have occurred if not for the bravery of so many police officers who were there that day. I attended the funeral of Constable Arnold and Constable McCrow, or the memorial service that was held. There is nothing more moving than the service of a farewell by fellow officers, and it was such a sad, sad occasion but very moving as well.
Those who wear blue are put their lives on the line every day and take risks. Indeed, while I was there, there was an alert, a security issue, at The Lodge, and Australian Federal Police officers visited The Lodge. Once again, we know that the security situation is very serious, which is why I do say turn down the heat across a range of issues. Queensland Police officers did a remarkable job on that day. I pay tribute to all those who were recognised last night, and I pay tribute to every single police officer right around this country who serves in the interests of their fellow Australians.
on indulgence—I'd like to associate the coalition with the fine words of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs and pay tribute alongside them to those brave police officers who put themselves in harm's way and to all our police officers, preventing, detecting and responding to or investigating crime. We thank you for your service, your courage and your commitment to keeping Australians safe. Of course, in particular, I pay tribute to Constable Bharati for the work you did—absolutely astounding, as we just heard a moment ago. Thank you so much.
And thank you to the many individuals who are in this place who have served as police officers in the past—the members for Richmond, Tangney, Wide Bay, Cowper, Hinkler, La Trobe—and to the many past police officers who have been in this place. Of course, that includes the former leader of the opposition and the former member for Macarthur who I served with in this place when I first came in. They are extraordinary Australians who have played such an important role over such a long period of time. I have nothing but admiration for our police officers. I've spent many years, of course, living near Goulburn, which is a police town, as the member for Eden-Monaro knows only too well. New South Wales does all their training there, and I've got to know extraordinary Australians. Thank you for your service.
The Reserve Bank has said government spending is adding to the likelihood of further interest rate hikes. Betashares's chief economist David Bassanese has said every serious economist in the country would acknowledge that public spending has been contributing to inflation. The average new mortgage holder is already paying $30,000 more per year because of the 16 interest rate rises under your government. Why do Australians always pay the price because the Prime Minister can't ever admit he's made a mistake?
As I said yesterday, I think, in response to a similar question from another honourable member, the fact that public demand is part of aggregate demand has not been contested by any objective observer. It's not been contested by us, which is the point that economists have made. I've made that point throughout the course of the year, I think, on at least half a dozen different occasions. The issue with inflation in our economy right now is really a function of two things. First of all is the much quicker than anticipated recovery in the private sector. Secretary Wilkinson and Governor Bullock have both referenced that in the past. And secondly, obviously, is the escalation in fuel prices that came from the biggest oil shock in the history of the world.
I think it's a bit unusual. If we can acknowledge that we had an inflation challenge in our economy, which was made worse by the war in the Middle East. I find it bizarre, frankly, that those opposite won't acknowledge what was factually the biggest driver of yesterday's inflation figures, which was higher petrol prices. It's just a fact in the ABS data. It's this weird post truth stuff that they get engaged in where they see the same ABS data that we see, and the biggest driver of yesterday's inflation number, which was too high, was fuel. You can see it in the numbers that were released yesterday.
I was also asked about the comments from the Reserve Bank Governor. This is what the Reserve Bank Governor said yesterday:
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. Oil and related prices have increased sharply again and will add materially to inflation, both directly and indirectly, as businesses facing increasing pressures from higher transport and related costs attempt to pass them on.
That's what the governor of the Reserve Bank said yesterday.
Any objective observer of the economy and of budgets knows that budgets aren't the primary determinant of prices in our economy, but we can continue to play a helpful role, and we will continue to manage the budget in a responsible way. Every single one of our eight budgets and budget updates had savings in it, and our ninth will as well. The mid-year update that we will release in December will have savings in it, and that's because we acknowledge that the primary driver of higher inflation in yesterday's figures was a consequence of the war in the Middle East, which has been disastrous from a cost-of-living point of view, but we will continue to play a helpful role where we can.
The member for Maranoa is now warned.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax reform make the system fairer for workers and homebuyers?
I thank the member for Macarthur for his question. The member for Macarthur understands the importance of the government's tax reforms in helping working Australians and also in making our tax system fairer. The Albanese Labor government believes that Australians who work hard deserve to keep more of what they earn and also that young Australians deserve a fair chance to own their first home. Since the budget we have already legislated significant reforms. This includes providing 13.3 million Australian workers with a permanent $250 per year tax cut through the working Australian tax offset. When we combine this with our other tax cuts and the $1,000 instant tax deduction, an average Australian worker could be around $2,800 better off from 2028. Our reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax will help support 75,000 more Australians into the housing market as owner-occupiers. We have also made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. This is something that small businesses have been calling out for for years. These reforms are all about making our tax system fairer. That means rewarding hard work, supporting aspiration and ensuring everyone gets their fair share.
The government is now focused on delivering the next tranches of legislation to implement our ambitious tax reform package. We are introducing a minimum tax on discretionary trusts from 1 July 2028. This will improve the fairness, integrity and sustainability of the tax system, and importantly they will help fund the tax cuts for the workers that I outlined above—sustainable, affordable tax cuts. There are legitimate reasons to use trusts, and anyone operating through a discretionary trust can continue to do so. However, the current settings are becoming unsustainable, with the number of discretionary trusts more than doubling over the last 20 years to over 800,000. We know that 90 per cent of trust wealth is held by the wealthiest—
The minister will pause. When I put people on warnings, that means not interjecting, but people ignore that, so now I'm going to take action. The members for Goldstein, Herbert and Maranoa will leave the chamber.
The member for Goldstein, t he member for Herbert and the member for Maranoa then left the chamber.
When I say something on behalf of the chamber, I mean it. You may choose to ignore it, but all members should respect the standing orders. Unbelievable.
The vast majority of small businesses don't operate through a trust. Less than 10 per cent of small businesses will be affected in any given year. The introduction of a minimum tax on discretionary trusts will improve the fairness, the integrity and sustainability of the tax system by broadly aligning the tax on distributions with the tax an average worker pays.
We are also legislating to implement tax incentives that support innovation and investment. The package is about backing small businesses and start-ups, including in the biotechnology and medical technology sectors, supporting more research and innovation and ensuring a more sustainable tax system. Taken together with our previous changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, our reforms will make it easier for first home buyers to buy their first home. They will rebalance incentives towards investment, they will make the tax system fairer for workers, they will boost productivity, and they will support small business.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found the mutual obligations system for those on JobSeeker and other payments was operating unlawfully, with grave consequences. Tens of thousands of people had their payments wrongly cancelled, reduced or suspended. The government subsequently paused sections of the system, but some have restarted this week. So, Minister, what has been done to fix the system, and do you have confidence that it is now being run lawfully?
I'd like to thank the member for Clark for that question. I do appreciate his absolute longstanding interest in these issues and particularly issues that affect our most vulnerable Australians. The Albanese Labor government understands the importance of ensuring government systems operate effectively, particularly when interacting with vulnerable people. I, as minister, expect the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to take all necessary steps to ensure that the processes and systems it uses in administering the targeted compliance framework operate in accordance with the law. The department accepted all recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's recent report related to the targeted compliance framework and our government made $48.8 million available to strengthen the integrity of that system that administers the targeted compliance framework, including to address the recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The department has undertaken significant work to address findings from the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other issues that were identified as a result of legislation changes in early 2022 that facilitated the introduction of Workforce Australia by the former government. The significant work undertaken includes IT system improvements and intensive testing which will continue to ensure the system operates as intended. It has improved notifications for participants, improved provider guidance and introduced improved provider training. The development of clear and consistent complaints and review process information alongside Services Australia have also been introduced, along with greater mandatory annual training for all staff which covers decision-making under legislation, the exercise of discretion and good practices around making decisions that are valid and lawful.
The secretary has provided the government with assurances that decision-making under the elements of the targeted compliance framework that resumed this week are operating in accordance with the law. The secretary has informed me that IT systems will continue to be tested to ensure any payment cancellations and notifications are operating lawfully, and regular meetings will occur with Services Australia and the Department of Social Services to support ongoing assurance activities. The secretary has established a dedicated assurance function within the department to provide ongoing oversight of system integrity. I can assure the member that our government takes these issues very seriously. It is my expectation that this work will continue to be undertaken as a matter of priority to ensure that all systems are operating as intended.
My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to combat bullying in schools and online?
I thank my friend the superstar member for Sturt for her question. Every mum and dad I know is worried about their kids being bullied at school. It's not just in school and not just in the playground. They're worried about these sorts of things. They're worried about bullying happening online. That's one of the reasons why the digital duty-of-care legislation that passed through the House yesterday and is now in the Senate is so important.
I was told the story the other day of a girl in year 10 who was bullied so ferociously that she ended up in hospital. These are just some of the messages that were sent to her online that the whole world saw. 'Nobody likes you.' 'Everybody hates your guts.' 'You should kill yourself.' Now, to the credit of the school, to the credit of her principal, they lobbied Snapchat and Instagram for months to get these taken down but to no avail. One of the things that this bill that we've passed through the House—and it's now in the Senate—does is make it easier to get this sort of stuff down quicker.
But it's not just kids bullying other kids. Adam Raine used ChatGPT to help him with his homework. He started by asking it questions about geometry, and then he let it into his head. He told it how he was feeling, and it suggested to him that he might want to consider suicide. It even offered to write the note for him. Adam took his own life. One of the things that this bill does is stop chatbots like this from fostering this kind of emotional dependence with children, making the vulnerability and the loneliness that they're living with worse.
There are mums and dads out there now that are worried about their kids that are slipping away from them, and they don't know what to do, but they're looking to us. They're looking to us, and they're asking for our help. They want the bullying online to be taken down. They want the smut, like those nudify apps, gone. They want the algorithms out—out of their kids' heads and out of their lives. That's why I say that this is not about censorship. It's not about freedom of speech. It's about them. So I say to my colleagues and friends on the other side of the chamber: please think again about it. It's not too late to change your mind here and vote for this in the Senate.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Convicted terrorist and ISIS commander Isaac El Matari, a known associate of the alleged surviving Bondi terrorist, is set to walk free from jail this Sunday despite his history of plotting terror attacks on Australian soil. Why has the minister failed to seek a continuing detention order to keep this dangerous terrorist off our streets?
I thank the member for the question, because we are talking about someone who has engaged in views and planning that are beyond contempt. The first way and the most powerful way that we are able to keep the community safe from people like that is through the criminal offences that we've established. He was sentenced in 2021. He was found guilty of acting in preparation for a terrorist attack. We had allowed that to have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and he was given four years and six months. He was convicted of preparing to enter into a foreign country to engage in hostilities. On that, again, we had set a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and he was given six years. The full aggregated sentence he received was seven years and four months. The non-parole period he was given was five years and six months. The most challenge-proof way to keep the community safe is for someone like that to be in prison. And I think we would all have similar questions about the gap between the maximum penalties we had made available and where this has landed.
There are two different methods that then become available. One is to be able, with much more limited legal power, when someone has been released at the end of those sentences—much more limited power—to try to restrain that person further. The first is the reference that you gave with respect to the Department of Home Affairs, which has, particularly through various decisions that have come through the High Court, very high thresholds that you have to be able to meet. Had we been able to meet those thresholds, the Department of Home Affairs would have been in court the next day. The second method that's available is for the Australian Federal Police to seek a control order. I am pleased to say they did go to court and seek a control order, and I'm pleased to advise the house that, earlier today, the court agreed to allow that interim control order.
My question is to the Attorney-General. How is the Albanese government leading work with the states and territories to keep our children and young people safe?
I thank the member for his question. I want to acknowledge that tomorrow is Day for Daniel, Australia's largest national event dedicated to child safety, education and awareness. Child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime, and perpetrators must face the full force of the law, because one instance of child sexual abuse is one too many, and we must do everything we can to prevent this from occurring.
In August, I updated the House on our progress with the states and territories on working with children checks, and it follows the Commonwealth's delivery of these reforms through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General. 'Banned in one, banned in all' is now law in every Australian jurisdiction. It means that a person prohibited from working with children in one part of Australia cannot simply cross a border and seek a clearance somewhere else. That is real practical reform, closing gaps between systems that could otherwise put children at risk.
The evidence shows that our reforms are working. In Victoria, exclusions from working with children checks have increased from 965 in 2023-24 to 1,762 in 2025-26. Just let that sink in. The number of working with children checks refused has almost doubled between that reporting period. Victorian authorities have also used strengthened powers to immediately suspend or ban 118 people based on serious safety concerns and intelligence received from police and regulators. These are exactly the kinds of reforms that the royal commission into child sexual abuse envisaged—earlier identification of risk, stronger information sharing and proactive intervention before children are harmed. Recent reporting on the extradition of Ashley Paul Griffith, known as Australia's worst paedophile, highlights why these reforms matter. Where historical allegations, regulatory information or interstate concerns exist, stronger information sharing and nationally consistent risk assessments improve our ability to take action early. I also welcome Queensland's reforms to implement the nationally consistent baseline standards and exclusion criteria agreed by SCAG.
These advances are supported by federal funding, the Albanese government's $37 million national continuous checking capability, which enables near-real-time monitoring of criminal history and represents significant progress towards a national system that better protects children and young people. There is more to do, but we will keep working every day to deliver real change that keeps our children safe.
To the Treasurer: the last 11 years have been the hottest on record globally. The rising cost of climate fuel disasters around the world is resulting in higher insurance premiums, food prices and rebuilding expenses, all adding to inflation and hurting Australians and businesses. Dr Timothy Neal from UNSW has assessed climate related inflation to nearly 18 per cent of GDP in New South Wales alone. Has Treasury assessed the extent to which climate change is contributing to inflation and productivity drag nationally, and, if not, will you commit Treasury to do so?
I thank the honourable member for the question and for her interest. I acknowledge, as well, the interest from a number of colleagues about the interaction of these really important questions—the future of our economy, climate change, renewable energy, resilience more broadly in the face of more frequent and more devastating natural disasters. This is a really key focus of the government, whether it's the Intergenerational report, the climate modelling, the risk assessment released by my colleagues—this is a really central concern for a whole number of members of the cabinet.
When it comes to the economic impacts of climate change, more-frequent natural disasters and also the opportunities of the energy transformation, the IGR and the climate modelling make it clear that the most important thing we can do is manage an orderly energy transition, and that's what we are doing. When it comes to investment in energy resilience—whether it's the Cleaner Fuels Program I referenced in response to the question from the member for Kennedy, whether it's Cheaper Home Batteries or whether it's other elements of our energy transition and energy resilience plan—we see all this as crucial to limiting the impacts, whether they be environmental or economic. We know that if we get this transition right—if we have an orderly path to net zero by 2050—our economy will be $2.2 trillion bigger, real GDP per capita will be $36,000 higher, there will be more than five million more jobs, and investment in the economy will be around 80 per cent higher than it is today.
So I acknowledge the honourable member's question about what further steps we might consider. We've been very careful and very persistent in putting forward all the iterative steps when it comes to climate resilience and energy resilience. As the member intimates in her question, this is now more important than ever. We have seen the very serious pressure on supply chains. We have seen the pressure on prices. We saw yesterday in the inflation figures some of the impacts of that as well. So this is an area where so many of our economic challenges and opportunities come together. It is a big opportunity for Australia to get it right. But the risks to our resilience are everywhere. We will continue to work with the honourable member and with all members of this parliament and the other side who believe, as we do, that this is one of the most important challenges that we have—but full of opportunities as well—and we expect to do the right thing.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What has been the Albanese Labor government's response to H5 bird flu in Australia? And how is the government helping support communities and industry to prepare for and respond to detections?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! We don't need commentary during questions about 'good questions' or 'great questions'.
Member for Fisher, we don't need you laughing as well. It is not too difficult for people to simply ask a question in silence without any commentary before, after or during. And Leader of the Opposition, I'm just trying to settle the House, because the opposition need to rely on their questions being asked in silence. And if the government can just control themselves when people are asking questions, things will go a lot smoother. So the member for Maribyrnong will ask her question again, and I don't want any interjections, positive or negative. Just ask the question, and then the minister can respond.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What has been the Albanese Labor government's response to H5 bird flu in Australia? And how is the government helping support communities and industry to prepare for and respond to detections?
I want to thank our wonderful member for Maribyrnong for that question. I know that she, like many members, particularly those from the heavily impacted states of Victoria and New South Wales, have been engaged in this. I also know that the member for Maribyrnong and other Victorians, including the member for Macnamara, are very interested in the little penguin vaccinations that have been happening in Victoria. They continue to progress; they are getting through those vaccinations.
I can update the House that there have now been 725 positive H5 events nationally. We've had 247 in the state of Victoria, 337 in South Australia, 75 in New South Wales, 53 in Tasmania, 10 in Western Australia, two in Queensland and one at Jervis Bay. Importantly, I was recently advised by our technical experts that positive detections in recent weeks have been contained to areas that had previous detections. This is certainly very encouraging news and I'm sure very comforting for many Australians, but it's also very important that we do not get complacent and that we remain very vigilant. I also want to reiterate that there have been no detections in our agriculture or our poultry systems and that the risk to human health remains low.
The member for Maribyrnong also asked me about our work with the community, and it is an important question. As I've said before, everyday Australians are our first line of defence when it comes to strong biosecurity in Australia. That's why, as part of our government's more than $270 million investment in the H5 bird flu response, we have been ensuring that Australians know what to do to prepare for the threat of this virus when it comes to the area. We do have practical advice available through our national ad campaign underway right now and also at bird flu.gov.au, where there's lots of practical advice, such as keeping your aviaries and surrounding areas clean if you have birds; keeping pets, food and water away from wild birds; and ensuring, of course, that, if you see a sick or dead bird or other animal, you avoid contact, record what you see and make a report to bird flu.gov.au or call the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline. I'm pleased to say we've now had over 70,000 calls to that national hotline, and I do want to thank Australians for this and for their cooperation.
We've had over 3,000 of the H5 vaccines administered to birds in Australia as part of the more than 13,000 native and endangered birds that we have identified for vaccination with the states and territories. As I've said, it does include the little penguins in Victoria and also little penguins in New South Wales, regent honeyeaters in South Australia, orange-bellied parrots and shy albatrosses in Tasmania, and Carnaby's black cockatoos in Western Australia. As I've also indicated, this is understood to be the largest vaccination program across the globe—something Australians should be very proud of.
I also do want to acknowledge the cooperation from right across the parliament, from every person in this place, because it is in our national interest that we do respond together. I particularly want to thank the shadow minister for agriculture for his cooperation and for the cooperation of his team. Certainly, I think that this is in our national interest, and I'm pleased that we're getting cooperation from right across the parliament.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
"Australia's broken economy and the impact of the Government's economic mismanagement on Australian families and small businesses".
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I don't need to tell anyone in this place that next Tuesday is the Melbourne Cup—the race that stops a nation—but, of course, next Tuesday something else happens. The Reserve Bank meets. The strong expectation is that we will see the 17th interest rate increase under Labor. This will be the decision that shatters the nation. I shudder to think what it will mean for so many Australians if they see a 17th interest rate increase under Labor.
If it comes to pass, we know the average new mortgage holder in Australia will have to find $33,000 of after-tax income that they didn't have to find when we were last in government—$33,000. You can understand why so many Australians are giving up hope. Among those hit hardest are those who have taken out a loan in recent times. We know many of them are staring down the barrel of having negative equity over their house as they're paying that kind of mortgage. Australians are having to cut back not just because of mortgage costs but because they're seeing surging inflation. It was up again yesterday. It doesn't stop. It's not just mortgages and rents. It's groceries. It's electricity. It's gas. It's insurance. It's education. It's fuel. We're about to see new records on fuel. We're getting close to it in terms of what we'll see at the bowser in the coming days. We expect to see it continue to go up. It's child care. You name it and it's going up.
Sadly, those opposite declared victory on this a long time ago. I was lucky and privileged enough to be at the grand final at the MCG. There it was, 15 minutes before the end, well before the final siren, we saw wharfie time. Well, can I give you a bit of wharfie time here? This is from the Prime Minister in March 2025. I think this was at about half-time he was declaring victory. 'We have dealt with inflation'—that's what he said. He said:
It's now down with a two in front of it.
That was early last year. I have another one, another clanger and more wharfie time from the Treasurer when he said in January last year:
The worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us.
Well, I'll tell you what, it's meant that they have had to dig very deep into their bag of excuses. Every time inflation rises and every time the interest rate goes up—the interest rate going up the 17th time is what we're looking down the barrel of next Tuesday—the Prime Minister reaches into that bag. If it's not the war in Ukraine, it'll be the war in Iran, Donald Trump or President Putin. He keeps going back. Of course, there are past prime ministers, like Prime Minister Morrison. I think Prime Minister Abbott's been on the list. He'll go back to Menzies. I think Barton's going to get a look-in on this one! I think he might even go over to the UK. I think Disraeli and Gladstone might get a look-in on this one! He will not stop. He will look for an excuse wherever he can possibly find it.
But the truth is that he's run out of excuses. Most of all, he underestimates the intelligence of Australians. He absolutely underestimates their intelligence. They know we have the highest core inflation of any major advanced country in the world. That is the reality, and there is no excuse for that. We are used to being at the right end of the league table. We are a nation of exceptionalism. That exceptionalism is being destroyed by those opposite, who do not understand the economy. They do not understand it.
Yesterday, in question time, the Prime Minister was looking for excuses. He cherry-picked the Reserve Bank governor's quotes. But I'll tell you what she actually said. She said:
… we still see inflation arising from domestic capacity pressures.
This is an economy that doesn't work. It doesn't work because they don't understand it. I say give the member for Parramatta a go. Even better, give us a go, because we'll get this right. We will get this right. But all we see from those opposite is deflection, deception and omission. That's the Labor way.
In terms of hypocrisy on this, I've got another quote here from a former opposition leader. They said:
His Prime Minister is happy to claim credit whenever things go well but when things don't go right it's always blame someone else, it's never accept responsibility.
That was said in April 2022 by the Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition. The hypocrisy knows absolutely no end when it comes to this Prime Minister.
Australians know that government spending drives inflation and higher interest rates. That's what does. It always has. There's nothing new in that. We have a crisis of big government in this country, and those opposite cannot help themselves. Spending is at a 40-year high, outside of the pandemic. We were told by Treasury officials just in the last 24 hours that over a hundred billion dollars has been spent in net spending by those opposite in their budgets since they came to power, and that drives inflation.
What we need is to save, to save the nation. That's what we need. We announced earlier this week $31 billion of savings. We have already announced that. The Treasurer told us just a few days ago that anyone with good ideas for cutting spending should come forward with them. Well, we have.
He can get rid of his net zero bureaucracy. He can get rid of his climate bureaucracy that's not reducing emissions. His green hydrogen mythology—even the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's realised that's not working. He can stop the climate boondoggle that saw $35 million go to the pre-COP flop—that snoozefest. Even the energy minister couldn't stay awake. He couldn't even stay awake at his own conference.
And, of course, there's their housing bureaucracy that's not delivering extra houses. We know housing construction in this country is in freefall, sadly. It's been in freefall because those programs are not working. We will terminate their pie-in-the-sky corporate welfare, their handouts, to big companies. I'll tell you what, there are no handouts going around right now to small business in this country. Small business is being crushed by those opposite.
We'll save billions of dollars by stopping welfare to non-Australians. I mean, seriously! Charity begins at home. It begins with Australian citizens. That's what our welfare programs and the NDIS should be focused on, as should the home deposit scheme. Isn't it extraordinary? One of the first things those opposite did when they came to power was to say, 'Let's give access to the home deposit scheme to non-Australians.' Seriously!
We'll save $8 billion by crushing the illicit tobacco trade in this country. This is extraordinary—they could reduce taxes, by 80 per cent in this case, and raise $8 billion. And they refuse to do it, because they are so in love with higher taxes.
Well, as I said, there is a better way, and that is to fix our economy and protect our way of life. That means axing Labor's toxic taxes, waste and red tape. It means ending net zero. They're embedding net zero as a legally binding obligation in the European free trade agreement. No wonder they love it so much! That's what they love about it. And, of course, we will put Australians first every day of the week, and that means an immigration policy that works for Australia. We need to get the numbers down and the standards up, moving away from their mass migration to our skilled migration. We will always put Australia first.
We hear all of the loudness from the opposition leader talking about putting Australians first. Well, he failed to do that when he voted against the tax cut for Australians this year. He failed to do it when he voted against a tax cut for Australians for next year. Eight hundred and fifty thousand Australians are benefiting from Labor's free TAFE initiative. This leader of the opposition, who now walks out of the room, also turned his back on those who rely on free TAFE, which is supporting people in getting the skills and jobs that they need and that small businesses need across this nation. Indeed, this leader of the opposition found, wherever he could, an opportunity to vote against bills that help people earn more and to vote against bills that help people keep more of what they earn. When he was last in government, in the dying days of the government that he was a cabinet member in, he proudly opposed an increase in the minimum wage.
I have seen a few different opposition leaders at the dispatch box here over the years—and I think I might see a few more in the years to come—but that was a particularly flat performance from the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder: Is he flat because his tearing down of Sussan Ley was somehow a failure? Is the Leader of the Opposition a bit flat because he was the headline act in a losing Liberal campaign in the electorate of Farrer? Is he flat because, before question time, he tuned in and he saw the member for Canning doing a far more convincing job than the Leader of the Opposition himself is able to do? Is he flat because he is the leader of the Liberal Party in name only? We know that it's the National Party that's continuing to dictate policy to all those in the Liberal Party, and so, as a result, we see a leader of the opposition with his economic credentials under real threat. I'd also note the thing that I found amazing about that speech from the Leader of the Opposition was that he would be so disrespectful to the great state of Western Australia, to my home town of Fremantle, that he would come in here and, just a month on from the grand final, attack the Fremantle Dockers. Even the member for Durack thought that was a step too far, and I agree with the member for Durack.
The Leader of the Opposition does face a leadership test, and that leadership test is called the Australia-European Union free trade agreement. The question is, ultimately: Does the Leader of the Opposition agree with himself? Does the Leader of the Opposition stand up for his own values, or does he agree with Senator Canavan? He faces a real choice: does he believe in his own values, or does he believe in Senator Canavan values; or, in another way, does he believe in free trade, or does he believe in fake tradie? I will let you say that I stand for free and fair trade and the deal negotiated by Senator Farrell, because it means Australia will get eight times more beef exports into the $30 trillion economy of the 450 million people represented by the European Union, five times more sheepmeat exports. Then, of course, when it comes to creating new jobs in the Australian economy, this backs the critical minerals industry of Australia, especially for the west.
I heard the interjection asking me about shopping. It does mean cheaper white goods. It does mean abolishing tariffs on wheat and barley, and it means that, particularly for that barley sector—I think those who know the history of trade in this country would know there were significant impediments to the trade for barley when we came to government. We removed a range of those trade impediments, and we want to remove even more trade impediments.
I'll say—maybe it will help persuade those in the Liberal Party and the National Party—there's even something in this for the blue ribbon branches of the Liberal Party: cheaper champagne. For the rest of the wine producers here in Australia, what we will see is that this free trade agreement abolishes the $56 per 100 litre tariff on Australian wine going into Europe. That means more for our wine producers across the country, and, again, I would have thought that that would be something that those opposite could support. It means cheaper pasta for Australian families. Again, I ask: why does the Leader of the Opposition—the first time he spoke in this place he said he believes in free trade and he believes in getting rid of taxes on trade. Why is he now finding himself standing up for massive taxes on Australian exports? It makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not the only one who's saying that. I note the comments from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss Andrew McKellar, who said:
… Australian business is calling on everyone in the Parliament to back a deal that has been worked on across the political divide for the better part of a decade.
And he had a warning, and this warning is important to those opposite, and I agree with it:
If we lose this opportunity now, we won't get it back.
That is right.
I was listening carefully when the Leader of the Opposition started off his comments in this matter of public importance, and he started off talking about, of all things, the Melbourne Cup. I agree that every meeting of the Reserve Bank is a consequential meeting, and it's important, but, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition's shadow treasurer thinks that these things are incredibly trivial. It was just a year ago that the shadow treasurer got this headline—we know that the shadow treasurer likes headlines. This is the headline the shadow treasurer got last year: 'Senior Liberal MP Tim Wilson is really unhappy about having to work on Melbourne Cup Day'. Does anyone remember that? This was the great big idea of the now shadow treasurer. It's clearly interesting. Maybe no-one else wants the job. I don't know why he's got it, but this was his big policy idea, and it's a bit inappropriate. I'm going to read it from the shadow treasurer's Facebook page.
I will just warn the assistant minister that something being in a quote doesn't protect you from the standing orders.
He wrote:
… our—
word removed—
Prime Minister is forcing Parliament to sit on Tuesday defying Melbourne's traditions and way of life.
On Tuesday, we have the Reserve Bank meeting and, of course, the Melbourne Cup, but we're elected to parliament and we should do our jobs. I would hope that someone in the coalition is going to make sure that the shadow treasurer is actually doing some work on Melbourne Cup Day. Also, leading to the instability in the coalition, we got this quote on Facebook, and the Facebook post is still up there. The shadow treasurer said:
I make this commitment: this will never happen under a Wilson government!
There you go. It's the only public holiday that the coalition support.
But, not to be outdone, the shadow treasurer decided to call into 6PR, a radio station in Western Australia. It's a great radio station in the west. The shadow treasurer decided to call into 6PR today to complain about his own mortgage payments, saying that he is 'doing it tough'. We know that there are people who are doing it very tough in this country, but I don't think there's going to be a lot of sympathy for the shadow treasurer calling into radio stations around the country and saying, 'Please don't make me work on Melbourne Cup Day, and please feel sorry for me.'
But I will acknowledge that we did see one good thing from the coalition this week. They finally started to roll out the costed details of the cuts that they propose. I don't think this is the end of the plan, but it is the start. I was shocked, as a Western Australian, to see that at the top of the cuts list is cutting critical minerals jobs. That was the top of the list. I want to acknowledge that Premier Roger Cook, the Premier of Western Australia, is in the building this week, and I want to thank him for his support working with us on those critical minerals tax incentives to boost industry in Western Australia, to boost Australian exports and to make sure that we indeed do provide the critical minerals that the world is calling out for.
They didn't stop there. One of the critical minerals that we're really pleased to export in this country is lithium, and it goes into household batteries. But, of course, household batteries were also on the chopping block under these cuts. It's not just that; homes in my electorate were on the chopping block. We saw a commitment that they'll cut some $4.7 billion from the Housing Australia Future Fund. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to go to the hub on Wellington Street in Perth and explain what's going to happen to those who are renting those Housing Australia Future Fund houses. Are they going to be left out in the street? Are they going to pay more rent? What is going to happen to them? What happens to the projects like what's happening on Stirling Street in my electorate? If those opposite are elected, will that project stop? There are a range of questions about the cuts that have been proposed by those opposite.
I'm proud of this government's economic record. We have made sure we've had back-to-back surpluses and 75 per cent of revenue upgrades returned to the bottom line. We have one of only nine treasurers or finance ministers around the world that have achieved a triple A credit rating from all three major agencies, and debt is $198 billion lower than forecast at the election. (Time expired)
I think we've got a new record. We got nine minutes and 50 seconds into the assistant minister's speech before he even attempted to talk about government policy. The government's policies are so weak that the minister had a platform of 10 minutes to talk to the Australian people about what they were doing to help them when they are struggling in this cost-of-living crisis and how they're bringing inflation down and we got 10 seconds, at nine minutes and 50 seconds after the speech had started. That tells you everything about this government. They're obsessed with politics. They're obsessed with attacking the opposition.
On the coalition side, we've got a plan to help the Australian people. We have our fuel price shield. Right now, oil is over $100 a barrel. If we had the fuel price shield implemented, which is the coalition policy, we would halve the fuel excise, giving relief to Australians but also giving relief to businesses. If you take cost pressures out of the supply chain for businesses, guess what? That helps take the pressure off inflation.While those opposite throw insults, the coalition will build policies that will help the Australian people. It's 18 months until the next election, and the coalition have put $31 billion in savings on the table, responsible savings to support the Australian people, because that will take pressure off inflation. It will reduce public demand. The member for Moreton this week said that we need to 'throw the kitchen sink at savings'. I look forward to the member for Moreton coming out and supporting our $31 billion in savings, because there are no savings from this treasurer. This treasurer, in his own words, has an excuse for everything.
We appreciate and understand that we live in a global market. It is a global market. We're a global country, obviously, but, when there are things outside of your control, you don't complain about them, and you don't blame them. You focus on what you can control, and you take actions around what you can control. What can this treasurer control? He can control government spending. If you reduce government spending, it gives the RBA more headroom, it gives the private sector more headroom as they grow, and it mitigates the international factors that are outside of our control. That is economics 101. That is a treasurer's job 101. If the Treasurer does not understand that, the Treasurer should resign, and, if the Treasurer is not prepared to resign, then the Prime Minister should replace him. He needs to take responsibility. The Australian people do not want to hear excuses. They do not want to hear a treasurer at the dispatch box blaming everyone else but himself. If you want to sit on those benches and you want to take responsibility for the Australian economy and take the title Treasurer, stop blaming everyone else.
The backbench of the Labor Party know it. An unnamed backbencher told the Treasurer, 'Stop sounding like a used-car salesman.' The backbench of the Labor Party have lost faith in this treasurer because they're potentially talking and listening to their communities. Now the challenge for this backbench is if they are going to back their communities, hold this treasurer to account and put pressure on this prime minister. I'll give them this little tip. This prime minister will preach unity to you. This prime minister will tell you to be unified. I say to you: show this prime minister the same unity that he showed to Prime Minister Gillard, because he stood there every step of the way building his career next to Kevin Rudd by undermining Prime Minister Gillard. He now asked this backbench to give him unyielding loyalty, loyalty that he did not show to leaders. He is leading you off a cliff, but, worse than that, he is destroying our economy. He is making the Australian people pay. He is making small businesses pay the price.
When we have community members and small-business owners in tears in our office, they want action. They want support from this prime minister and from this treasurer, and they do not receive it. They do not want to hear excuses. There are global factors that no-one can control. There are always factors you cannot control. True leaders understand that, they focus on what they can control, and they make decisions in the national interest to support all Australians. They don't sit here and spin and spin and abandon every Australian. We've got a prime minister and a treasurer that have spent their life in politics. They've got no answers for the Australian people.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about Australia's supposed broken economy. Let's talk about the economy that he and his colleagues handed over. When Labor took office, inflation was already at 5.1 per cent and climbing, peaking at 6 per cent. Today it's 4.3 per cent, still too high, and families are feeling every cent, but it is still better than those opposite, without solutions. Higher global oil prices are making the job harder, but Australia remains one of the world's largest economies. The IMF ranks us 14th and forecasts our economy growing this year to be greater than those of Britain, Germany and Canada. That doesn't mean everything's fine, but it does mean that 'broken' is a slogan, not an economic analysis from the coalition of chaos.
If the opposition wants a practical example of how our economy could work better, I suggest they visit the supermarket. Coles and Woolworths account for around two thirds of supermarket sales. Two companies are two-thirds of the market. That's not much choice for Australian consumers, especially from the supposed party of freedom. For nine years, the coalition governed a country with increasingly concentrated supermarket power. And what did it leave behind? A voluntary Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Unbelievable. That is more legislative gold from the Liberals who love loopholes. When the biggest businesses in the market held bargaining power, the coalition's great reform was to ask them to behave.
Labor made the code mandatory. We introduced serious penalties and outlawed excessive pricing by the largest supermarkets. But I think we might need to go further in examining the underlying problem. Should we be considering limits on supermarket market share? Why should two companies control so much of an essential market? Should we be making sure large supermarket landholdings are not shutting out future competitors? And should we be removing the barriers that stop independent supermarkets from opening their doors? These are questions worth asking, because the free market only works when there is genuine competition. When two supermarket chains control two thirds of sales, Australians don't need another loyalty card. They need more choice. When Labor legislated against stronger penalties, the coalition voted against it. That is a record they should explain before they lecture anyone about economic management.
The opposition also wants to speak for small business, but I've got a question for them. Who brought in the GST? The Howard government. What did that mean for every small business? They turned every small business into a tax collector. The cafe owner, the sparkie and the hairdresser are running their businesses, paying their workers and then spending their evenings keeping records and lodging business activity statements. Even Howard later admitted the original BAS was too complicated. So when the coalition lectures small business about red tape, it might start with the paperwork they gave them.
And what is the economic alternative being offered today? This week the opposition presented its package for proposed savings. It wants to scrap the $250 tax offset for working Australians and cut support for housing, while promising tax relief and more homes. Some of its other expensive promises haven't even been included in the costings. It wants to give more, spend less and leave major parts of the bill off the page. That is not an economic plan. That is a magic pudding. Everyone gets another slice, yet somehow the pudding never gets smaller.
And then there's One Nation. In July, the Opposition Leader said One Nation's economic policies could send us broke. He warned of an eternity of pain. And what did Senator Hanson say about him? She called him a management consultant and told Australians they couldn't trust the coalition. It's a good thing AI is going to take that job as well. Yet Senator Hanson has still offered to provide the numbers to help the coalition form government. One says the other's economic policies would send us broke, and the other one says the other can't be trusted, and One Nation is still offering to give them the numbers in parliament. Surely that deserves some explanation from those claiming to have the answers to Australia's economic problems.
Australians are under pressure. They deserve honest answers, real competition and policies that add up. The opposition brought this motion asking us to examine economic management. Fine, but let's examine the inflation they left, the supermarket rules they opposed, the red tape they imposed and the promises they still haven't paid for. You can't call an economy broken, put forward a magic pudding for a budget and expect no-one to check the recipe.
Small businesses are the backbone of regional Australia. They employ our locals, sponsor our footy clubs, give our kids their first jobs and keep our main streets alive. But across my electorate of Mallee, small businesses are being pushed to the wall, and Labor is doing the pushing. Power bills are soaring. Insurance premiums are crippling. Fuel, wages, bank fees and red tape are eating away at every dollar they earn. These businesses aren't asking for handouts. They just want a fighting chance.
Last week I brought Mallee business owners together for a roundtable. They're exhausted, they're angry, and they're running out of money. Clothing retailers are battling online giants on an uneven playing field. One holiday park operator told me they started the year with almost 14 staff. After the fuel crisis, that number fell to just seven after Easter. Some of Australia's biggest retailers are also sounding the alarm. JB Hi-Fi and Bunnings are reporting slowing sales. David Jones has just reported a staggering $95.5 million pre-tax loss. That's after losing $74 million the year before. Sales have fallen nearly nine per cent. Their lender has reportedly provided another $10 million just to help buy Christmas stock. If David Jones is struggling, what chance does a family owned shop in Mildura, Horsham or Swan Hill have?
The warning lights aren't flashing anymore. The economy is screaming for help, but Labor is not listening. Instead, we get more spin, more excuses, more blame shifting. While Labor congratulates itself in Canberra, Australians are struggling to put food on the table. Foodbank's latest hunger report is devastating. One in three Australian households couldn't afford enough food in the past year—one in three households. Let that sink in. These aren't just people on welfare. These are working Australians. Do you remember them, the workers? They can't afford to feed their families. Nearly seven in 10 food-insecure households experienced it for the first time in this past year.
The Treasurer wants Australians to believe inflation is under control. Inflation is back at 4.3 per cent. We should all feel great about that. Let's call inflation what it is. It's the pay cut you never agreed to. It steals the value of your wages. It eats your savings. It drives up your groceries, your insurance, your mortgage and your rent. It's an invisible tax on every Australian. Who could forget Treasurer Chalmers posing two years ago for the AFR power list patting that supposedly tamed inflation dragon on the head? Well, that dragon is alive and breathing destructive fire on Australian household budgets. Australians have endured 16 interest rate rises since Labor came to power. Now, they're facing the prospect of a 17th on cup day. You cannot tax a country into prosperity. You cannot regulate small businesses into success. Small businesses don't have the luxury of running endless deficits. They can't print money. They can't just borrow billions and send the bill to the next generation. When the money runs out, they close their doors. When a small business closes in regional Australia, we lose more than a shop. We lose jobs.
Labor doesn't seem to understand that, but the coalition does. We will cut wasteful government spending. We will lower taxes, we will back small businesses, we will deliver cheaper, more reliable energy, and we will provide relief at the bowser when global oil prices soar, because Australia's prosperity isn't created by bureaucrats sitting behind desks in Canberra. It's created by the farmers, the tradies, the shopkeepers and the family businesses who work hard, take risks and employ Australians. They are the people who keep this country going, and they're the people Labor keeps letting down. Enough is enough.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance because the cost of living is absolutely a matter of public importance. But what the Leader of the Opposition has presented today is not an economic plan; it's a political attack dressed up as economic policy, and there's one very important question that the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer: if the coalition is so concerned about the cost of living, why does it keep voting against every single measure put forward to actually help Australians with the cost of living? You cannot claim to stand up for Australian families while voting against tax cuts for those very same families. You cannot complain about the price of groceries while opposing stronger penalties for supermarkets doing the wrong thing. You cannot claim to be a party of aspiration while voting against measures to help young Australians buy their first home.
I represent my community of Bonner in Brisbane, which is home to hardworking families, pensioners, young people saving for their first home and small-business owners who work incredibly hard to make a living. I know that people are doing it tough, but the people of Bonner don't need another politician telling them that life is expensive. They need a government doing something about it. That is exactly what this Albanese Labor government is doing.
Yesterday's inflation figures showed that inflation has ticked up. We aren't pretending otherwise. We heard the Treasurer today and all this week talk about it, over and over again. Inflation and interest rates are rising around the world and the war in the Middle East has made Australia's inflation challenge harder. But let's remember what Labor inherited. Inflation was above six per cent and rising rapidly. Underlying inflation was around five per cent. Both are now substantially lower. While the opposition wants Australians to forget its record, we haven't forgotten. They had almost a decade to build a stronger, fairer economy. Instead they left us with longstanding productivity challenges and an economy vulnerable to global shocks. Now they want Australians to believe that every economic challenge began the day that they left office.
Our government is focused on jobs, with 1.3 million created since we came to office. Our government is focused on practical help and on things that make a real difference to household budgets—things like delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer and cheaper medicines, with $25 scripts. We've strengthened Medicare, we've expanded bulk-billing, and we're helping Australians buy their first homes with five per cent deposits. In Bonner we opened not one but two Medicare urgent care clinics. Over 20,000 people have been through the doors since they opened just this year. We've seen the number of fully bulk-billed clinics in my community double under this government. These aren't just announcements; they are real investments making a real difference to everyday budgets in my community.
As someone who has owned and operated a small business, I know how hard small-business owners work. I know the pressure of paying wages, managing cash flow and keeping doors open. I know that small businesses need more than political slogans. They need certainty, confidence and practical support. That's why we're making things like the $20,000 instant write-off permanent. We're delivering tax reforms to support small business, cutting unnecessary red tape and backing investment and growth. In the last financial year alone, a record 385,000 new businesses were added to the Australian economy.
My community sent me to this parliament to fight for them—not to pretend that everything is perfect or to dismiss the very real pressures that they're experiencing but to work hard every single day to make their lives better. That's the fundamental difference between this government and those opposite. Labor is cutting taxes. The coalition voted against tax relief. Labor is strengthening Medicare. The coalition keeps standing in the way. Labor is taking on the supermarket giants. The coalition tried to weaken the penalties. Labor is backing small business with certainty and investment. The coalition offers complaints without a credible alternative. Through you, Deputy Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if you want to talk about the cost of living, let's talk about it, but let's also talk about your voting record, about the policies you've opposed and about what you would actually do differently, because Australians deserve more than complaints from an opposition with no credible alternative. The families in my community don't need that, and we will continue to deliver.
Yesterday inflation went up again. Prices are up by 4.3 per cent over the year to September. Economists now expect the Reserve Bank to lift rates again next Tuesday. Because of Labor's economic mismanagement, Australian families are bracing for the highest interest rates they've seen since 2008. On too many occasions I genuinely see people at the supermarket putting groceries back because they can't afford them.
Melbourne Cup Day used to be about picking a winner, but, under this government, the only sure bet is another rate rise—No. 17. This morning the Prime Minister said these changes won't be solved overnight. Prime Minister, it's been 1,622 nights since you were elected, and Australian families have lost sleep on every single one of them. Since the Albanese Labor government was elected, Australians have experienced the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. It got so bad that Labor's own backbench have now lost faith in its government's economic agenda. They have gone searching for answers themselves. This week the member for Chifley floated some ideas from the socialist manifesto: price caps on bread, milk and eggs. Price caps are not a plan. They are a sign that Labor's plan has failed.
While families are tightening their belts, the Prime Minister has found six million bucks for the Marrickville Golf Club in his electorate, just down the road from his property. Over the past weeks, the Prime Minister has told the House that sewerage upgrades were a key component of this grant. But what did we find out in Senate estimates on Monday? The grant does not include sewer works. But it still stinks. Once again, the Prime Minister's story has gone down the drain. He has misled this House and misled Australians. This is the same Prime Minister who told Australians there'd be no changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Then he changed his position. While the Prime Minister is out spinning furphies by day and misleading parliament by night, small businesses are being smashed by Labor's tax grab.
The coalition has a plan to fix the economy and protect our way of life. It starts with the fundamentals. Energy is everything—your power bill, your groceries, every tonne of steel we make. Labor promised to cut power bills by $275. Instead, electricity prices are up by 40 per cent since the 2022 election. In Grey, the future of the Whyalla steelworks and the Port Pirie smelter depends on affordable power. Get energy wrong and you get everything wrong. The coalition will scrap net zero and make Australia an energy superpower. While the Treasurer says his budget cannot afford fuel relief, under the coalition, when the oil price spikes, as it is doing right now, a fuel price shield will kick in, saving you 27c a litre. The coalition will axe Labor's many new toxic taxes, deliver a tax-back guarantee and back small business. We will cut net overseas migration by 100,000 for two years, allowing housing supply to catch up. The coalition's Future Generations Fund will pay down Labor's trillion dollars of debt and build the roads, the ports, the infrastructure and the water infrastructure that the regions need.
The coalition will cut all the waste, all the taxes and all the red tape that was brought to you by the Albanese Labor government. The coalition has found $31 billion in savings already: $9.4 billion by abolishing net zero and ending Labor's climate bureaucracy; $7.3 billion by ending corporate welfare, or giving cash to their mates; $4.7 billion by scrapping Labor's failed housing schemes; $7.9 billion by breaking the illicit tobacco business model; and $2 billion by putting Australian citizens first. These savings would more than pay for a tax-back guarantee, while leaving the budget $22 billion better off over the four years. Fixing the economy is not complicated: cheaper energy, less waste, lower taxes and an end to the corruption. Get the fundamentals right, and Australians will get ahead again.
No-one on this side of the House denies that, like people all around the world, Australians are under financial pressure. The inflation data published yesterday reflects that reality. While it might not be convenient for some members of this place, we must recognise that Australian workers are facing the consequences of events occurring around the world, including ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, which are pushing up global oil prices. People in our communities didn't ask for these wars, but they are paying the price. We saw in the figures reported yesterday that petrol prices rose by 9.4 per cent, which, given the rise in oil prices, is not surprising. The promising sign beyond the headline figure, though, is that trimmed mean inflation, which removes major spikes and shocks in the economy to give a better picture of the broader health of the economy, continued to be steady, at 3.6 per cent for a fourth consecutive month. The principal driver of inflation in the Australian economy is higher global oil prices. It is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon, with inflation increasing in comparable economies including the United States, the UK and much of the eurozone. Indeed, the IMF's most recent outlook projects global inflation at 4.7 per cent.
None of this is to say that Australians aren't doing it tough, but in this environment it is important that our deliberations in this place are grounded in reality, not politics. Let's look at what experts think of Australia's economic performance. S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch have all recently reaffirmed the Australian government's triple-A credit rating, with S&P saying that 'Australia's fiscal performance is sound' and with Moody's identifying that the government's fiscal strategy is 'supported by expenditure reforms and a record of conservative budgeting'. These are not the words of politicians; these are the assessments of the world's leading global credit rating agencies. Australia is one of nine countries with a triple-A credit rating from all three of these institutions.
In estimates earlier this week, we saw the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party spend time having the RBA governor confirm that public spending is part of aggregate demand. No-one could deny that basic economics concept. However, in a statement that the RBA made last year they said they saw private demand overtaking public demand, which was backed up by statements earlier this year highlighting that private demand was stronger than forecast, and, just yesterday, that fuel costs and private investments were the primary drivers. Indeed, over the last week in estimates the RBA governor has recognised that private sector activity, global pressures and productivity are the primary drivers of the inflation increase. That is not to say that government doesn't have a role to play, which is why, in every budget and budget update, this government has found savings, including a record $60 billion in this year's budget alone, which has led to us improving the budget bottom line over the last four years by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars and has allowed us to fund $17 billion of targeted cost-of-living relief to everyday Australians in the last financial year.
As I stated earlier this week during private members' business, members opposite should remember that, when they left office, inflation was soaring past six per cent and still rising. Gross debt was projected to be $600 billion higher by 2030. Despite this outlook, they did not do a single thing to increase savings in their final budget.
A wonderful contribution there. But I think back, with these MPIs, to my debating days. One of my favourite debating lines was 'the government's case has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese'. Quite frankly, what they're saying today just doesn't stack up. Now, this Saturday is Halloween.
Come on, you can do better than that!
The member for Forde knows it's Halloween. It's a scary time of year. In fact, it's been a scary four years for Australians under this Labor government. Kids will get out there, with their costumes and bags, and go knocking on doors for tricks or treats. Can I just give a warning to everyone: if you see the Prime Minister coming to knock on your door on Saturday night, we know it's going to be a trick. In fact, he's not just coming for lollies. He's coming for your cost of living because he wants to decrease your standard of living. That's what he's doing. This government has been in costume for four years, making out that they are the champions of the everyday Australian. They want to make sure that everyone is looked after. But, in actual fact, what happens? You look behind the mask, and what is revealed? The true Labor Party, the one that wants to tax you more, the one that wants to spend more, the one that will drive up inflation and the one that leaves the Reserve Bank with very little choice but to put up interest rates. They're not just taking one lolly from the bowl. They are taking the whole bowl, putting it in their bag and then running for the door. That's what this government is doing.
Yesterday, in question time, we saw this classic—what I would describe in Halloween terms as 'blaming of the ghost'—from the Treasurer. It's everyone else's fault except his. It's the Middle East. It's this. It's that. It's even his other cabinet colleagues. But, in fact, what we know is that the Prime Minister yesterday decided to selectively quote the Reserve Bank governor. The Reserve Bank governor, to her credit, was in estimates yesterday, and I just thought I'd read into the record the concluding paragraph that followed what the Prime Minister said. She said this: 'Importantly, though, it's not just these global pressures that are driving inflation in Australia. While they are certainly compounding the inflation problem, we still see inflation arising from domestic capacity pressures.' This is the bit of the story that they don't like to tell over on that side. We know that the Chief Economist of the RBA, Assistant Governor Sarah Hunter, has said government spending is definitely part of the picture. If this Labor government are to try and correct this horror story that is playing out for all Australians, they need to learn to rein in their spending.
What we've seen yesterday is that inflation has jumped to 4.3 per cent, with underlying inflation at 3.6 per cent—all of this miles outside the band of two to three per cent. What does this mean for everyday Australians? Inflation is the rate at which things get more expensive, and it compounds. So, every time there is inflation, it just keeps going up and up and up. That's why I keep hearing from my community that, every time they go to the grocery store, everything seems more expensive. Every time they fill up their car with petrol, it seems more expensive. Every time they pay their private health insurance, it's getting more expensive. All of these costs are going up. That is what inflation is and what it does. Yet the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in March 2025, conveniently just prior to the last election, tried to hoodwink Australians into believing that the worst of this problem was behind us. We all know, now that the mask has been lifted. The truth has been revealed.
This government has absolutely no control over inflation, and the Reserve Bank is having to do the hard jobs for them. That's why we've seen 16 interest rate rises under this government, and we will probably see a 17th on Tuesday. The Treasurer thinks that somehow we get some joy out of that. Treasurer, none of us on this side are getting any joy out of the disastrous way in which you're handling this economy, because it's Australians that are paying. Every single time that this mortgage payment comes out of your bank account, you can thank this Treasurer. The horror story is not just going to play out this weekend. We are seeing the horror story playing out over on that side of the chamber. It's scary.
Australia is operating in a period of global uncertainty. International conflicts, supply chain disruptions and volatile energy markets continue to put pressure on prices across advanced economies while rising oil prices remain a significant driver of inflation worldwide. Australia is not immune to these pressures, and it is important to view our economic performance in its broader context. Despite these challenges, Australia's labour market remains one of the strongest in the developed world, with around 1.3 million jobs created since this government came to office and unemployment remaining comparatively low.
There is more work to do, but these are strong foundations. In my community, I regularly hear from constituents, students and business owners about cost-of-living pressures. Recently, my ACT Labor federal colleagues and I held a roundtable with local small businesses and heard firsthand about rising costs and workforce challenges, and I've also recently met with university students who spoke about the combined pressure of study expenses and everyday living costs. These conversations are a reminder that behind every economic statistic is a person just trying to make ends meet, and that is why our government is focused on delivering responsible cost-of-living relief while continuing the fight against inflation.
While inflation remains higher than we would like, it is considerably lower than the level we inherited, and underlying inflation has eased significantly. We are also seeing encouraging signs in our energy market. The latest AEMO quarterly energy dynamics report shows wholesale electricity prices are down 27 per cent compared with a year ago. For the first time, large-scale batteries supplied more power during the evening peak than expensive gas generation. Batteries are storing low-cost solar energy during the day and delivering it when Australians need it most. At the same time, large-scale solar generation increased by 30 per cent compared with the same quarter last year. More renewables, more batteries and lower wholesale prices are good outcomes for households, businesses and manufacturers alike.
Cost-of-living relief is also about health care. Next week marks one year since the Albanese Labor government's landmark investment to strengthen Medicare and make health care more affordable. Here in the ACT, that investment has helped deliver three fully bulk-billing GP clinics and a new GP led urgent care clinic, giving Canberrans greater access to free or low-cost health care closer to home. Across Australia, we have capped the cost of PBS medicines at $25 and made it cheaper and easier for women to access oral contraceptive pills, IUDs and menopause treatments. These are practical measures that ease pressure on household budgets while helping to move us in the right direction on access to affordable health care. Just this week, we announced more access through pharmacies to treatments for urinary tract infections and also for access to contraception, making it easier for women to get these treatments without needing to pay to see a GP. This is also helping with their cost of living.
Importantly, we have delivered this support while maintaining fiscal discipline. The government has identified almost $180 billion in savings since coming to office, including more than $60 billion in this year's budget alone. We are also laying the foundations for stronger productivity growth. Productivity improvements take time to flow through the economy, which is why we have already delivered reforms to reduce barriers to investment and improve economic efficiency, including environmental approval reforms and freezing changes to the National Construction Code.
Australians also deserve confidence that they are getting a fair deal at the checkout. We have strengthened and mandated the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, tackled shrinkflation, improved unit pricing transparency and strengthened the powers of the ACCC to promote competition— (Time expired)
The time for discussion has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the House:
(1) note the legal action taken in the Federal Court of Australia by Mr Alan Whykes against Mr Geoffrey Swan, known as Alan Phillip Whykes v Geoffrey Robert Swan;
(2) note the report of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests on its inquiry into whether the subpoena issued by the Federal Court of Australia to the Member for Clark raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt such that the House should intervene in the court proceedings to assert the protection of privilege;
(3) consider that the range of documents, sought to be produced by the subpoena, recording various communications between the office of the Member for Clark and Mr Swan, are likely to fall within the definition of 'proceedings of Parliament' under subsection 16(2) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (the Act);
(4) note the restrictions placed by subsection 16(3) of the Act on the treatment of proceedings in Parliament;
(5) acknowledge that interpretation of the Act, and therefore determination of the application of parliamentary privilege in court proceedings, is a matter for the courts; and
(6) note that, notwithstanding the foregoing, requiring the provision to the Court of documents given to a Member for the purpose of or incidental to the transacting of their business as a Member of the House of Representatives, may give rise to circumstances amounting to a contempt of the House.
Is there a seconder?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Question agreed to.
I wish to raise a matter of privilege. Noting we are now between items of business and having taken time to review chamber materials following discussion on the matter of public importance, I hope you will agree that I am raising this at the earliest opportunity. Today in question time, the member for Parkes asked the Prime Minister about his $6 million taxpayer funded grant to Marrickville Golf Club, made under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. In his answer, the Prime Minister asserted that the grant for the Marrickville Golf Club wasn't 'invite only'. Speaker, I present a printed copy of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts webpage, current as at 29 October 2026, for the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. On that webpage, it is stated:
The Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program opened on 1 September 2025.
… … …
This is an invitation-only program.
The issue concerning the Prime Minister's $6 million grant to the Marrickville Golf Club has drawn considerable public attention ever since it was first raised in this parliament. Many Australians do not understand why the Prime Minister has been able to state what he has in the House without there being any recourse. On both the substance and impression of the Prime Minister's answers, he has tried to create a fabrication that the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program was not invite only. The Prime Minister did not give an idle answer. The Prime Minister was seen looking at his notes both prior to providing his answer and during. He provided a prepared scripted response to the question. In other words, the Prime Minister had foreknowledge of the grants program and chose to deliberately mislead the House as to its design. In giving the answer the Prime Minister did, he has deliberately misled the House.
Speaker, can I ask that you: (a) consider the statement I have made and the document I presented and review both Hansard and the relevant chamber footage; (b) consider whether I've made out a prima facie case that a possible contempt has occurred as it relates to the Prime Minister deliberately misleading the House; and (c) on that basis, decide whether a referral to the Privileges Committee ought to be given precedence over other business.
I thank the member for Wannon for raising this matter under standing order 51. I will consider his statement and any tabled material in the usual way and report back as soon as possible.
When child support is not paid, the impact can be profound. I know that from talking to parents in my community. When the system itself can be used as a tool for further harassment, coercion or financial abuse, we have an obligation to do better. This is why this bill, the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026, is important to me. My commitment to this issue has also been informed by the work I have been able to do in Dunkley with people working directly with victims, survivors and families.
I recently had the opportunity to host Minister Plibersek in Dunkley, visiting Family Life and the Orange Door. Those visits were valuable because they took the conversation out of Canberra and put it where it belongs: the people doing the work and the families who depend on these services. Family Life has had an important place in our community. The Orange Door is another critical part of the local response to family and domestic violence.
When you spend time with frontline workers and survivors you quickly understand that family violence is not confined to one part of a person's life. It affects housing, employment, children's wellbeing and financial security, and those pressures can follow a family through multiple government systems. That is particularly relevant to the legislation before us today. A parent experiencing family violence may be dealing with the family law system, the social security system, housing services, legal assistance and child support all at the same time. We cannot expect someone in that situation, under that much stress, to navigate each system as though the others do not exist. The points of the system are interconnected.
That is why I have made it a priority to listen to the organisations in Dunkley that deal with these issues every day. As part of the consultation for the second national Action Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, I held a domestic and family violence round table in Dunkley with Assistant Minister Kearney. We brought together local organisations and frontline services so that their experience could help inform the next stage of the national response. I want to acknowledge Mayor Sue Baker and Paul Mercurio MP for their leadership locally in this space. What I heard at that round table reinforced something I have come to understand through my work as a local member: people working on the ground know where systems are falling short, they know where people are getting lost and they know what happens when a policy that looks sensible on paper does not work for a family experiencing violence. That local knowledge should matter when we create legislation in this place. It certainly matters to me.
The evidence from the financial abuse inquiry and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, along with the views of organisations such as Single Mother Families Australia, has highlighted the risks of financial abuse within government systems. Correspondence from constituents has also shown the human impact of these problems. We know that financial abuse can be used to maintain control long after a relationship has ended. It can take many forms: withholding money that a child is entitled to; deliberately creating uncertainty about household finances; and using administrative processes to force ongoing contact or engagement with a former partner.
A system designed to support children must not become another avenue through which harm can be inflicted. That is what schedule 1 of this bill begins to address. There is evidence that some parents use processes within the Child Support Scheme to harass the other parent, including through vexatious applications or objections that require the other parent to engage with the process. This bill gives Services Australia greater discretion to refuse certain applications where proceeding would cause harm. It also allows some objections to be dismissed without involving the other parent where there is little prospect of success or where the objection would have minimal impact on the child support case. Those changes matter, because a process can become a form of pressure. For someone who has experienced family violence, another request for information or another requirement to engage with a former partner may carry consequences that are not immediately visible to the person administering the system.
The bill also makes important changes to how information is exchanged. Currently, when a parent seeks a change of assessment, both parents may be required to provide detailed personal and financial information. There is a legal requirement that entire copies of documents provided by parents are exchanged with the other parent. That can mean sensitive personal information is shared more widely than is necessary. In some circumstances, it can deter a parent from seeking a change altogether. In the worst cases, it can create a physical safety risk, and that is not good enough.
People should not have to decide between seeking a fair child support assessment and protecting their own safety. Under this bill, Services Australia decision-makers will have greater— (Quorum formed)When someone is leaving an abusive relationship, financial independence can be one of the biggest barriers they face. We cannot talk seriously about family violence prevention while ignoring the economic circumstances that can make it harder for someone to leave or establish a safe and stable home. It is something I have been seeing reflected in the work being done in Dunkley, and it is something that this parliament needs to continue addressing.
There is also an international dimension to this legislation. Schedule 3 will make it easier for parents in certain overseas jurisdictions to access the Australian child support system. It will allow direct applications in appropriate circumstances and make clear that an Australian parent cannot simply escape their financial responsibilities to a child because that child was born overseas. Again, the principle is simple: children should not miss out on the financial support they are entitled to because of an international border.
For me, the importance of this legislation comes back to Dunkley. I represent a community where people are working hard to raise their children and build safe and secure lives but where regrettably we have some of the highest levels of domestic and family violence in the state, leading to single-parent families. When a system intended to provide support is instead being used to create further stress and harassment, the government needs to intervene and step in. That is why I welcome the government's broader investment in this area. The additional $182 million in the 2026-27 budget is part of a reform program intended to provide the child support scheme with the initial assessment through to payment and compliance. Since 2022, the government has: expanded paid parental leave to 26 weeks, including superannuation; extended access to the parenting payment for eligible parents with children up to the age of 14; and expanded childcare support. Those policies are connected by a belief that families should have the support they need to give children a secure start in life. Child support is part of that—
Debate interrupted.
Since the 26th budget was handed down, I've heard from so many distressed small-business owners in my electorate. We've already seen a huge number of businesses fail and more empty shops. Let me tell you, when I walk past an empty shop—it actually breaks my heart—I know that, nine out of 10 times, it's because that business's dream has been lost. It's very, very rare that they've been able to be so successful that they've been able to go to larger premises. And those remaining businesses across Australia, the ones that haven't foreclosed this year, will have new taxes that were not just not mentioned before the election but denied before the last election. Then, the next budget after the election, there they were.
This week, I met with accountant Belinda Raso from Tax Invest Accounting along with 10 small-business representatives from across the country who employ people and provide products and services to our communities in construction, hospitality, accounting, mortgage brokering and more. They talked about the downturn in demand and revenue and the increased costs of wages and power. They talked about the fact that the risk versus reward ratio is no longer there. Small businesses in the construction sector talked about it being incredibly difficult to compete with the high-paying government infrastructure builds with respect to wages for qualified trades. And, deeply worryingly, a mortgage broker reported seeing a lot of businesses going to him to seek ATO debt consolidation.
There are 2.7 million small businesses—those with up to 20 employees—trading across Australia, and what many of them, around 350,000, are now going to experience are changes to their discretionary trusts. That is going to mean a higher tax burden than they have seen before, one that the government said would not happen. Let me tell you what that means. That 30 per cent flat tax on discretionary trusts is going to affect mum-and-dad businesses who use those trusts to pass the business on to the next generation or, indeed, protect the family home. That means that those small businesses are going to be paying a much higher rate of tax than anyone who's in the PAYG scenario. Why? Because they're not going to be able to access the tax-free threshold nor access the 15 per cent tax rate that applies to income from $18,200 up to $45,000. This is a cruel tax on small business that this government is implementing.
Then there are the restructuring costs. Those small businesses are saying, 'Okay, well, let's try and manage our tax affairs differently, because that's potentially $10,000 in tax costs that we're going to pay that our employees are not going to pay.' It's unfair, and that is going to cost the nation, those small businesses, between $3 billion and $10 billion. The ATO doesn't earn any money out of that, but what happens is that many businesses will just close. They'll just go to the wall.
Then this week we had the digital duty of care bill, by which the government wants to implement even more regulatory burden on small businesses. Even those with a very small outward-facing website are going to need to do an assessment or pay for someone else to do an assessment to see whether their business complies. They're going to have to keep those records for years. It's unforgivable, the burden that is applied to small business by this government. And so I asked Belinda and those with her, 'What would you do if you were PM for the day?' And they said, 'Let us run our businesses, address inflation and productivity, and exempt businesses with aggregate turnover under $10 million from the new trust tax.'
We need to thank businesses. They're collecting tax every quarter or every month on behalf of the government. Unpaid tax collectors, they are. And what is this government doing? It's taxing businesses to death. We must do better.
I'm really pleased that this government this week has passed the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. I'm really pleased because, as a former teacher, I completely understand duty of care. I don't know that many people here understand that teachers, along with nurses and members of the police force, have a duty of care that's legally binding for young people in their care. But it's not just a duty of care while young people are at school or in the classroom that that teacher works in. It's a 24-hour duty of care. People this week have been very surprised when I've explained to them what that means. If you're a teacher, you're out in the community and there are students there who you know are under 18 and who are drinking alcohol in a place where you are, you can actually be held liable if you don't intercede and stop that from happening. It's something teachers learn to live with.
Part of what schools do—and I go to, say, a camp scenario—is a risk assessment before they go on a school camp. Part of that risk assessment is their duty of care. They have to look at the details of where they're going and what risks there might be to the young people on that camp and what risks there might be to teachers. This digital duty of care bill introduced by the government is this government doing its risk assessment and acting on its duty of care to help protect young people in this country from the risks of the online environments that they are using.
Rather than waiting for the harm, this bill that we've passed this week is designed to be a prospective. We can't predict all of the harms that could happen on the internet. Who could have predicted three years ago that young people could be substituting somebody's face onto nudes using an app? No-one in this chamber would have been able to predict that and legislate to prevent that harm. But in this bill, in creating the duty of care, the onus is put on those who are creating the platforms and those who are profiting from those platforms to ensure that we're covering things that we can't yet see and that we can't yet predict.
I represent one of the youngest electorates in Australia, and I hear firsthand from young people about their experiences online. Obviously, I had 27 years in classrooms, and some of that was in online environments. Kids talk to me about the opportunities that the online environment gives them to connect and to learn, but they also talk about the pressures and the risk they face. We've heard today in this place from the Minister for Education about some of the stories that we're hearing about the bullying that's happening online and the disastrous consequences of that. We've heard across this week lots of stories from members of parliament about the abuse that we are seeing on our social media. We are people of privilege. I'm a member of the federal parliament. I have resources. I have a team. I can access an app that might assist me.
I can't let go of the image of a 14-year-old boy or girl who's got that kind of abuse coming into their social media feed and the shame it's meant to induce on the victim. It's supposed to make us feel ashamed. And then we're asking that 14-year-old to push past that shame and tell an adult what's happening to them. It's designed to do the opposite. It's designed so that young people take on the burden of that shame and disconnect from their parents and from their friends and internalise the pain. We have to act, and this legislation that we've passed this week in the House is us creating prospective legislation that might cover harms that we can't even see now. I implore all of our friends in the Senate to support this legislation to safeguard our kids.
What does it mean? It puts protections for children in this legislation, makes it so digital service providers must protect children under 18 from harmful material, conduct and features, features we can't yet predict. This includes protecting young people from pornography and the obvious things we've seen—glorifying crime and dangerous stunts. What does it mean for adults? We're also recognising that adults deserve to be safe online and be given greater choice over their digital experience, and, under this legislation, all online services are required to protect adults from seriously harmful content, including material or conduct that depicts child abuse, sexual violence, terrorist material and any explicit forms and threats of harm.
I recently had the privilege of joining Zonta Gold Coast Inc for its inaugural event, themed 'Celebrate, Connect and Change'. It was a fantastic evening, where we marked a new chapter for Zonta on the Gold Coast, while honouring almost three decades of outstanding service by Zonta Paradise Point. Zonta's commitment to advancing the status of women and girls through service and advocacy is truly commendable. I was honoured to join the event panel alongside the exceptional Lucy Gregory, CEO of the Domestic Violence Prevention Centre; and inspirational young students from Benowa State High School and the Queensland Academies Health Sciences Campus. The evening highlighted the importance of celebrating women's achievements, building meaningful connections and partnerships, and driving the change needed to ensure every girl has the opportunity to thrive. I thank the dedicated team of Zonta Gold Coast for their important work in our community and give a particular shout out to Kathryn Janovsky, who is a member of my Moncrieff Community Cabinet, doing great work across the Gold Coast.
I also recently had the pleasure of joining the Little Grubbs Orchard Foundation in my electorate for its community fundraiser and trivia night at the Sofitel Gold Coast Broadbeach. The foundation raises critical funds to provide assistance, therapy, education and essential allied-health support for children with autism, disability or special needs. These funds help families cover costs not met by the NDIS, ensuring that children can access the vital support they need. I give a huge thank you to the founder, Lily Grubb, and her children for their incredible work to support our community's most vulnerable.
Earlier this month, I was proud to welcome the Leader of the Nationals and shadow minister for trade, investment and tourism, Senator Matt Canavan, to my electorate on the Gold Coast. Tourism is one of the biggest drivers of our local economy, contributing $8.6 billion in the last financial year alone. As one of Australia's leading tourism destinations, our city depends on a strong, reliable workforce to welcome visitors, support local businesses and keep our economy moving. During Senator Canavan's visit, we met with some of the Gold Coast leading tourism operators to hear first hand about the impact of Labor's changes to the Working Holiday Maker visa program. We spoke with Dylan Hunt from the SkyPoint Observation Deck and met with key industry stakeholders including Anthony Ardern from the Tour Collective Group, John Warn and Rachel Hancock from Experience Gold Coast, the Hon. Will Hodgman AC from Invest Gold Coast and Clark Kirby from Village Roadshow. These people understand our tourism industry better than anyone, and they are deeply concerned about the consequences of this government's decisions. Tourism businesses rely on seasonal workers to meet demand during peak holiday periods—there's no doubt—and, without enough staff, businesses cannot operate at full capacity, visitors miss out, revenue suffers, and opportunities to create local jobs are lost. At a time when small businesses are already battling rising costs and economic uncertainty, the last thing they need is a government making it harder to access the workers they depend on. Labor's changes to working holiday visas have created further uncertainty for an industry that needs certainty to plan, invest and grow.
Migration must work for Australia. It should fill critical skills gaps, strengthen our economy and support our communities, not place unnecessary pressure on businesses that are already doing it tough. That is why the coalition has announced its Australia-first migration plan. We must recognise that migration numbers need to come down, but it must be done in a considered way that puts Australia's needs first. Our plan will reduce net overseas migration to 100,000 a year for the first two years, while protecting critical regional workforce programs, including those supporting tourism and hospitality. It will prioritise skilled migration, improve the skills mix of arrivals and ensure our migration system better serves our national interest, because getting migration right is not simply about reducing numbers; it's about making sure our country has the right skills in the right places.
The Gold Coast tourism industry is vital to our local jobs, our small businesses and our economic future. This government should be listening to the people on the ground who understand what our industry needs, rather than imposing changes that risk undermining its success. The coalition will back our tourism operators, protect the workers our industries need and restore a migration system that works for Australia. Our tourism businesses deserve nothing less.
I want to talk about something that's incredibly important to the Hunter: jobs. We need good, secure, well-paid jobs that allow families to put food on the table, pay their mortgages and build their futures in the communities that they call home, and that's why the recent approval of the Hunter Valley Operations continuation project is such a significant win for our region. This isn't about opening a brand new coal mine. It's about allowing an existing operation to continue supporting the workers, businesses and communities that rely on it and it's about recognising the enormous contribution mining continues to make to the Hunter and to this beautiful country, Australia.
HVO supports around 1,500 mine workers and has relationships with approximately 750 suppliers. Over four years it contributed an estimated $6.9 billion to our economy. That's an enormous contribution and one that deserves recognition in this parliament. Behind those figures are real people: the miners heading off to work before sunrise; the fitters, the leccos, the boilies, the operators and the apprentices; the small businesses supplying parts, equipment and services; and the local shops, sporting clubs and community organisations that benefit when those workers spend their wages locally. Mining doesn't just support the people working behind the mine gates; it supports entire communities.
I'm a former coal miner myself. I know what these jobs mean for families because I've worked alongside the people doing them, and I'm tired of hearing mining workers being spoken about as if they're somehow part of the problem. They are not. They are hardworking Aussies who have helped build this country and will continue playing an important role in its future.
Now let's talk about the environment, because I believe we can support our mining industry and take climate change seriously also. Australia has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, but what does net zero actually mean? It doesn't mean producing absolutely no emissions. It means reducing greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and balancing the remaining emissions out through genuine removal from the atmosphere. Every time we fart, we produce methane. Every time we breathe, we produce carbon dioxide. That's part of the natural carbon cycle, and it's different from releasing additional carbon into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
The challenge is reducing the additional emissions driving climate change, and that means looking at the full picture. Solar panels don't magically appear in paddocks. Wind turbines don't just grow out of the ground. Electric vehicles don't arrive at dealerships without someone mining the materials, manufacturing the components and transporting them right around the world. All of that requires energy, resources and industrial activity. All of that has an environmental footprint. Over their operating lives, renewable energy and electric vehicles can deliver substantial emissions savings that outweigh much of the initial impact, and that's why they're part of the solution, but we can't pretend the environmental costs of building them don't exist. We need to measure emissions properly across the whole lifecycle and apply consistent standards. You can't demand an honest accounting of coal's environmental impacts while ignoring the mining and manufacturing needed for technologies replacing it.
There's also an important conversation to be had about the quality of coal being used around the world. Some Australian coal has advantages over lower-quality alternatives, including higher energy content and lower impurities. That can improve efficiency and reduce certain pollutants, but emissions depend on the coal, the power station and how it's used. We should be making decisions based on evidence, not slogans. While countries continue to use coal, Australia has an opportunity to supply customers under strong environmental and workplace and safety standards. The world is changing and our region is changing with it, but transition won't happen overnight. We cannot expect regional communities to carry the entire burden while everyone else enjoys the benefits of the energy, steel and resources they produce.
The Hunter has powered this country for generations and the skills of our miners, our engineers, our tradies and our manufacturers will help build the next generation of energy infrastructure too. The minerals, machinery, steel and expertise needed for the transition all have to come from somewhere. Mining will be part of this and how we reach net zero also. So let's support our workers, back responsible mining and invest in the industries of tomorrow. The Hunter deserves a future with both a strong economy and a healthier environment.
To every miner out there, thank you for what you do. You go into very dangerous environments every day of the week. Keep up the great work. While people want to buy our coal, we'll always sell them our coal. So, to the miners in the Hunter, remember, we have your backs. We'll support you along the way. Thank you for what you do. Cheers!
This year marks 25 years of the Mitchell Youth Leadership Forum, a singularly successful program in Australia bringing together every public and private high school in my electorate and some from outside my electorate. There are 300 children every year who come and learn about three core values: service, integrity and courage. The Mitchell Youth Leadership Forum has, over those 25 years, had an impact on literally tens of thousands of young people.
All of the kids who come along get put into small groups. They don't know a single person in them. Each group has leaders, one man and one woman, who are former students and have been trained in leadership—young people leading young people. Over three days, without their phones, they immerse themselves with people they don't know in leadership exercises based on the themes of those three values and hear from great speakers. This year, we heard from Lucinda Harvey on breaking barriers and building community; Bianca Kulikovskis on courage to create; Chris Lee on leading yourself; Akanisi Ledua on leading with service and inspiring with purpose; and Josh and Nathan Katz on whatever it takes. Over the years, we've had Young Australians of the Year and some singularly impressive Australians come and speak.
I want to give a shout out this year in particular to Her Excellency the Governor-General, Sam Mostyn, who came and addressed and spoke with the 250 young people who were gathered in their teams, after their community services component. This year, community service involved dealing with projects at Aminya Village, McCall Gardens, Riding for the Disabled and Tall Timbers Centre—great community institutions at which the children learned about serving others.
Her Excellency was outstanding in her presentation. Those young people had an opportunity to engage with the woman at the apex of our constitution, at the apex of constitutional power, and to simply ask her about her leadership journey, her commitment to service and her constitutional role. I want to thank Her Excellency for being there in Castle Hill. Everyone was in Castle Hill on that day, it seems. The Premier was there, and the Deputy Premier was there. Her Excellency made the time to come and enthusiastically visit 300 young leaders, and it was an excellent exchange. They will remember that for life. I praise the person that she is and her great spirit that led her to her role and her commitment to leaders and young leadership in Australia.
I want to take time to thank the committee. This annual event, three days with these kids, is a year-long endeavour. We had great sponsors of the forum this year: Nature's Sunshine Products of Australia, Castle Towers, QIC and Peppers The Hills Lodge. Their dedication and their financial commitment enable these young leaders to come together, engage, get to know each other and strengthen the fabric of my north-western community, with kids who never knew each other leaving with friendships for life. The committee that runs it comprises Tristan Smith, Ronie Quinn, Steve Edwards, Jan Cox, Ged Lewis, Thomas Kelly, Jessie Peake, Ken Shaw, Daniel Ridley, Marcus Cannon, Jane Porto, Lauren Nowacka, Chloe Lahood, Ronan Pillay, Deyyan Jafar and Simon Teh, most of whom are now on the board after 25 years and are former students who have been through the program themselves. Their voluntary commitment year round is just absolutely amazing. I also want to thank the CEO, Tristan Smith. He's a young teacher who works with the Department of Education. He's a former student as well. He came out of Kellyville High School, and he's now with the Department of Education. He's an outstanding man. His leadership was something to behold at this forum. The challenge we had this year was that our regular site on the banks of the Nepean River is being refitted, so we were at Katoomba, at StayKCC. I want to thank StayKCC also for their outstanding commitment. A three-day program with this many kids and involving this much commitment, time and effort—and with all of the community work, the challenges and the other things that go with it, day and night—couldn't be done without this impressive team.
After 25 years, and having served as either the chair or the patron for 17 years myself, I can't speak highly enough to members of parliament of getting youth together, hearing from them and letting them immerse themselves, without their digital devices, in the simple principles of service, integrity and courage around some excellent Australians. It produces great results.
I thank everybody who's given us so much over 25 years. I thank my predecessor, Alan Cadman, for founding this forum. We've modernised it. We've expanded it. We get schools from Indigenous Australia. We do everything we can to make it available to everybody. It's a special thing. I particularly pay tribute to Her Excellency the Governor-General for taking a moment of her time to do something very special for these young Australians.
Every nation tells a story about itself, and tonight I want to tell a quieter part of ours. It belongs to a man who spent his life at the front gates of the hospital. His name is Dr Easwaran Krishnan, and after 48 years of service to medicine he is handing over for the last time. His journey began in Delhi. He trained at the Armed Forces Medical College and wore the uniform of the Indian Air Force. Medicine then carried him across the world to the United Arab Emirates, to the United Kingdom and then, finally, to us. He could have gone anywhere but he chose Australia, and he spent the best years of his life keeping our people alive.
Let's think about what that means. When a young man was pulled from a car on a dark freeway and brought to hospital, Dr Krishnan was there. When a mother ran through the sliding doors at three in the morning, holding a child who was not breathing, searching for anyone that knew what to do, he was there. Night after night, year after year, Christmas mornings, missed birthdays, long drives home at dawn—he bore it all, quietly, so the rest of us could sleep. There are Australians at their kitchen tables tonight because of Dr Krishnan—fathers who walked their daughters down the aisle, children who grew up never knowing how close they came.
His name is written in the stories of many, including my own. He was my very first supervising emergency physician, and I can still recall to this very day his calm instruction. In an emergency department that is so often built for speed, he always found the time to be gentle. He taught me that truth is a kindness, even when it breaks your heart to say it. He taught me that the cleaner and the professor deserve the same respect. And he taught me that integrity is what you do at four o'clock in the morning when you are exhausted, when you are tired, when no-one is watching, and the only witness to that interaction is your own conscience. He is part of the reason I became an emergency doctor and he is part of the reason that I stand here in this chamber tonight.
And I am one of many; there are many people right across this nation and right around the world—the many doctors, the many nurses, allied health professionals and other health staff—who carry him right into every shift. Every steady hand, every hard truth told gently and every life pulled back from the edge, Dr Krishnan is there. That is a legacy. It's not marble, it's not monuments—it's people. Australia is the sum of the people who give themselves to it, and Dr Krishnan has given us everything. I say to his family: thank you for sharing him with us.
Dr Krishnan, for 48 years you stood at the front gates and you made sure that all those that came through the hospital—fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, friends, family and loved ones—were never ever alone. Tonight you hand over to us, and we stand ready for you. Dr Krishnan, on behalf of all those people right across the Central Coast and those who'll be listening at Wyong Hospital, thank you for everything you've done for us and thank you for everything you've done for our community. I wish you all the very best in your retirement, my friend.
House adjourned at 16:59
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie) took the chair at 09:53.
On 30 September, I brought together parents, carers, disability providers.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 09:53 to 10:04
On 30 September, I brought together parents, carers, disability advocates, allied health professionals, educators, service providers and New South Wales government representatives for a community roundtable on the new Thriving Kids program. I also invited members of the Bradfield community to share their thoughts and questions through a survey. I heard from 78 people—parents and carers but also health professionals, educators, service providers and community organisations—and 66 others submitted questions or comments to policymakers. I organised this event because, since Thriving Kids was announced, many, many people have contacted my office to share their thoughts and concerns about the changes. Thank you to everyone who participated, particularly those who shared deeply personal experiences about the challenges facing their children.
Everyone I heard from wants the same thing from Thriving Kids: for children to receive appropriate and effective support early so they have every opportunity to learn, participate and thrive. But the message from my community is also very clear that families and frontline professionals do not have enough information about how this major reform will operate. Parents fear that children could fall through the cracks between the NDIS and the new system. They're worried about losing trusted therapists, established relationships and supports tailored to their children's individual needs. Families and healthcare professionals alike questioned whether group based services will be suitable for children, particularly those with complex or co-occurring needs. They also raised important questions about privacy, choice and control safeguards, accountability and how children's individual needs will be assessed. There is a concern that programs will be rushed and implemented with inadequate data-gathering analysis. Allied health professionals and small-service providers told me that they're also facing considerable uncertainty. They don't know yet what role they'll have in the new system, how services will be commissioned or whether their businesses will even remain viable.
Thriving Kids must not simply shift responsibility from one overstretched system to the other. Nor should reform come at the cost of continuity of care or the trusted relationships that families have spent years building. Participants understood that a reform of this scale will involve some difficult implementation challenges, but they rightly expect governments to communicate changes clearly and well in advance and to work closely with families and frontline professionals. I'll keep listening to my community as Thriving Kids is rolled out. I will continue pressing for clear, timely communication, strong safeguards and accountability, proper workforce planning and genuine continuity of care. I'll push for the voices of children and families to be at the centre of reform. No family should be left to navigate this transition alone.
The Albanese Labor government strongly supports a tailored and targeted migration system. We are making changes to the system to give us more control over who arrives, who stays and who leaves. I've been speaking with relevant ministerial colleagues about the concerns being raised by the tourism and agricultural sector in my electorate of Solomon—Darwin and Palmerston—around working holiday makers. I met recently with the MEC NT Electrical Contractors team. They, too, reinforced the importance of the working holiday maker cohort and the opportunity to tap into a skilled workforce who want to stay in the Territory longer. I've been speaking with some of our major hostels in Darwin—Deb from Youth Shack Backpackers and Stratton from MoM Darwin, a backpacker hostel on Mitchell Street—about the impact of the recently announced changes.
Similarly, a constituent wrote to me about their personal experience of arriving in Darwin from Ireland as a backpacker in 2011, planning to be working holiday maker. Like many, they intended to stay only a few weeks during the dry season before continuing their travels, but during that time they secured employment in the hospitality sector and were later offered employer sponsorship. That opportunity changed the course of their life and is the sole reason they are still living and thriving in Darwin today. Fifteen years later, they have built a career in the Territory, purchased their own home, started a family and are contributing extensively to community life through volunteer work.
Just last week, I got my hair cut at Diamond Barbers, who always do a great job, and my barber was—you guessed it, Deputy Speaker Sharkie—once a working holiday maker. I attended the 50th anniversary of Amity Community Services recently. Some of those counsellors had studied—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended at 10:09
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:00 upon the adjournment
of the House, in accordance with standing order 190(c)