The SPEAKER (12:01): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland resigning from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Leader of the House) (12:03): I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026; and (2) Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026.

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (12:04): I rise to speak on the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. The repealing offences bill is a bill that reshapes where the criminal law ends and where civil liability begins in the protection of Commonwealth information. The coalition will not oppose this bill in the House. The government has the numbers and it will, of course, pass this chamber. But that's not the end of the matter. The coalition has questions about the bill's scope, about its gaps and about choices the government has made that no independent reviewer recommended. These are questions that must be examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is due to report next month. The coalition will finalise its position, including on whether amendments are necessary, once that process is complete.

Let me start with some history, because this bill cannot be understood without it. In 2018, the former coalition government introduced the most significant overhaul of Australia's counter-intelligence and secrecy laws since the 1970s. It repealed section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914, a century-old provision, and replaced it with a modern framework in part 5.6 of the Criminal Code. This was part of a broader and essential overhaul of our national security legislation and was enacted through the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference Act) 2018. This was a deliberate, measured and careful reform process. We were conscious that, with the repeal of the old section 70 of the Crimes Act, hundreds of nondisclosure duties around the Commonwealth law could potentially lose their criminal consequences, so we created section 122.4 of the Criminal Code as a transitional measure, a temporary safety net deliberately built into our criminal law architecture, to hold the line while each of those duties was individually reviewed to determine whether criminal liability was actually warranted.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, recommended inserting a sunsetting clause. The coalition accepted that recommendation. Section 122.4 was never intended to be permanent. The sunsetting clause was our mechanism to ensure that the review happened. That review has now been completed through the 2023 AGD secrecy review and the 2024 Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review of part 5.6.

The Commonwealth secrecy law operates at two levels. At the top, hundreds of specific acts contain their own criminal secrecy offences, in taxation, national security, intelligence, social services and financial regulation. This bill largely leaves those untouched. The criminal protection for genuinely sensitive national security information is unchanged. Below that sat section 122.4, the safety net. It made breach of any nondisclosure duty a crime, regardless of motive or harm. Over 300 duties relied on it for criminal liability. This bill removes criminal liability from those 300-plus duties. The duties themselves remain on the statute book. The obligation to keep information confidential survives, but breach is now a civil and administrative matter—a matter of dismissal, APS Code of Conduct action and civil remedies rather than prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. In place of the old catch-all, the bill introduces new targeted offences. Where the old section 122.4 criminalised any breach of any duty, regardless of why it occurred, the new offence requires proof of improper intent—specifically an intention to obtain a personal benefit or cause harm. Around 16 specific duties retain criminal liability where civil sanctions were assessed as insufficient, principally where personal health information, census data or commercially sensitive information is involved.

The bill also makes important reforms to the existing general secrecy offences, implementing INSLM recommendations to improve clarity, proportionality and rule-of-law consistency. Schedule 5 corrects three technical drafting errors.

I want to turn to issues with schedule 1. The coalition supports the policy direction of schedule 1, but there are a number of specific issues we expect the Senate committee to examine. These include, first, the term 'improper'. The new offence turns on whether a reasonable person would conclude that the conduct was improper. The term is not defined anywhere in the legislation. Courts will determine its meaning on a case-by-case basis. People connected to government may not know with confidence whether their conduct crosses the criminal line. Prosecutors may face contestable standards at trial. The Senate committee should examine whether a definition or a non-exhaustive list of factors is needed.

Second, there's no sensitivity threshold. Unlike every other offence in part 5.6, the new offence does not require the information to meet a defined harm or sensitivity threshold. In theory, entirely innocuous information could satisfy elements if the intent and impropriety tests are met. The 'improper' test does the filtering work, but, without a definition, that is an uncertain standard. The Senate committee should examine this.

Third, the new offence extends for the first time to people providing services to the Commonwealth, whether paid or unpaid. Advisory board members, pro bono industry experts and people who have no formal contract have received no secrecy training and may have no idea they're now exposed to criminal liability. That's a significant change in scope and reach, particularly in the absence of clarity as to whether conduct is criminal in nature. Further, the change is immediate. The measures in this bill will commence on the day after royal assent, with no transition period. The government should tell Australians what information campaign or guidance material will be provided before the law takes effect.

Fourth and most significant, under the old section, 122.4, motive was entirely irrelevant. A public servant who leaked cabinet deliberations because they disagreed with government policy faced criminal sanctions. Under the new offence, the same person may not be guilty at all, because the prosecution must prove an intention to obtain personal benefit or cause harm. The AGD secrecy review specifically identified this problem and recommended an additional offence covering disclosures prejudicial to the effective working of government to capture ideologically motivated leaks of cabinet material, pre-budget decisions and diplomatic cables where there's no personal gain and no intent to harm. The government declined to implement that recommendation. That was a deliberate choice. It was not an oversight. This must also be explored by the Senate committee.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends existing Commonwealth secrecy offences and non-disclosure duties in other legislation. The schedule affects some 300-plus provisions that set out secrecy and non-disclosure obligations. Among those 300-plus provisions, the outright repeals of existing duties include, for example, the secrecy obligations of staff from the old Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, a body that ceased to exist in 2005. This is appropriate. However, the coalition notes one genuine gap in the civil substitutes: they do not apply to former officials. Once a public servant leaves government, the APS code no longer binds them. Civil litigation against a former employee is expensive and uncertain. For the most serious potential breaches, a departing official misusing sensitive information, the criminal law was the primary deterrent. The Senate committee should examine whether that gap is adequately addressed.

I'll now turn to schedule 3, the provision that the coalition has significant concerns about. Schedule 3 requires the Attorney-General to give written consent before a journalist or news organisation staff member can be prosecuted for any Commonwealth secrecy offence. If the Attorney-General refuses consent, the prosecution cannot proceed. Let me begin with where this came from. In 2019, AFP raids on News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC attracted significant public and political attention. Whether to investigate and prosecute offences was, of course, a matter determined independently by police and prosecutors. But there was clear community concern about the impact on journalism. Attorney-General Christian Porter responded to that concern at the time by directing the Commonwealth DPP to seek his written consent before prosecuting a journalist for a defined list of national security and intelligence secrecy offences.

That direction was signed on 19 September 2019. It came shortly after another safeguard, put in place by Peter Dutton as the responsible minister at the time, setting out expectations on the investigation of journalists. The direction by Attorney-General Porter was a deliberate and highly targeted safeguard. It was welcomed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as an initial step to restore confidence in press freedom. I served on that relevant committee at the time of the inquiry. Rightly, it has never been used. No prosecution of a journalist for a secrecy offence has been brought since. On 21 November 2023, when releasing the AGD's Review of secrecy provisions final report, Attorney-General Dreyfus announced the government's intention to legislate the Porter direction, contradicting the opportunistic and misleading criticisms that he made at the time. This bill takes that highly targeted safeguard and expands it significantly.

Under Labor, the consent requirement will apply to every Commonwealth secrecy offence that does not already require ministerial consent. That is an extraordinary reach. Neither the AGD secrecy review nor the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review recommended schedule 3. It's the only provision in this bill without an independent expert recommendation behind it. Australia's Right to Know submitted to the AGD secrecy review on 5 May 2023. Their 57-page submission is a detailed, sophisticated legal document. On the consent mechanism, at page 57, Australia's Right to Know said that it was 'at best a complement to proper reforms of the type outlined in the balance of this submission' and that 'it cannot be a substitute'. What Australia's Right to Know primarily sought, in the overwhelming substance of 57 pages, was fundamental reform of the journalist protection in section 122.5(6) of the Criminal Code. They describe the existing defence as a 'dead letter in practical terms'. They argue the prosecution should bear the full evidential burden of disproving the protection, not the journalist. They argued that the reasonable-grounds standard should be replaced with a bona fide belief standard, removing the ability of courts to second guess journalistic methodology and professional judgement.

Australia's Right to Know raised three specific concerns about the consent mechanism: first, it creates a chilling effect by vesting discretion in a member of the government whose own actions may be under journalistic scrutiny; second, it makes no difference to police investigations, which will proceed regardless; and, third, the Attorney-General may simply fail to grant consent, leaving journalists in indefinite legal limbo.

The government seems to have ignored that submission, and it appears that Australia's Right to Know's concerns are realised in schedule 3 as drafted. The government has turned a targeted, responsive and carefully reviewed direction into a legislative procedure that applies much, much more broadly, without explanation. Time and again, when it comes to secrecy and access to information, this is a government that cannot be trusted.

There are clear questions the coalition expects the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs to pursue: Why did the government choose schedule 3 rather than implementing INSLM recommendation No. 13, which recommended clarifying the existing journalist defence? What specific evidence base exists for massively expanding the existing highly targeted approach in Attorney-General Porter's direction so that it covers every Commonwealth secrecy offence and locks it into legislation? How will this work in practice, in the absence of statutory criteria, with no reasons requirement and no time limit but a very broad scope?

The government must be upfront. It must provide a complete schedule of all 300-plus provisions being decriminalised, showing for each which civil and administrative substitute applies. It must confirm whether the relevant agencies were consulted. And there are broader concerns. What criminal sanction now applies to the ideologically motivated leaker of cabinet material—the public servant who discloses sensitive government information with no personal gain and no intent to harm? Is that person engaged in criminal activity, as was the case in Australian legal history to date, or are they now out of scope? The government has a responsibility to explain these things, to identify any gaps and to say what, if anything, it intends to do about it.

We will consider whether these provisions are fit for purpose, as well as other schedules in the bill, which, in the interests of time, I don't propose to run through now. The coalition will engage with the Senate committee process in good faith. We will press for answers and we will finalise our position on the bill, including on whether amendments are necessary, once we have those answers.

Let me turn now to the second bill in this cognate debate, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. This bill is short, it's technical, and, importantly, it's necessary. It makes a single amendment to the Criminal Code Act 1995 by extending the sunsetting date for section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by six months, from 29 June 2026 to 29 December 2026. As I explained earlier, section 122.4 is the Commonwealth's general secrecy offence. It applies where a current or former Commonwealth officer or contractor discloses information obtained through their official role in breach of secrecy or non-disclosure obligations imposed by another Commonwealth law. Those obligations exist across a broad range of Commonwealth legislation. They protect highly sensitive information, including Australians' personal information, health records, taxation information, commercially sensitive material and law enforcement information. These are not abstract categories of information. They include real information that Australians trust their government to protect—their health records, their tax data, their personal details and sensitive commercial information.

The provision was drafted as a temporary measure to preserve criminal liability for relevant secrecy obligations while national security reforms were implemented and broader Commonwealth secrecy law reform was considered. It created a clear and enforceable criminal framework to sit alongside a wide range of existing Commonwealth secrecy obligations. Importantly, the provision was always intended to operate as an interim measure. That's why the parliament included a sunset clause. The sunset mechanism ensured that the offence would be revisited and would not be continued indefinitely without reconsideration by parliament. This bill represents the third occasion on which parliament has been asked to extend the operation of section 122.4. That reflects a straightforward reality: the broader Commonwealth secrecy reform process has still not concluded.

The other bill in this cognate debate, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026, proposes broader reforms dealing with section 122.4 and related secrecy offences, but that's separate legislation. As I've explained, a range of stakeholders have raised concerns about the proposed changes, and it's important that the coalition works through that legislation carefully and on its merits. But supporting this sunsetting bill does not predetermine the coalition's view on the broader repeal bill and reform bill. Those are separate matters, and the purpose of this bill is much narrower. It's about ensuring continuity in the law while parliament properly scrutinises the government's broader reforms.

The case for that continuity is straightforward. Parliament cannot properly scrutinise the government's proposed reforms if the existing framework collapses in the meantime. If this bill doesn't pass before 29 June 2026, section 122.4 will sunset automatically. The consequences would be immediate and serious. There would be a significant gap in criminal liability for breaches of a wide range of Commonwealth secrecy obligations. Sensitive information entrusted to government could be disclosed without the operation of this general criminal offence. There would be uncertainty across Commonwealth agencies about the enforceability of relevant secrecy obligations, and there would be weakened protections for information Australians rightly expect their government to safeguard. Allowing a legal vacuum to emerge, even temporarily, is not acceptable.

This bill ensures those protections remain in place while parliament considers the government's broader secrecy law reforms. It does not expand, alter or restrict the existing operation of section 122.4. It does not predetermine the outcome of the larger policy debate currently before the parliament. It simply preserves the current legal position for a further six months to avoid a potentially serious gap in the law.

The coalition supports this bill and will vote for its passage. We have long supported strong, proportionate protections for sensitive Commonwealth information. At the same time, we recognise the importance of ensuring secrecy laws are workable, proportionate and subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. That's why the interim extension is necessary. It provides continuity, certainty and stability while the parliament completes consideration of the broader reforms. I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (12:23): I rise today to debate the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill and the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill, and, at the outset, I want to make it clear that the coalition will be supporting these bills. They are sensible, non-controversial measures that update the governance and administration of important schemes that support Australian authors and publishers.

Public Lending Right and Educational Lending Right are longstanding Australian government programs. They compensate authors and publishers for the free multiple use of their books in public and educational libraries. These schemes recognise a fundamental principle. While we rightly support free public access to books and knowledge, creators should not be financially disadvantaged as a result, and borrowing a book from a library, including the school library, means authors are supported. For example, Trent Dalton is able to benefit from this program as he's listed his many books, including Boy Swallows Universe, Lola in the Mirror and Love Stories. I note that he is from the great state of Queensland. Andy Griffiths is a beneficiary for his storied Treehouse series. Anyone who has read these books with children may agree that it's great that our library borrowers can experience the joy of Andy's 78-flavours ice cream parlour—serving every flavour imaginable, from chocolate to roasted ants—and that Andy is able to receive financial support for that and for that story. Ash Barty is also a beneficiary of the program, with My Dream Time—and what a wonderful contribution Ash continues to make to our country. The program supports a range of authors, from those we are more familiar with to those who are emerging.

The Public Lending Right scheme has been governed by legislation since, in fact, 1985. The Educational Lending Right, by contrast, has operated as a program administered within the department. What these bills do is pretty straightforward. They consolidate both schemes into a single legislative framework, bringing educational lending rights into legislation for the first time. They also transition the existing advisory committee to cover both schemes and provide the minister with the power to establish legislative instruments governing their operation. These are administrative and governance improvements. They indeed modernise the framework and provide greater consistency across the two schemes.

But let me address what this bill actually does not do. Despite its title, 'better income for authors', this bill does not actually increase the amount of compensation paid to authors or publishers. There is no new funding attached to this legislation. The total pool of funding remains fixed, and the way payments are calculated remains simply unchanged. Payments are distributed from a capped annual allocation of around $28 million in recent years, with rates determined per book held in libraries as set out in ministerial instruments. In 2024-25, more than 17,600 payments were made, totalling $28.16 million. That system, in fact, continues under this bill. There is no change to that. So, while the government may seek to suggest in the title of this legislation that it delivers better income, the reality is that it primarily delivers structural and administrative change, not increased financial support as the public would think from the name of this bill. To be fair, bringing educational lending rights into legislation does provide greater certainty and security for that funding stream. That is a positive step. But we should not conflate certainty with expansion. The government may also point to funding announced in 2023, at $12.9 million over four years, associated with expanding eligibility to include ebooks and audiobooks. However, that funding has already been flowing since the 2024-25 financial year. It's not new funding associated with this bill, as the government would have you think from the title.

This legislation arises from the government's broader National Cultural Policy agenda. As part of that process, additional advisory bodies and committees were established, including the Writing Australia Council. This reform is one of the outputs of that process, aimed at modernising lending rights legislation. Again, modernisation is welcome, but it must be matched with meaningful support and delivery.

The coalition indeed has a strong and consistent track record in this area. We have supported these schemes since their inception. Coalition governments have maintained and delivered payments to authors and publishers for decades, and it was a coalition government that established the Educational Lending Right scheme in the 2000-01 budget under Prime Minister Howard. Our support for Australian authors is longstanding and genuine.

In preparing for this legislation, we met with representatives from the Australian Society of Authors, and they, of course, support the bill, as do we. However, it's no surprise that they and many others in the sector are calling for additional funding to support authors, and that is a conversation that should continue because, while governance changes are important, they do not, on their own, address the financial pressures facing authors.

I now turn to some of the specific changes in this bill. One key reform is the incorporation of educational lending rights into the legislative framework, and this brings greater transparency and accountability to the scheme. The roles of the secretary and the advisory committee are also updated. Notably, appeals regarding payment calculations will now be determined by the secretary, providing a clearer decision-making pathway, and eligibility criteria are also being updated. Currently, eligibility is based on being a resident for taxation purposes. Under the new framework, eligibility will be based on citizenship or permanent residency status, providing a clearer and more contemporary definition.

There are also changes to the remuneration arrangements for the advisory committee. The chair will move from an annual stipend to a per-meeting payment structure, which is expected to result in lower overall remuneration. Committee members' remuneration will remain unchanged and aligned with standard tribunal rates. Importantly, the number of committee members and the individuals serving will not change. These are measured administrative updates. The bill is not controversial, and it is not time sensitive. It is a practical piece of legislation that tidies up and strengthens existing arrangements.

But, while we support the bill, we must also place it in its proper context, because authors across Australia are facing real challenges. They are dealing with rising costs, evolving publishing models and increasing competition in a global digital marketplace, and, for many, income from writing alone is not sufficient. Lending rights payments are an important supplementary income stream, but they are not a complete solution. That is why the broader policy settings matter, it is why funding levels matter and it's why delivery matters. Too often we see a gap between government announcements and real outcomes on the ground. We see programs announced with fanfare but without the follow-through needed to make a tangible difference.

This bill, while welcome, is not a substitute for a comprehensive approach to supporting Australian writers and the broader creative sector. Access to books through libraries and educational institutions is one of the great strengths of our society. It, of course, supports literacy, education and, indeed, opportunity. But that access must be balanced with fair compensation for the creators. That is the purpose of lending rights schemes, and that is why they are worth maintaining and strengthening. This legislation contributes to that objective by providing a clearer and more robust framework. For that reason, the coalition will support it, just as we have supported the program for decades.

The coalition would also like to support the lesser-known Australian authors who benefit from the scheme. For example, Jack Heath is a Canberran who attended Lyneham High School and has written a range of children's books such as the Spy Academy series and 300 Minutes of Danger. Books like these are in many school libraries, where he benefits from the Education Lending Right program. Jack also volunteers a lot of his time to appearing in schools, inspiring our young Australians to read and even become authors themselves. Jack, thank you for the work that you do.

The coalition will continue to ask questions about funding, about delivery and about whether the government is doing enough to support Australian authors in a meaningful way, because governance reform is only part of the equation. If we truly want better income for authors, we must be honest about what it will take. It will take sustained investment, it will take clear and effective policy, and it will take a government that prioritises outcomes over announcements. Yes, the coalition supports these bills. They are sensible administrative reforms that modernise and strengthen important programs. But we should be clear about their scope. They do not increase funding, they do not change payment calculations and they do not, on their own, deliver better income for authors, and that remains the challenge for the government to address.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:33):  I rise to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, and I move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

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

(1) the Opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices;

(2) Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms;

(3) the Government has failed to clearly identify the gap in existing law that the bill is intended to address;

(4) the bill's broad new prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' risks creating significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years;

(5) despite the Government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $124 million per year, including more than $100 million per year on small businesses;

(6) these additional compliance burdens will fall on small businesses already under pressure from high inflation, rising energy costs, higher rents, higher insurance premiums, the Government's new taxes, and a slowing economy;

(7) these costs will be passed on to everyday Australian consumers; and

(8) the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny, stakeholder consultation and consideration of its impact on small businesses".

I just want to read, before I go to my speech, some of the essence of what the amendment is—firstly, 'that the opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices'. The amendment also notes that Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. The amendment also says that the bill's broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices will create risks through significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years.

The amendment also says that, despite the government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $100 million per year; this will all be worn by small business. The amendment also mentions the additional compliance burdens that will fall on small businesses already under pressure from higher inflation, energy costs, rents, insurance et cetera and that these costs will eventually—obviously, if they're passed on to business—be passed onto everyday consumers in what is already a cost-of-living crisis. The amendment also says that the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny.

I often feel it in this chamber; there's an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are some things about this bill, which I will go into in a minute, where I think the intention is warranted and good. But, as I mentioned in the amendment, we're concerned that in this bill there will also be a new legal test about what is unfair trading. This will create a lot of uncertainty in the business sector, especially in the small business sector, around what will be considered fair or unfair trading, which I think will be a lawyer's picnic. We're not convinced that this is needed, given we already have the consumer laws. As the amendment mentions, there's $100 million a year in red tape that this is predicted to put onto small business. We know and you know, Deputy Speaker, the pressures that are already on small businesses. Of course, they will pass it onto consumers. While the coalition won't oppose this in the House, we are sceptical of this bill, which is why we want to refer it to a Senate inquiry.

If I can go into some of the targeted measures that I think have merit in this bill, one is drip pricing. We all know an example of this would be buying something online; you might start off at $12, and, by the time you've clicked 'buy', it's gone up to $24 because of costs that get added as you keep clicking, whether it be booking fees, service fees processing fees, handling fees or et cetera. I think there's some merit in the bill in that area. The other one is subscription traps. To subscribe to something is very easy; 'Just click here and subscribe,' and you're subscribed. But, if you try and get out of it, you've almost got to take your dead grandmother in to prove who you are. Those types of things have merit, and I think that is warranted.

But, again, I want to touch on the problem that we have with the general prohibition on unfair trading. Who will define what unfair trading is? What this bill will do is open up the question of what is unfair trading. If it's very broad, then a business may breach the law and not even necessarily know it's breaching the law until that is determined in a court. We think that will unreasonably distort decision-making and cause detriment to the small business, which will be financial but can also be non-financial. There'll be wasted time, stress, compliance costs, red tape costs and inconvenience. Who's going to decide what is unfair? When does normal marketing become manipulation? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? Again, the bill doesn't go into all of this. The courts and lawyers will decide this. This will be a lawyers picnic, and they'll be feasting on small businesses and, again, increasing costs.

Again, Labor have promised to cut red tape and to boost productivity. I would say that opening up this new general definition of what is unfair trading is doing exactly the opposite of both of those. This will lower productivity and increase red tape and red tape costs. Treasury estimates the bill will impose more than $123 million a year in regulatory costs. Why would we want to do that right now? Why do we want to have this new general definition of what unfair trading is—

Mr Laxale: Because we don't want consumers to be ripped off.

Mr HOGAN: Labor are interjecting. They obviously think increased regulatory costs are good. That's great. I'm glad that Labor are interjecting that they think increased regulatory costs are good, because that will be passed on to the consumer. If you think an increase in the cost of living is good for the consumer right now, good on you—I take that interjection from those opposite. I'm sure that the Labor interjector thinks that, for the 1.5 million small businesses that are going to be affected, it's good for them to have more governance, red tape and regulatory costs, and I note that.

Again, this will be especially harsh on small business. Obviously big business will have problems with it as well, but often they will have in-house compliance departments and in-house lawyers. Small business just doesn't have those resources. This means that small businesses, trying to get ahead and trying to make a living, will just have more things that they need to worry about when they go home, more forms that they need to deal with.

This bill needs a Senate inquiry, and one of the reasons we think it needs to be referred to the Senate is that, as I note in my amendment, we already have strong consumer laws in this country. We're not operating in a vacuum here. There are already protections for consumers, as there should be. We already prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct. We prohibit unconscionable conduct. We have unfair-contract-terms protections. I don't think the government has explained exactly what gap the new general prohibition in this bill will fill. Again, the measures deserve proper and serious scrutiny.

I also note that the exposure draft consultation was only open for two weeks, but that's not surprising anymore, with this government that campaigned on increased transparency. Allowing two weeks of consultation for an exposure draft is just normal practice for them.

I encourage the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to test whether the general prohibition is too broad, whether the detriment goes too far, whether the bill overlaps with the general consumer protection laws we already have and whether small business needs more protection. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Senate committee recommends. Maybe there can be small-business protections and carve-outs, given they don't have the resources here.

I'll end by saying that the coalition supports protecting consumers—obviously, we need to do that—but we do not support vague new laws that punish small business and enrich lawyers. The road to ruin can often be paved with good intention. We need to make sure that these laws do not do that. We don't want a law that puts $100 million of red tape on small businesses for no real gain, and I look forward to this bill receiving proper scrutiny through a Senate inquiry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms McKenzie: It is.

Ms WITTY (Melbourne) (12:43): I rise to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about fairness. It's about whether people can trust the prices they see, whether they can leave a subscription as easily as they joined it, whether businesses compete by offering a better product or by wearing people down through confusion, pressure and manipulation.

Australians are smart consumers. We compare prices, we budget carefully and we shop around, especially right now, but increasingly we are navigating markets that are designed to exhaust us. We click on what looks like a cheap ticket, and a few screens later the price has jumped. We sign up for a free trial in under a minute and then spend half an hour trying to cancel it. We try to compare products online, only to be flooded with countdown clocks, pop-ups, hidden charges and endless prompts, pushing us towards a decision. We all feel that frustration every single day, and what frustrates us even more is the sense that these practices are not accidental; they are designed that way. This bill says clearly, 'This is not good enough.'

This legislation modernises the Australian Consumer Law to reflect the way Australians buy things now. We buy things online, through apps, through subscriptions and through digital platforms designed to shape our behaviour. Importantly, this bill recognises something we already know: there is a difference between persuasion and manipulation. Businesses should absolutely promote their products. Competition matters, advertising matters, innovation matters—but there is a line. When businesses deliberately create environments that confuse us, pressure us, hide information or trap us into spending money we did not intend to spend, governments have a responsibility to act.

Through this bill, the Albanese Labor government is stepping up in three ways: first, the general ban on unfair trading practices; second, the crackdown on subscription traps; and, third, the ban on drip pricing. Each of these reforms responds directly to experiences we are already having in our daily lives.

The first reform is a ban on unfair trading practices across the economy. This is significant reform. For too long there has been a gap in our consumer laws. There have been practices that clearly feel unfair to consumers—practices that distort decision-making and practices that cause harm—but those practices have not always met the threshold of misleading conduct or unconscionable conduct under existing laws. This bill closes that gap. It establishes a clearer principle: businesses must not manipulate consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make decisions, in ways that cause harm. That matters enormously in a digital economy, because design is no longer neutral. Buttons matter, defaults matter, timers matter and the order in which information appears matters.

We know businesses can shape behaviour through design. Increasingly, small businesses are relying on behavioural pressure as part of their business model. This bill recognises that reality. Importantly, it is principles based. That means the law can evolve as markets evolve. Because technology changes quickly, digital platforms change quickly and consumer habits change quickly. If we rely only on narrow, piecemeal rules, the law will always lag behind. This approach creates a broad standard of fairness that can respond to harmful conduct as it emerges, and the bill gives practical guidance about what that looks like. It includes examples such as failing to disclose important information; presenting information in a way that is confusing or overwhelming; making it difficult for consumers to exercise legal rights; and using digital design features that place unreasonable pressure on people.

These are practices Australians encounter all the time. Most people listening to this debate would recognise them immediately. They are not abstract legal concepts; they are lived experiences—the app that keeps pushing 'buy now' warnings designed to create panic, the online forms that hide the cancellation button, the checkout screen where the final cost suddenly jumps.

Australians expect businesses to compete fairly. This bill makes that expectation enforceable. Importantly, this is not antibusiness legislation. Good businesses already operate fairly. Good businesses already communicate clearly. Good businesses already complete honestly. I've heard that directly from small-business advocates in Melbourne, including through conversations with business associations across the Melbourne electorate. Businesses doing the right thing should not be undercut by competitors relying on hidden fees, confusing terms or manipulative design to win consumers. Fair competition depends on fair rules, and fair rules create stronger markets.

The second major reform deals with subscription traps. Honestly, we have had enough of them. Subscriptions are now everywhere: streaming services, fitness apps, software, meal kits, news subscriptions and gaming services. Subscriptions can absolutely be convenient. Many businesses use them responsibility, but, too often, subscription systems are designed around one assumption, which is that we will forget—that we will miss a renewal or give up trying to cancel. That is where the problem starts.

Research shows Australians are wasting enormous amounts of money on subscriptions that they no longer want to use. We are not staying subscribed because we love the product. We are staying subscribed because leaving has become too difficult. That is not consumer loyalty. That is friction by design. This bill changes that. Businesses will have to clearly disclose key information before someone signs up. We must be told that we are entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it lasts, how renewals work and how we can cancel it. And that information must be prominent and easy to understand, not buried in pages of fine print, not hidden behind vague language and not scattered across multiple screens but simple, clear and visible. The bill also creates a framework for reminder notices. If a free trial is about to end, we will be told. If a renewal is approaching, we will be reminded. That sounds basic, but right now too many systems rely on silence.

That is why this bill also addresses cancellation. This part matters. Cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find, it must be easy to do, and it must only require steps that are reasonably necessary. A contract that can be entered into in seconds should not have half an afternoon to escape. We all know exactly what that feels like when we can subscribe online instantly but to cancel suddenly we need to phone during business hours, navigate endless menus, answer retention questions or search through page after page, trying to find the right button. This is deliberate friction. This bill says, 'Enough.' Again, this reform supports good businesses too. Many businesses already make subscriptions simple and transparent. Those businesses should not be disadvantaged by competitors relying on confusion and exhaustion to keep customers paying.

The third major reform deals with drip pricing, and Australians know this one well. We see a product advertised at one price. We click through, invest time and fill in our details, and suddenly extra fees appear—booking fees, service fees and processing fees, one charge after another. By the final screen, the original price barely resembles the real one. That is drip pricing, and Australians are tired of it. This bill tackles that directly by requiring businesses to show mandatory fees upfront and at the same time the advertised price is displayed. Right now, too many of us only discover the true cost after we have already spent time working through the purchase process.

In Melbourne, people know exactly what that feels like. We are a city built around live music, comedy, theatre and major events, and too often a ticket that looked affordable at the start suddenly becomes much more expensive by the final check-out screens once booking fees and service charges are added on. This bill says that the full mandatory costs should be clear from the beginning. People should be able to decide what they can afford before they commit to buying a ticket, and supporting Melbourne's creative life should feel exciting, not frustrating. Importantly, this bill does not ban transaction fees. It bans hiding them. That distinction matters because transparency matters. Businesses that disclose the true price upfront should not be punished for doing the right thing.

These reforms form part of a much broader agenda from the Albanese Labor government to strengthen competition, improve productivity and create fairer markets, because stronger consumer protections and stronger competition go hand in hand. This government has already delivered the most significant overhaul of merger laws in 50 years. We have increased funding to the ACCC so it can take stronger action against misleading pricing practices. We have outlawed unfair contract terms and introduced penalties for companies that breach those laws. We are strengthening the unit-pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation so we can clearly see when products shrink while prices stay the same. We made the food and grocery code mandatory, backed by real penalties, and we have increased the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million. Penalties matter. If penalties are too weak, they simply become part of the business model. Strong consequences matter because fairness matters, and this agenda stretches right across the economy.

Through National Competition Policy reforms, the government is working with states and territories to remove barriers to stop new businesses entering the market. We are improving occupational licensing, supporting the right to repair, improving labour mobility and helping workers move more freely across jurisdictions. Stronger competition drives productivity, and stronger productivity supports living standards.

I also want to acknowledge the businesses that are already doing the right thing. Small businesses especially are already operating transparently and fairly. They are not the problem. In fact, many small businesses are hurt by unfair practices from larger competitors. This bill helps create a marketplace where businesses succeed because they offer better value and better service, not because they are better at hiding fees or trapping consumers.

Markets work best when people trust them—when prices are what they seem, when information is clear, when consumers can make genuine choices, when businesses compete fairly—and trust matters deeply right now. The people we represent are working hard. Families are budgeting carefully. Every dollar matters more. We should not have to fight hidden fees, confusing systems and manipulative design just to buy a concert ticket, cancel a trial or compare prices online.

This bill restores something simple but important: clarity. It gives people back time, back confidence, back agency, and it sends a clear message that in Australia fairness is not an option. This legislation modernises consumer protections for the economy our communities live in today, and it builds a marketplace where good businesses can thrive by doing the right thing. That matters for consumers, that matters for competition and that matters for trust in our economy.

Whether someone is buying groceries, signing up for a subscription or heading out to support Melbourne's live music and creative scene, they deserve transparency and fairness. People across our communities are all working hard for their money right now. They deserve markets that respect that effort: markets where prices are clear, where cancelling a service is simple, where businesses compete fairly and openly. That is what this bill moves us to do: a fairer marketplace, stronger consumer protections, better competition and an economy where trust matters again. That is good for consumers, good for honest businesses and good for Melbourne. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (12:57): Australians are under serious financial pressure. Across the country, households are finding that everyday expenses have become unaffordable. Grocery bills have risen sharply. Energy costs remain high. Insurance premiums continue to climb for homes, for cars, for health care. Renters are spending more and more of their income on their housing. Many Australians are deciding not where to put money but which essential expense they can now afford to delay. For some families, Australia's cost-of-living crisis means skipping medical or dental appointments to pay for groceries. For some pensioners, it means deciding whether or not they can afford to heat their homes through winter. For some younger Australians, it means trying to establish a degree of financial security in an economy in which stable employment no longer guarantees financial stability. It's in this context that Australian consumers are more vulnerable than ever.

When household budgets are already stretched, manipulative pricing tactics, unfair subscription arrangements and deceptive conduct can cause real harm. So it's entirely appropriate that this parliament should act where regulatory gaps in the Australian Consumer Law have allowed those practices to flourish. From the consultations on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill, it is clear that there is broad agreement across regulators, consumer advocates, academics and industry that there are significant gaps in our legislation, and, as the minister has pointed out, existing consumer protections have not kept pace with sophisticated methods of influencing consumer behaviour, particularly in digital markets where businesses can actively shape purchasing decisions. That's what this legislation seeks to address.

The bill introduces disclosure obligations for drip pricing, establishes clearer exit requirements for subscription contracts and creates a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. These are sensible reforms. They strengthen Australia's consumer protection framework, and I support them. But while I support the objectives and the policy intent of this bill, I cannot ignore the fact that submissions on the exposure draft to this legislation raised some very valid concerns which have not been reflected in the final drafting of this bill.

Firstly, the prohibition on unfair trading practices has been drafted very narrowly. The bill prohibits conduct only where it manipulates the consumer and causes detriment. While no-one wants prohibition so broad that it will capture ordinary commercial persuasion, many submissions to this bill cautioned that this threshold is so high that the prohibition will be difficult to enforce in practice.

Secondly, the bill addresses drip pricing by requiring transaction charges to be displayed prominently and in close proximity to the advertised base price. That is a sensible requirement, but the bill still does not require businesses to display a single total price upfront. Consumers are still expected to calculate the final cost themselves. This means that, despite this reform, the underlying commercial logic of drip pricing—which, after all, is attracting consumers with a low initial figure before progressively adding unavoidable costs—will remain largely intact.

Finally, the bill contains exit provisions to ensure that subscription cancellations are easier to find and straightforward, and that is genuinely meaningful. Signing up to something can take 30 seconds, but cancelling, as we've all experienced, can take a phone call, a waiting queue and sometimes several billing cycles. Ending that asymmetry for consumers is the right thing to do. However, the legislation also contains substantial exclusions. Leases, higher purchase agreements, childcare services, school tuition arrangements and any other additional contracts excluded by regulation will fall outside these consumer protections.

While the reforms contained in this bill are worthwhile, they're also cautious, limited and incomplete. Notably, this legislation won't commence until 1 July 2027. Every practice that this bill seeks to regulate will remain lawful for at least another 12 months before consumers receive the benefit of the protections that we should legislate this week. That is too long at a time when money for many families is as tight as it has ever been. I do welcome the minister's announcement that further legislation will be introduced later this year to extend aspects of these protections to small businesses and franchisees. Many small operators experience the same asymmetries of bargaining power and information as consumers do. I look forward to examining those reforms closely when they arrive.

The government has presented this bill as part of its response to the cost-of-living crisis. But the bill, in fact, does not materially alter the economic pressures that face Australian households. At most, it introduces important but very limited protections against some particularly exploitative commercial practices. The minister himself has described these practices as irritants, and they are. Drip pricing, manipulative interfaces and obstructive subscription cancellations do cause harm, but they're not the primary drivers of financial stresses in this country. A family paying a few extra dollars because a booking platform hid a service fee—that's frustrating. But if that family can't afford its power bills or if its grocery spend has increased by hundreds of dollars a month, or if it can't find a rental property within its budget, then it will not be materially helped by this legislation or by the government's wider competition agenda.

The minister has claimed that this bill forms part of a wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across the country. But that broader agenda is still avoiding confronting the central issue, which has been identified repeatedly in inquiries into essential sectors: the role of concentrated market power in driving poor consumer outcomes. Highly concentrated markets are less competitive. That can mean higher prices, weaker consumer choice and reduced pressure on firms to improve outcomes for customers.

We see this most clearly in Australia's supermarket duopoly. The ACCC's 2024 supermarket inquiry identified persisting concerns about market concentration, weak competition and inadequate price transparency. It recommended a range of reforms to improve transparency and to strengthen competition within that sector. The government has acted on some of those recommendations. The Food and Grocery Code of Conduct has been made mandatory. The government is consulting on stronger unit-pricing rules to address practices like shrinkflation. Additional ACCC funding has been provided to pursue misleading pricing practices, and, from 1 July of this year, new regulations relating to excessive supermarket pricing will come into effect. But these measures are still focused on price transparency rather than the underlying uncompetitive structure of a highly concentrated market.

The ACCC's inquiry pointed to the significant market power held by the two dominant supermarket chains. It noted that Coles and Woolworths account for two-thirds of supermarket sales in this country, and yet the government remains reluctant to pursue the reforms that would generally require it to confront entrenched market concentration. The Prime Minister has looked away from calls for stronger anticoncentration measures, including divestiture powers as a last-resort remedy against entrenched anticompetitive conduct. The supermarket industry, let's remember, is the area where the government has been most willing to act.

The government still has not addressed excessive concentration in our insurance markets. It hasn't addressed energy retail margins. It hasn't addressed the broader conditions that have allowed essential goods and services to become significantly less affordable while corporate profits in those sectors have remained consistently strong. We've seen this in the government's reluctance to adopt any general economy-wide prohibition on excessive pricing or price gouging.

Unlike the EU, the UK, Canada, South Africa, India and several states of the USA, Australia continues to rely on consumer protection provisions rather than direct price regulation, and we saw the consequence of this approach in recent months in which Australian fuel prices have outpaced international markets amid reports that more than 500 specific allegations of price gouging had taken place. In response to that global fuel crisis, the Prime Minister promised that the ACCC would take action against overcharging service stations, but, as Allan Fels, the former head of the ACCC, has noted, the commission actually has no real power to do anything about price gouging—a fact that was confirmed when I asked the Treasurer about that in this place.

Price gouging will only be illegal in relation to supermarkets going forward, and even that prohibition hasn't yet come into force. Encouragingly, the government has increased ACCC funding to pursue misleading pricing practices by $30 million, and that is welcome. The regulator has to be properly equipped to protect consumers and to enforce the law. But stronger enforcement against misleading pricing is not the same thing as addressing the underlying concentration of market power and price controls in essential sectors. A regulator can prosecute misleading discounts while the structural conditions that weaken competition and sustain high prices remain unchanged.

Australians deserve honesty about what the government is doing and about the scale of the problem that we are facing. When people are making choices between heating and eating, between renewing their insurance and paying their rent and between filling a prescription or filling a tooth and buying their groceries, they deserve more than this bill, and they deserve more than the other measures that this government has undertaken.

Presenting legislation like this as a major breakthrough for consumer protections risks understating how serious that crisis has actually become. The legislation mandates a ministerial review of the subscription contracts regime after two years, and I welcome that review. I expect that it will identify further shortcomings in both the scope and the enforcement of this legislation. I hope that the parliament approaches those findings then with greater ambition than it is showing today.

I support this bill because the protections that it introduces are preferable to the status quo. Consumers will be better protected with these reforms than they would be without them. But I will not join the government in presenting this legislation as meaningful, significant consumer protection legislation. This is modest reform, in a narrow area of consumer law. The problems it leaves unresolved are larger, more consequential and much more urgent than the problems that it addresses.

Ms BRISKEY (Maribyrnong) (13:10): This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, is about fairness. It's about making sure Australians get a fair go, because right now too many Australians feel like the deck is stacked against them. Families are doing everything they can to make ends meet—they are budgeting carefully, comparing prices and looking for value wherever they can find it—and what frustrates people the most is that, when they do the right thing, they still get caught out by hidden fees, confusing terms, automatic renewals or cancellation processes designed to wear them down. Australians are sick of the tricks and traps. And, frankly, of course they are.

This bill says very clearly: businesses should compete by offering better products and services, not by confusing people or manipulating them, or hiding the true cost until the last second. This is what this reform seeks to change, for people in communities like mine, in Maribyrnong—those who are working hard, every single day, to stay ahead of rising costs. A few dollars here and there might seem insignificant to some, but, for many people in my community, those extra dollars are crucial. The hidden booking fee, the subscription that quietly renews, the streaming service that is impossible to cancel, the gym membership that somehow takes three clicks to join but three phone calls to leave—all of these quickly make a dent in household budgets. Over time, these chip away not just at the bank balance but also at trust, because Australians expect fairness, they expect honesty and they expect that if you want to cancel something then you can actually cancel it without being dragged through a maze of obscure settings or impossible customer service channels.

This legislation modernises our consumer laws to reflect the reality of how Australians now live and transact. More and more of our economy now operates online, so the laws that regulate the modern economy must keep pace. From ordering takeaway to booking flights and from buying concert tickets to managing subscriptions, consumers are increasingly navigating digital systems designed to influence their decisions. Now, there's nothing wrong with businesses promoting their products and there is nothing wrong with advertising. This bill is not about stopping legitimate business activity, but it draws a line between persuasion and manipulation. It is about recognising that some business models now rely on confusion, pressure and friction as a source of profit. And that's just not good enough.

This bill introduces an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices. That means businesses will not be allowed to manipulate consumers or distort decision-making in ways that cause harm. Importantly, this is principle based reform, because markets and technology evolve quickly, and, if the law only prohibits a narrow list of behaviours, some businesses will simply invent new tricks around the edges. So this bill establishes a clear standard: all Australian consumers deserve to be treated fairly.

This bill also tackles two practices that Australians know all too well: subscription traps and drip pricing. Subscription traps are one of the most frustrating examples of unfair conduct in our modern economy. We all know a time where we've fallen into this trap. Many Australians sign up for a free trial because they want to watch the latest hit TV show or just want to use a service temporarily, then suddenly find, months later, the charges have been adding up, because the subscription quietly rolled over; or they try to cancel and discover that the process is deliberately difficult: most likely the cancellation button is hidden, or the website redirects endlessly, or the app says to use the desktop version, or the desktop version says to call customer support. Customer support usually says, 'Send an email,' and the cycle can go on and on. A contract that can be entered into in seconds then takes half a day to escape.

Thankfully, this bill fixes that. Businesses now will have to clearly disclose key terms upfront. They will need to tell consumers what they are signing up for, how much it costs, when it will be renewed and how to cancel. Cancellation pathways will need to be simple, straightforward and easy to find, and, importantly, consumers will receive reminders before trial periods end or renewals occur. These are basic standards of fairness, and I suspect most Australians will wonder why they didn't already exist.

This bill also cracks down on drip pricing. Like subscription traps, drip pricing is something we have all experienced. You can see one price advertised online, so naturally you click through, and then you spend some time filling out your details, but, at the end of the process, you're suddenly met with mandatory fees that have come out of nowhere—booking fees, service fees, processing fees, transaction fees. By the end, the price bears little resemblance to what was advertised in the beginning. None of that is transparent, and it undermines competition because businesses doing the right thing—businesses that disclose the full cost upfront—end up looking more expensive than competitors hiding charges until the very last moment. This bill restores fairness by requiring businesses to disclose mandatory transaction fees at the time that they are advertising the base price. Consumers deserve to know the real cost upfront, and good businesses deserve a level playing field.

One thing I particularly support about this legislation is that it recognises that consumer harm is not always dramatic or obvious. Sometimes harm is cumulative. These practices drain money, but they also drain time. Markets work best when people feel confident participating in them. When consumers trust that prices are genuine, they are more willing to compare products, switch providers and engage in the market. That drives competition, that drives productivity, and ultimately that benefits our entire economy.

This reform is therefore not antibusiness. It is, in fact, pro-competition. It supports the many businesses already doing the right thing, and there are many in my electorate. Maribyrnong is home to thousands of hardworking small businesses—cafes, restaurants, retailers, tradespeople, creative businesses and service providers—all of whom build customer loyalty through honesty and good service. They should not be undercut by businesses relying on manipulation or hidden costs. They deserve a marketplace where fairness is rewarded.

This bill forms part of our government's broader agenda to strengthen competition and deliver real cost-of-living relief for Australians. We want to see markets that are fairer and more competitive so Australian consumers can get better prices and more choice. That is why our government has delivered the most significant overhaul of merger laws in half a century; it is why we have made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, have strengthened penalties for unfair contract terms and are cracking down on shrinkflation; and it is why we have increased penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million, because breaches of consumer law should not ever become simply a cost of doing business. There must be real consequences, and this legislation delivers those consequences. Businesses that engage in unfair trading practices will face significant penalties.

I also want to acknowledge that these reforms are especially important for vulnerable consumers: senior Australians, young people navigating subscriptions for the first time, people with limited digital literacy and, of course, busy parents juggling work and caring responsibilities. These groups are often the most exposed to manipulative practices because they have the least time, the least flexibility or the least ability to navigate intentionally confusing systems. In an electorate like mine, there are many households who are already under financial pressure. Every dollar counts. A hidden fee is money that could have gone towards groceries, petrol, rent or school supplies. That is why this legislation will have a significant impact, because Australians should not need a law degree or an IT qualification just to cancel a subscription or understand the true cost of something online.

This government is also taking a sensible and balanced approach to implementation. The reforms will commence from 1 July 2027 to ensure businesses have time to understand their obligations and adapt their systems. Guidance will be developed by the ACCC, and the government will review the operation of the subscription provisions after two years to ensure the laws are working as intended.

Importantly, this reform is not the end of the conversation. This government will also consult on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including franchisees, because small businesses can also be vulnerable to unfair conduct from larger players, and that has big impacts across communities where small businesses play such a vital role in our local economies.

Australians believe in a fair go. It is one of the defining values of our country. People understand the importance of competition. They understand that businesses need to make a profit, but they believe in the fair go. They believe that people should know what they are paying for, that all businesses should be upfront and that companies should not profit by deliberately confusing or trapping consumers. This legislation reflects those values. It says clearly that markets should reward innovation, service and transparency, not tricks, traps and hidden charges. It outlines that consumers deserve genuine choice, and it levels the playing field for good businesses doing the right thing.

This is practical reform that responds to our ever-evolving modern economy, and it is reform that will make a real difference to Australians trying to get ahead and challenging this cost-of-living period. For families in my community and right across the country, these laws will help restore confidence that the system works fairly and removes the frustrations that many feel. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:22): Australians are already paying more for just about everything. Groceries are up. Power bills are up. Insurance is up. Fuel is up. Interest rates are biting. The average Australian family with a mortgage is now paying, after tax, $29,000 a year more on their mortgage than they were paying under the last coalition government. Right now, small businesses across Australia are under enormous pressure just trying to keep their doors open. That is certainly what I'm hearing around the Sunshine Coast and everywhere else I go around the country. From the cafe owner in Caloundra trying to manage rising wages and energy costs, to the tradie in Palmwoods battling fuel prices and supply costs, to tourism operators, retailers, family businesses and local manufacturers right across the seat of Fisher, they are all saying the same thing: Canberra—this place, this House—just keeps making their lives harder and making it harder to do business.

Australians absolutely deserve strong consumer protections. Consumers should not be misled. They should not be trapped in subscriptions that they cannot cancel. They should not be hit with hidden fees halfway through a purchase, and we've all experienced it. Businesses deliberately doing the wrong thing should absolutely be held accountable. The coalition supports that principle very strongly. But consumer law must also be practical, it must be proportionate and, critically, it must be clear enough for honest businesses to understand exactly what is expected of them before they can comply with it. That is a fundamental tenet of our justice system.

That is where this bill raises serious concerns, because, while the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 contains some targeted reforms addressing genuine consumer frustrations, it also introduces a broad and uncertain new prohibition on so-called unfair trading practices that risks creating massive legal uncertainty for Australian businesses. Let me be clear. The coalition will not oppose this bill in this House. However, we will move a second reading amendment and support referring this legislation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for proper scrutiny, because legislation of this size and consequence deserves proper consultation, proper scrutiny and clear legal drafting, not rushed lawmaking, which we continue to see under this chaotic Labor government. That makes for bad laws.

This bill contains three major components. Firstly, it creates a broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices. Secondly, it introduces new rules around drip pricing and mandatory transaction based charges. Thirdly, it introduces new obligations for subscription contracts, including cancellation processes and disclosure requirements. Let me say this very clearly. Australians are rightly frustrated by subscription traps. They are frustrated when signing up online takes 30 seconds but cancelling becomes an impossible maze involving hidden forms, endless emails, phone calls or mandatory waiting periods. Australians are also frustrated when they see one advertised price at the beginning of a transaction only to discover compulsory fees suddenly appearing at the check-out. Consumers deserve transparency. Consumers deserve honesty. Consumers deserve to know exactly what they are paying before they commit their money. That is why the coalition is more open to the targeted reforms dealing with drip pricing and subscription contracts. Those are real issues. Those are identifiable problems, and targeted reforms addressing specific conduct are always preferable to broad and vague legal overreach.

But the major concerns in this legislation are not those targeted reforms. The major concern is the sweeping new general prohibition on—and in parenthesis—unfair trading. The bill prohibits conduct that may manipulate consumers, distort consumer decision-making or cause detriment, including non-financial detriment such as stress, inconvenience or wasted time. That is where the real uncertainty begins. While those words may sound reasonable at first glance, they are extraordinarily broad in practice. What constitutes manipulation? When does ordinary marketing become unlawful pressure? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? When does persuasive advertising suddenly become unfair conduct? The bill does not properly answer those questions. Instead, those questions will be answered over years through litigation, court decisions, regulator interpretation and legal disputes.

This legislation in its current form is a lawyer's picnic, and in the meantime Australian businesses will be left guessing. Uncertainty creates risk. Risk creates compliance costs, and compliance costs ultimately get passed onto consumers. This bill will become a lawyer's picnic because when laws are vague it is lawyers, regulators and courts who end up deciding years later what parliament supposedly intended. That is not good lawmaking. That uncertainty may not concern large multinational corporations with armies of lawyers and compliance departments, but it absolutely concerns small businesses. It concerns the family retailer on the Sunshine Coast. It concerns the local cafe owner already battling Labor's cost-of-living crisis. It concerns the tradie employing a handful of apprentices and subbies. It concerns local tourism operators trying to survive in an economy where confidence is already weakening. Those businesses do not have endless legal resources. They do not have compliance teams sitting in corporate head offices. They simply want clear rules, practical regulation and the ability to focus on running their businesses instead of hiring lawyers to interpret vague legislation.

Australia already has very strong consumer protection laws. The Australian Consumer Law already prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct. It already prohibits unconscionable conduct. It already prohibits unfair contract terms and a range of specific unfair practices. So the obvious question becomes this: what specific conduct currently escapes the law that justifies such a dramatic expansion?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): 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.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Leader of the House) (14:20): I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Peter Frederick Morris is referred to the Federation Chamber.

The SPEAKER (15:28): I present the quarterly reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman under section 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (16:31): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, I present the following reports: Examination of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission annual report 2024-25 and Examination of the National Anti-Corruption Commission annual report 2024-25, incorporating a dissenting report.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Ms THWAITES: by leave—The NACC holds a very significant role in Australia's democratic architecture. Its role in investigating and deterring serious or systemic corruption is central to maintaining trust in Commonwealth governance and institutions. This is supported by the NACC's broader work and its functions in anticorruption education, monitoring and reporting.

In the committee's examination of the 2024-25 reporting period, the committee has noted the growing scale and complexity of the NACC's work. The NACC has received a significant volume of referrals and progressed assessments, preliminary investigations and corruption investigations across a range of matters and subject areas, including procurement, recruitment and senior public sector decision-making.

The committee's examination has recognised this important work the NACC has undertaken, and we have also identified areas for further improvement. It's important for me to note that the committee does not oversight or reprosecute individual investigative outcomes, as this is not part of our oversight role.

The committee has made three recommendations as a result of our examination. These are focused on improving the timeliness of the NACC's processes, improving the effectiveness of the NACC's communication with referrers, and improving the focus the NACC brings to building public confidence.

Further to this examination, the committee has also commenced a standalone inquiry into aspects of the commission's performance in fulfilling its functions. I look forward to examining emerging issues in greater depth as part of the committee's broader oversight responsibilities under the NACC Act.

The committee has also examined the NACC inspector's annual report and acknowledges the significant work of the inspector during the 2024-25 reporting period. During this period, the inspector received 75 complaints, compared with 50 complaints in the first year of operation.

These complaints include the NACC not investigating a particular referral; challenges in communicating with the NACC; and concerns about the time it takes the NACC to respond to referrals.

The committee has noted the inspector's decision to investigate the complaints received about the NACC commissioner's involvement in defence related referrals and his ongoing role with the IGADF, as complaints of agency maladministration or officer misconduct under section 184(1)(e) of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022.

The committee acknowledges the considered approach the inspector is taking to this issue, and we appreciate the transparency with which she's communicated with the committee and the public.

I want to thank the NACC and the NACC inspector for their engagement throughout this examination and this report. Thank you to my fellow committee members, including the deputy chair, the member for Indi, for their work, and to the committee secretariat for their ongoing support.

I commend the reports to the House.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (16:34): by leave—The year 2024-25 reflects the second year of operation for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and these reports represent the second time the parliamentary joint committee has undertaken its statutory function of examining the annual reports of the NACC and the NACC inspector. This is an important part of the committee's oversight role because it provides a yearly opportunity to review the performance of Australia's federal integrity body and its watchdog. Are these offices properly resourced? How are they spending their time? What activities are they focused on? Are they fulfilling their mandates? We ask these questions on behalf of all Australians, who have a right to expect a federal integrity body that delivers real accountability.

It's through the annual report that we learned the NACC has held 24 private hearings over more than 30 days in its purpose built hearing room but not one single one in public. It was my questioning that revealed the commissioner's understanding of his conflicts of interest is not shared by his deputies. We heard from the inspector about the types of complaints her office is receiving and the underlying issues they point towards. I thank the inspector for her frank and open engagement with the committee.

I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the chair, the member for Jagajaga, and of the other members of the committee as well as our hardworking secretariat. As a result of our examination, the committee has made three recommendations to the National Anti-Corruption Commission around addressing the backlog of referrals, exploring ways to communicate more effectively with referrers and building public confidence and trust in its systems and processes. I look forward to monitoring progress against these clear objectives.

Parliamentary oversight is a crucial part of the federal integrity system. I take my role as deputy chair of this committee very seriously. The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission was a hard fought reform, and I stand committed to seeing it succeed.

Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (16:36): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 5 of 2026.

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

Ms MASCARENHAS: by leave—I am pleased to present Report 5 of 2026 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was tabled out of session last week.

In this report, the committee considered 27 new bills and 130 legislative instruments. It has commented on four bills and six legislative instruments and concluded its examination of one bill and one legislative instrument.

In this report, the committee commented on two criminal justice bills, which would introduce new warrants and expand existing warrant powers in Commonwealth legislation.

In particular, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 seeks to enhance the powers of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to obtain, analyse and communicate intelligence information relating to serious and organised crime. The measures in the bill would engage and limit various rights, including children's rights; criminal process rights; and the rights to effective remedy, fair trial, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression, privacy and work. The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of the measures in the bill with these rights.

The Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 would amend the Commonwealth acts to expand telecommunications interception warrants, create a new warrant power for tobacco offences and expand coercive powers in the proceeds of crime regime. These measures engage and limit the right to privacy by expanding powers to covertly intercept private communications and authorising frisk searches and access to personal information and property. The committee has had a longstanding human rights concern with the acts being amended by this bill and has accordingly recommended that the government undertake a foundational review of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for compatibility with human rights.

In this report, the committee has also concluded its consideration of extradition regulations relating to Denmark, Iceland, Japan and the Republic of Fiji. This instrument removes the mandatory grounds for refusal, which automatically prevented Australia from extraditing persons to these countries if the alleged offending was committed wholly or partly in Australia or where the relevant limitation period for the alleged offence has expired in accordance with Australian law.

The committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the measures pursued are legitimate objectives, noting that the measures do not appear to be strictly necessary to prevent a person from evading justice, as the person could be prosecuted in Australia where the relevant offending occurs in Australia. The committee considers that, while the measure is accompanied by some safeguards, it is not clear that these are adequate. It has therefore been demonstrated that the measures are compatible with the prohibition on removing noncitizens without due process. Further, as the measure will potentially increase the number of extradition requests accepted, the committee's underlying human rights concerns with the extradition process generally are enlivened. The committee has reiterated the previous recommendations to amend the Extradition Act to improve its human rights compatibility.

I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the committee's scrutiny report No. 5 of 2026 to the House.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:41): I am speaking on behalf of the shadow assistant treasurer, the member for Page, who is in the federal budget lock-up as I speak. I rise to speak about Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, noting it is an important piece of legislation. The coalition's position is clear: we support survivors, and we will support this bill. Victims-survivors and their families have waited too long, and I think we all know that. Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been weaponised by the worst criminals, and, for far too long, the parliament has failed to act.

Under the current law, perpetrators have been able to hide assets in superannuation and avoid paying court ordered compensation. When I became the member for Riverina back in 2010, my predecessor mentioned that this particular element would take up a lot of my time. Kay Hull was right then, and it hasn't changed since then. Under the current law, as I say, perpetrators have been able to hide these assets, and we do acknowledge the work of the Assistant Treasurer for his work to get this law before the parliament. Dr Mulino has done a power of work in this regard. We also want to acknowledge the work of the former minister for financial services and former member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, who began the work on these reforms back in 2018. Most importantly, we thank the survivors. Above all else, we do thank the survivors, we acknowledge them, and we recognise them. We also acknowledge their families and the advocates, many of whom came to parliament in March, showing bravery, showing resilience and certainly demonstrating perseverance and persistence.

This reform is the result of years of advocacy by survivors and their advocates. There is more work that could be done to strengthen these laws even further. Indeed, I will put on the record that the 2018 reforms considered whether all victims of serious violent crimes should be able to access a perpetrator's superannuation as compensation. But we will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, particularly when it comes to supporting victims of child sexual abuse. This is not about politics. It isn't, and it should never be. This is not a partisan issue. It should be one that unites the parliament in our shared goal to protect children and to rebuke predators. I think the parliament is seen at its best when it comes together on issues such as this to bring about reform that is good, that is lasting and that is incredibly worthwhile.

Under the current law, we have a situation where paedophiles—the lowest of the low, the worst of the worst—have been able to boast that their victims won't see a penny of their superannuation. Survivors should not have to fight their abusers once in court and then fight them all over again to get compensation. This must not be so. The current loophole has allowed perpetrators to shield assets in superannuation, declare bankruptcy and leave survivors with absolutely nothing. The Australian parliament is saying, with a unified voice, that enough is enough. It's time for change. Superannuation is for retirement. It should not be used to deny compensation to survivors of child sexual abuse.

I just want to outline some of what this bill does. It creates a court supervised process for survivors of child sexual abuse to access certain superannuation amounts held by a perpetrator. It applies where there is a court ordered compensation debt. The bill allows survivors of child sexual abuse to seek limited information from the Australian Taxation Office about a perpetrator's superannuation. It allows a court to make an order to release eligible superannuation amounts. It requires the Commissioner of Taxation to issue release authorities to superannuation funds to facilitate payment, and that's important. It also ensures compensation debts for child sexual abuse survive bankruptcy. Perpetrators should not be able to abuse a child, lose in court, declare bankruptcy and then preserve their retirement savings whilst their victim receives nothing.

We know that child sexual abuse causes lifelong harm. It does. It truly does. It can affect a person's health. It can affect a person's relationships, a person's education, their employment, their employment prospects and their financial security. For many survivors, the abuse does not end when the offending ends. They carry the trauma, the stigma and the psychological and physical effects for years and years. Many also carry the financial consequences. This must be changed, and this bill goes part of the way—a lot of the way—to addressing that.

Some survivors have gone through court, relived their trauma—and how difficult must that be?—obtained compensation orders and yet still received nothing, and that is wrong. I think we all agree that that is palpably wrong. A conviction should not be the end of the justice process. A compensation order should not be a piece of paper that can be ignored. If a perpetrator has assets in superannuation, they should not be able to hide behind the law while their victim is left with nothing. This bill helps to fix that.

Swift passage of this bill matters. Survivors, as I said earlier, have waited far too long. They've waited long enough. Some survivors and advocates have been fighting for this reform for almost a decade, under both the coalition and Labor. That is why we do not support sending it off to another Senate inquiry. It's all too easy, sometimes, with legislation that might be difficult and might need to have further fine-tuning, to send it off to an upper house inquiry. Not this time—too important. There will be time to review and strengthen the law after it starts operating. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen now. There are survivors who need the benefit of this law right now. Delay would only benefit the lowest of the low, the worst of the worst: the perpetrators.

Survivors and advocates made this happen. We thank them and we acknowledge what they did and what they went through—what they should no longer have to go through or have to endure. These reforms are the result of grassroots advocacy for almost a decade—people power, years of advocacy by survivors, by families, by lawyers and by child protection advocates.

We acknowledge the work of survivors and advocates, including but not limited to Andrew Carpenter, Madeleine West and Eden Van Haren. There are many others—many, many others. We acknowledge organisations including: Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia and the Carly Ryan Foundation—good organisations all. Their advocacy has exposed a serious injustice; a huge gap that we are now, hopefully, bridging. Their persistence has brought this bill before the parliament. Parliament should honour that work by passing this bill and doing it swiftly. This work builds on the work initiated by the former coalition government.

In January 2020, the then assistant treasurer, the honourable Kelly O'Dwyer MP, announced consultation on allowing survivors to access perpetrator superannuation. Work was delayed due to her retirement. More's the pity. The COVID-19 pandemic didn't help, nor did reprioritisation of Treasury resources. The coalition's reforms were put out for consultation to allow broader input, and victims of violent crimes, not just child sex abuse victims, were fed into that process. The coalition is supportive of what Labor is doing. This sees parliament being at its best.

Under the current law, superannuation is generally protected from creditors. It has created a loophole where perpetrators can hold or move assets into superannuation to clear bankruptcy and avoid paying compensation ordered by a court. That is the problem that this bill is endeavouring to fix—and not before time. The government has described the bill as closing a loophole where offenders have shielded assets in superannuation and declared bankruptcy to avoid valid court orders.

The bill allows survivors of child sexual abuse to apply to the ATO for some information. There's always going to be privacy issues et cetera, but this bill allows the disclosure of limited information about a perpetrator's super. The survivors of child sexual abuse can then use that information to determine whether or not to seek a court order to apply to a court for a perpetrator contributions release order or to access eligible super amounts to satisfy unpaid compensation orders and/or enforce compensation debts even when the perpetrator has entered bankruptcy. All of these provisions are important. They go a step toward helping the perpetrators have their money taken from them, ultimately assisting the process of doing the right thing by the victims.

The bill also amends the bankruptcy law. The purpose is to stop perpetrators from using bankruptcy to defeat compensation claims. Compensation debts should survive bankruptcy. Finally, the bill is a major step forward. It truly is. It has bipartisan support, but it may not capture every case. There are victims of other serious violent crimes not covered by this bill. Survivors and advocates have called for future work on civil findings. Some advocates have also called for broader retrospective application. The Assistant Treasurer has done a power of good and a power of work in this regard. I thank him again for the diligence he has shown. He has said that future work may consider whether some civil findings can be included, but the government did not want to delay the current bill while those issues were being worked through. We certainly give a commitment—I do, on behalf of the opposition—to work with the minister and any future ministers to make sure that there is support if the bill can be refined in a better way in the future. That said, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms BERRY (Whitlam) (16:54): I begin by acknowledging victims-survivors of child sexual abuse as well as their advocates who have fought for many years to improve a system that has too often failed them. The reforms contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill have not emerged in isolation. They follow years of determined advocacy to ensure that victims-survivors of child sexual abuse receive the court ordered compensation they deserve and are entitled to. Shockingly, it is estimated that 11 per cent of women and almost four per cent of men in Australia are victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by an adult before they are 15 years old.

My predecessor as the member for Whitlam, Stephen Jones, revealed in his valedictory speech last year that he was a victim-survivor of child sexual abuse. It was the first time he had made this known publicly. Stephen decided to disclose this painful information because he wanted to highlight former prime minister Julia Gillard's establishment of a royal commission into child sex abuse as one of the great government achievements during his 15 years in parliament. Over four years, the royal commission received over 1,000 individual contributions, conducted 8,000 private sessions and received 26,000 letters and emails, resulting in 2,500 referrals to police. These are sickening numbers. Stephen noted in his valedictory speech that the royal commission wasn't inevitable. It was contested, and it took courage from all involved to ensure that it proceeded. He added that when the Gillard government established the royal commission, it sent an important message: we see you, we hear you and we believe you.

All children and young people have the right to be safe from sexual abuse, and the Albanese government is committed to protecting Australia's children from harm and to supporting early intervention, response, healing and recovery services. In November last year we announced $12 million in grants to support 23 specialist and community support services across Australia, to expand their crucial work responding to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and children who have displayed concerning or harmful sexual behaviours. That grant program is part of the $80 million commitment agreed at National Cabinet to enhance and expand child-centric, trauma informed supports for children and young people who have experienced or witnessed family, domestic and sexual violence. It also contributes to our ongoing reforms under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030.

The Albanese government is committed to holding perpetrators of child sexual abuse to account, and this bill introduces long-awaited and meaningful reforms. A major focus is our superannuation system because Australia has a trust structure for the governance of superannuation funds. This means that beneficiaries of the funds do not hold superannuation assets. Instead, the assets are managed on behalf of the beneficiaries by trustees who have fiduciary and statutory obligations to act in the beneficiaries' best interests. Superannuation trustees are currently able to pay preserved benefits in specified situations including retirement, reaching preservation age and death. But superannuation trustees are not able to pay preserved benefits where a beneficiary owes compensation to a victim of crime. Unfortunately, people subject to criminal or civil proceedings, or those anticipating such proceedings, take advantage of this situation.

In recent years there have been a number of high-profile reports of convicted child sex abuse offenders deliberately hiding millions of dollars worth of assets in superannuation accounts to defeat compensation claims. This includes Maurice Van Ryn, a former CEO of Bega Cheese, who was found guilty of abusing nine children, between 2003 and 2014, and then a 10th child, in 2019. In total, he was sentenced to 22 years in prison. In 2023 the Supreme Court of New South Wales awarded the 10th victim $1.4 million in damages for the abuse he endured in Van Ryn's home. But Van Ryn declared bankruptcy in December that year, and the victims-survivors were unable to access hundreds of thousands of dollars he had in superannuation. Unjust situations like this add further to the emotional distress suffered by victims-survivors.

This bill will amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and other relevant Commonwealth acts to create a mechanism that enables the release of certain amounts from a perpetrator's superannuation interests in certain circumstances. To initiate the release process, victims-survivors must first meet the following application criteria: the perpetrator must have been convicted of—or, where there is no conviction recorded, found guilty of—a specified child abuse offence to a criminal standard; a court has made an order requiring the perpetrator to pay compensation to the victim for injury, loss or damage suffered by the victim as a direct result of a specified child abuse offence; the amount has been due and payable for at least 12 months; the perpetrator has not paid the full amount of compensation specified in the order; and the period within which recovery of the amount may be pursued in a court in the jurisdiction where the order was made has not expired.

A victim-survivor who reasonably believes that they meet the application criteria for a court order can apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for certain information relating to the perpetrator's superannuation assets. This information will help them to assess whether it is worthwhile pursuing an order in relation to the perpetrator's superannuation interests. It also means victims-survivors are not required to undertake a more costly exercise—for example, using subpoenas to superannuation providers—in order to pursue enforcement of outstanding compensation debts. I note the application to the Commissioner of Taxation may be made by the victim-survivor's legal representative, legal personal representative, registered tax agent or financial counsellor. Where the victim or survivor is under 18, their parent or a person who has been granted guardianship of the child may make an application on their behalf.

After reviewing the information, the victim-survivor can then apply for a court order for the Commissioner of Taxation to facilitate the release of moneys from the perpetrator's superannuation interests. This is called a perpetrator contributions release order. Where a perpetrator contributions release order is made, the Commissioner of Taxation must then issue one or more release authorities to relevant superannuation providers to secure the release of moneys from the perpetrator's superannuation interests and pay this to the victim-survivor. This bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to allow compensation debts to survive perpetrators' bankruptcies, improving the chances of victims-survivors seeking to enforce such debts.

Our superannuation and bankruptcy laws are complex. However, this bill has a simple principle at its core: the perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide behind financial structures to avoid accountability. It closes an unjust loophole that has allowed convicted offenders to shield assets and superannuation while victims-survivors are left without the compensation they are owed. This bill not only closes that loophole; it affirms that financial systems must not operate in a way that undermines justice, and it reflects the growing recognition that justice is not only about conviction but about meaningful redress. The reforms in this bill improve transparency, reduce uncertainty and strengthen the enforcement of court ordered compensation for victims-survivors.

The tragic reality is that child sexual abuse crimes often leave deep and lifelong impacts that extend far beyond the period of abuse itself. Victims-survivors frequently carry the effects into adulthood, affecting their mental health, physical wellbeing, relationships, education and ability to participate fully in work and community life. The trauma does not end when the abuse ends. For many, it is something they must navigate every day, too often in silence and without adequate support. Some victims-survivors face barriers to stable employment and financial security, meaning the harm they experience is not only emotional and psychological but also deeply material. We must recognise that the impacts of child sexual abuse are enduring, complex and profound and that our response must be equally serious, sustained and centred on those who have been harmed.

I have huge admiration for the courage it takes for victims-survivors to come forward, often years or decades after the abuse has occurred. They must relive deeply painful experiences in the pursuit of justice while knowing that outcomes are never guaranteed. For too many victims-survivors, a court ruling in their favour has not translated into real-world outcomes. They have endured the trauma of legal proceedings only to face further distress when compensation orders go unpaid. This outcome further compounds the harm, and it undermines confidence in the justice system. Under these reforms, where a court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, victims-survivors will be able to seek access through a court order to certain superannuation contributions made by the offender. This includes additional personal and salary sacrifice contributions, which have previously been used as a vehicle to shield assets from enforcement. This is a practical, targeted step. It introduces a mechanism to ensure that perpetrators cannot simply wait out their obligations while their financial position remains protected.

Importantly, this bill also ensures that compensation debts do not simply disappear through bankruptcy. By allowing these debts to survive bankruptcy proceedings, we are reinforcing a clear and necessary message: financial manoeuvring must not override moral and legal responsibility. Bankruptcy should not be a refuge from accountability for such serious harm. These changes will apply not only to future bankruptcies but also to those currently in progress. This is a significant step because it recognises that there are victims-survivors who are being denied justice today under the existing framework. By applying to both current and future bankruptcies, this bill seeks to address present inequity as well as future harm.

When offenders retain substantial retirement savings while victims struggle financially, often as a direct consequence of the abuse they have suffered, it undermines confidence in our justice system. It risks perpetrating a cycle where the burden continues to fall on those who are harmed, rather than on those who have caused the harm. Our superannuation and bankruptcy systems are complex, so changes to them must be carefully designed to ensure they are effective, enforceable and consistent with broader legal principles. That is why this bill should be understood as a significant and necessary foundation that lays the groundwork for potential future reforms. In fact, through the extensive consultation process that preceded the introduction of these reforms, victims-survivors and advocates encouraged us to build on the reforms contained in this bill. So, while the bill closes a loophole, it also sends a strong signal about the direction of reform. It creates a framework that can be built upon in the future.

Importantly, the regime established by this bill will be subject to a review after it commences full operation to ensure that it is operating effectively for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. This review process is critical to ensure that this parliament does not simply pass legislation and move on but instead remains engaged with how these provisions are working in practice. It provides an opportunity to assess whether victims and survivors are genuinely benefiting and whether additional changes are required. Our policy will continue to be informed by the voices of survivors, advocates, legal experts and practitioners.

The experiences shared by victims-survivors, including those who have been unable to access compensation despite court orders in their favour, make it clear how important it is that we progress this measure. It is clear to me that these reforms will make a real difference. They will provide new avenues for enforcement and a greater chance of achieving some measure of justice. Ultimately, this bill is about restoring fairness and dignity. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:08): What I'm going to talk about this evening is going to upset some people, and I just want to give an acknowledgement that, if what I talk about tonight causes you distress, you're able to call Kids Helpline on 1800551800 or Lifeline on 131114. When I was the shadow Attorney-General last year, I worked with a number of people, including Jon Rouse, who was previously with Task Force Argos. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, which Peter Dutton established a number of years ago, identified that there were 82,764 reports of online child sexual exploitation in 2024-25. That's an average of 226 reports each and every single day. Just let those figures sink in: 226 reports of online child sexual exploitation. That's why this bill is so important. The Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 is about justice. It's about whether the laws of this country stand with survivors of child sexual abuse or whether they continue to allow perpetrators to exploit loopholes to avoid accountability. The coalition absolutely supports this bill. We support it clearly, strongly and without hesitation.

Many people will remember a name. That name is Ashley Paul Griffith. Ashley Paul Griffith is a former childcare worker from the Gold Coast. He was sentenced on 2 September 2024 in the Brisbane District Court, where it was alleged that he had perpetrated some 1,623 child sexual offences. He pleaded guilty to 307 of those charges and was imprisoned for life with a 27-year non-parole period. The charges that he pled guilty to included 15 counts of repeated sexual conduct with a child, 28 counts of rape and 190 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. Offences were committed against 65 children in South-East Queensland and four children in Italy in 10 different childcare centres.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the good work that was done by Senator Maria Kovacic when she led a Senate inquiry in relation to this very issue of systemic abuse by paedophiles in childcare centres. It is incumbent upon us to listen to people like Jon Rouse, who has spent his professional life trying to identify these heinous individuals. We have an opportunity in this place—and it's for another bill, so I won't go on to it too much—to look at using technology like Clearview AI to be able to identify these people who exist on the dark web. They perpetrate their offences in real life, but then they record it and put it on the dark web. We have the opportunity in this country to be able to utilise these tools, yet we don't. We go to the FBI and get their assistance because apparently it offends our privacy laws here in Australia. That madness has got to stop. We have got to acknowledge that we have a huge problem here in this country, and we've got to be utilising every single tool that we can to save children from these child sexual exploitation offences—save the children but also identify these heinous individuals.

Victims-survivors and their families have waited far too long for this sort of reform that we're talking about tonight. For too long, Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been weaponised by some of the worst criminals imaginable. Under the current law, perpetrators have been able to shield assets inside superannuation, declare bankruptcy and avoid paying court-ordered compensation. That is fundamentally wrong. A compensation order should not become a meaningless piece of paper simply because an offender has found a way to hide their money from the people that they harmed. This bill begins to fix that injustice.

While this legislation is before the parliament today under the current government, it's important to acknowledge the long policy history behind it. The coalition began the work on these reforms in 2018, under Kelly O'Dwyer. Consultation papers were released. Stakeholders were engaged. Draft reforms were developed. This legislation builds on that work. I want to acknowledge the work of Daniel Mulino, the Assistant Treasurer, for bringing this bill before the House tonight, and I want to thank him for his leadership in so doing. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, their families and the advocates who fought for this reform for almost a decade. This reform did not happen by accident; it happened because survivors refused to give up.

Before speaking to the mechanics of the legislation, I want to speak briefly about the human impact behind it, because these are not abstract statistics; these are lives. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study found that 28½ per cent of Australians—more than a quarter—have experienced child sexual abuse. Let that figure sink in. More than a quarter of our kids have suffered some form of child sexual abuse. An even scarier statistic is that 37.3 per cent of women have experienced child sexual abuse, and 18 per cent of men. These numbers are staggering. They represent millions of Australians carrying trauma that often lasts a lifetime. And it doesn't just impact on them; it impacts upon their siblings and their mums and dads. It even has a generational impact, as the generations go down.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard repeatedly that survivors often experience decades of mental health challenges, including depression, anxiety, PTSD and substance abuse. It impacts on relationships, employment, education, financial security and, of course, physical health. For some survivors, after reliving that trauma in court and obtaining a compensation order, they still receive nothing. Imagine going through that process. As a former barrister, I can tell you it is harrowing for even the strongest of individuals. Imagine finding the courage to come forward and make a complaint to police. Imagine enduring what is a very difficult legal process. Imagine having the court believe you and a conviction ensuing, only to discover that the perpetrator has hidden away their assets in superannuation and you are left with nothing. That is the injustice that this bill seeks to redress, because superannuation is for retirement; it should never be used as a shield against accountability.

This should not be political. This should not be a partisan issue. This should unite the parliament. The protection of children should never be political. Supporting survivors should never be political. Holding perpetrators accountable should never be political. The Australian parliament should speak with one voice when it comes to rebuking predators and standing with victims-survivors. Under the current law, we've seen situations where perpetrators have been able to boast that their victims would never see a cent of their superannuation. That is appalling, and this bill begins the journey forward to seeing that that does not happen into the future. Enough is enough. This parliament has an obligation to close this loophole. That is why the coalition supports the swift passage of this bill.

At its core, the bill creates a court supervised process, allowing survivors of child sexual abuse to access certain superannuation amounts held by a perpetrator where there is an unpaid compensation debt. Importantly, this only applies where a court has already ordered compensation. It is not speculative. It is not arbitrary. This is about enforcing lawful court orders that have already been made. The bill allows survivors to seek limited information from the Australian Taxation Office about whether a perpetrator holds eligible superannuation assets. That matters because survivors should not be forced into expensive litigation without knowing whether there are assets capable of satisfying the debt.

The bill then allows a court to make a perpetrator contributions release order. That order enables eligible superannuation amounts to be released in order to satisfy the unpaid compensation debt. The bill also ensures that compensation debts relating to child sexual abuse survive bankruptcy. Again, this is critical because perpetrators should not be able to abuse a child, declare bankruptcy and still preserve their retirement savings while their victims receive nothing. The coalition supports these changes. We believe they are measured, we believe they are proportionate, and, above all, we believe they are just.

This reform exists because survivors and advocates refused to let this issue disappear. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary advocacy of survivors, families, lawyers and child protection organisations over many years. That includes organisations such as Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia and the Carly Ryan Foundation. We also acknowledge advocates, including Andrew Carpenter, Madeleine West, Edan van Haren and many others who continued pushing this issue into the national spotlight. Their advocacy exposed a serious injustice in this country. Their persistence brought this bill before the parliament, and parliament should honour that work by passing this bill swiftly. I want to acknowledge the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, which is headquartered in my electorate of Fisher. Bruce and Denise Morcombe have spent two decades turning unimaginable grief into action. Through child safety education, victim support and the Day for Daniel initiative, they have helped protect countless Australian children. Their work reminds us that prevention and justice must go hand in hand, because protecting children is not a one-off legislative task. It requires constant vigilance, constant education and constant resolve.

Finally, I want to say those numbers again. If I have said anything tonight that distresses people, Kids Helpline is available on 1800551800 or Lifeline on 131114. This bill is one of the most important bills that we will deal with in this parliament, and I do want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for bringing it forward. It's times like this it's good to see the parliament come together for the benefit of this nation.

Ms WITTY (Melbourne) (17:23): I rise to speak in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors, advocates and families whose work, courage and persistence brought this legislation to this parliament, because laws like this do not appear out of nowhere. They are built by people who refuse to stay silent after systems failed them; people who carry trauma into courtrooms, into media interviews and into meetings with governments and members of parliament; and people who keep pushing for justice through exhaustion, grief and disappointment. This bill exists because survivors demanded that we do better.

At its heart, this legislation is built on a very simple principle: people who commit child sexual abuse should not be able to hide their money while survivors are left carrying the cost of that harm done to them. Yet, for too long, that is exactly what has happened. A survivor could fight through the legal system, relive the worst experiences of their life, secure a compensation order through the courts and still walk away without justice being delivered in practice, because offenders could shield assets through super arrangements and bankruptcy structures while survivors were left unpaid. That is not justice. That is cruelty built into the system. This bill closes that loophole, and it matters deeply that we do that.

Child sexual abuse leaves lifelong impacts that shape how people move through the world. It affects mental health, physical health, relationships, education, employment, financial security, safety and trust. For many survivors, the abuse may have happened in childhood but the consequences follow them into adulthood every single day. Too often, those impacts become material as well as emotional. Some survivors struggle to stay in stable housing. Some find it difficult to maintain constant employment. Some carry interrupted education pathways. Some live with long-term health costs. Some spend years rebuilding a sense of stability after violence and abuse shattered it. That reality matters when we talk about compensation because compensation is not abstract. It's often connected to survival, to rebuilding, to counselling, to housing, to health care and to creating some form of safety after profound harm. When compensation orders go unpaid, survivors are forced to absorb another layer of injustice.

This bill recognises that. It recognises that accountability must mean something real. This government has made clear that accountability for child sexual abuse cannot end at conviction alone. Justice must mean something in practice. That is why these reforms matter so much. A compensation order should not become meaningless simply because an offender has found a way to hide assets behind technical financial protections.

Under these reforms, where a court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, survivors will be able, through a court order, to seek access to certain super contributions made by the offender. The bill also ensures that compensation debt can survive bankruptcy proceedings, because bankruptcy should not become a hiding place for people who have committed crimes against children. Financial manoeuvring cannot outweigh moral responsibility, and I think people across this country instinctively understand that. They understand that there is something fundamentally broken when survivors are struggling to build their lives while offenders continue protecting retirement savings behind legal loopholes.

This legislation says clearly that our legal and financial systems should never operate in a way that shields perpetrators from accountability. I think what makes this issue especially confronting is that survivors are so often asked to carry that burden of proving, explaining and reliving what happened to them, while the people who caused that harm spend years protected by systems that were never designed with survivors in mind. That imbalance matters, because justice is not only about what happens in a courtroom; it is about what happens afterwards—whether someone can rebuild, whether they can access stability, whether they feel the system stood with them or abandoned them once the headlines faded.

This bill says survivors should not be left carrying that burden alone. In my electorate of Melbourne, our community speaks openly and honestly about child abuse, institutional failure and the lifelong impacts trauma leaves behind. In a city full of advocates, frontline workers, legal services, support organisations, and survivors who have spent years pushing for change, when representing the people of Melbourne I hear passionately from people working in this space about what recovery really looks like. It's not linear, it's not quick and it does not happen simply because somebody survives.

I've spoken with people in my electorate who've spent years trying to rebuild a sense of normality after abuse; people navigating housing insecurity; people trying to stay connected to work while carrying trauma; people trying to trust systems again after being failed repeatedly. One thing comes through clearly, every single time: survivors should not have to spend their lives fighting systems that are meant to support them. But, too often, they do. They fight to be believed. They fight to access services. They fight through courts. They fight through administrative processes. They fight to rebuild financially. And then, sometimes, even after all of that, they are still denied the compensation they were legally awarded. That compounds the harm. It tells the survivors that, even after they'd found the courage to speak, even after they'd endured the courtroom, even after the court had ruled in their favour, the system still could not deliver justice. This is unacceptable.

This bill is an important step towards changing that, and, while the legislation deals with highly technical areas of super and bankruptcy law, its purpose is deeply human. At the centre of this bill are people—people who were harmed as children; people whose lives were permanently shaped by abuse; people who have already carried far more than anyone should ever have to carry.

Sometimes, in this place, we speak about legislation in highly procedural terms: schedules, mechanisms, frameworks and technical amendments. But behind every part of this bill is a survivor who deserves better. That matters, because systems can sometimes become so focused on processes that they lose sight of people. This bill pulls that focus back where it belongs: on survivors, on accountability and on making sure that justice has meaning in the real world.

I can only imagine how difficult it must be for survivors of sexual abuse to be forced into silence, sometimes by fear and sometimes by shame; sometimes because they were children who did not yet have the words for what happened to them; sometimes because systems around them failed to listen when they did speak. The courage it takes to come forward years or decades later cannot be overstated. To tell your story publicly; to enter legal proceedings; to re-live deeply traumatic experiences—that takes extraordinary strength. When survivors do that, the least we can do, as a parliament, is to ensure that the system does not fail them again, at that final hurdle.

That is why these reforms matter. They are practical reforms, targeted reforms, carefully designed reforms. But they are also moral reforms, because this bill draws a line. It says clearly, without apology, that, if you commit crimes against children, you should not get to hide your assets while survivors are left carrying the financial consequences of your abuse. That is the line this parliament is drawing today.

It also wants to acknowledge something else that matters in this conversation. For many survivors, the hardest part is not only the abuse itself; it is what happens afterwards: not being believed; being ignored; being told to move on; being left to navigate broken systems alone. And that failure can deepen trauma for years.

When institutions protect themselves instead of children, the damage does not stop when the abuse stops; it ripples outward, through entire lives, into relationships, into education, into employment, into housing, into mental health and into a person's ability to feel safe in the world. That is why accountability matters so deeply, because accountability is not about revenge; it's about recognition—recognition that harm was done; recognition that survivors deserve protection; recognition that justice should not stop halfway; and recognition that systems must never make survivors carry the burden while perpetrators protect their wealth and wait out legal obligations. This bill responds directly to that injustice. It creates a pathway for survivors to pursue compensation that courts have already determined they are owed, and it closes a loophole that should never have existed in the first place.

I also welcome the review mechanisms included in this legislation, because this bill should not be viewed as the final word on this issue; it should be viewed as a foundation—a significant foundation, a necessary foundation. We must continue listening to survivors and advocates to better understand where barriers still remain, we must continue assessing whether systems are delivering meaningful outcomes, and we must continue improving laws where gaps still exist, because survivors have already spent too long carrying the burden of institutional failure.

This parliament cannot afford complacency in response to that, and I think there is something important about the unity we have seen around this bill. Some issues rise above political pointscoring. The protection of children is one of them. The pursuit of justice for survivors should be one of them, and making sure perpetrators cannot exploit loopholes in financial systems should be one of them. This parliament is at its best when it listens carefully to lived experiences and responds with seriousness and purpose. That is what this legislation represents.

There is a line that has stayed with me while reading through this legislation and listening to survivors speaking about it: for many survivors, the trauma did not end when the abuse ended. That is the reality this bill confronts. It confronts the fact that abuse creates consequences that ripple through entire lives, that justice delayed or denied compounds the harm, and that systems built without survivors at the centre can unintentionally protect the wrong people. This bill shifts that balance. It says clearly that accountability should follow perpetrators, not burden survivors forever. Ultimately, this legislation is about fairness, dignity and responsibility. It is about ensuring that our financial and legal systems reflect our values—values that say child sexual abuse is among the gravest harms imaginable, values that say survivors deserve meaningful redress, not symbolic gestures, and values that say perpetrators should not be protected by loopholes while survivors carry the lifelong consequences of abuse.

The Albanese Labor government is choosing to act, choosing to close this loophole, choosing to strengthen accountability and choosing to listen to survivors who have spent years demanding change. That matters because, every time a system is improved, every time a loophole is closed and every time survivors are met with seriousness instead of indifference, we send a message about what kind of country we want to be—a country where justice means something in practice, a country where survivors are heard and a country where people who commit these crimes cannot hide behind structures that shield them from accountability. This bill says something powerful about whose side this parliament is on—not on the side of loopholes, not on the side of technicalities and not on the side of people trying to hide wealth while survivors rebuild their lives piece by piece. This parliament stands with survivors, and today, with this bill, we do just that. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms ALDRED (Monash—Opposition Whip) (17:38): In rising to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, I want to commend the thoughtful and reflective remarks made by my colleague the member for Melbourne and associate myself with her contribution.

The coalition supports this bill. We support it because this parliament should stand with survivors, not with loopholes that protect perpetrators. For too long, Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been manipulated by offenders to avoid paying court ordered compensation to the very people whose lives they have destroyed. Under the current law, perpetrators of child sexual abuse have been able to move assets into superannuation accounts, shield those assets from compensation claims, declare bankruptcy and leave survivors with nothing. That is not justice. It is frankly unacceptable that this loophole has been able to exist for so long. This should never be a partisan issue. This national parliament should speak with one united voice when it comes to protecting children, supporting survivors and ensuring perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

I acknowledge the work of the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino, in progressing this legislation. He is a good man. I had the privilege of working with him when he was the member for Eastern Victoria Region and I was CEO of the Committee for Gippsland. I commend his progression of this legislation. I also acknowledge the fine contribution a short time ago of Andrew Wallace, the member for Fisher, my colleague on this side, who I know cares deeply about standing up for victims of child sexual abuse. Above all else, this debate belongs to survivors. It belongs to the victims-survivors, the families, the advocates and the organisations who have spent years exposing this injustice and demanding change.

Many have fought for close to a decade to ensure this parliament has finally acted. I know many are relieved, but it goes without saying that they have had to endure deeply traumatic experiences in the hope that future survivors would not face the same barriers to justice. As someone who previously served on the board of Lifeline Gippsland, I know that Lifeline and many other organisations are there to support victims-survivors in the battles and the hurdles that they face ahead. This is important work. This legislation exists because those survivors refuse to remain silent.

The purpose of this bill is straightforward, but it is profoundly important. It amends the Commonwealth law to allow victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to apply for a court order to access certain superannuation amounts held by perpetrators. The bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act to ensure perpetrators cannot simply declare bankruptcy in order to escape compensation debts. At present, superannuation trustees are generally prohibited from releasing preserved benefits, except in very limited circumstances. Compensation owed to victims of crime is not one of them.

This has created a serious loophole—a loophole where offenders facing criminal or civil proceedings can deliberately move assets into superannuation accounts to shield wealth from victims seeking compensation, and, in some cases, those perpetrators have boasted about such moves. As a result, survivors can endure years of abuse, pursue justice through the courts and be forced to relive their trauma through legal proceedings before obtaining compensation orders—and still receive absolutely nothing. A compensation order should mean something. It should be enforceable to the full extent. Justice should not exist only on paper.

This issue is about far more than money. The impacts of child sexual abuse are lifelong. They affect mental health, physical health, relationships, education, employment, housing stability and financial security. They rob Australia of the prospects, the input and the talents of so many brilliant Australians who have had to endure such horrendous circumstances. For many survivors, the abuse does not end when the offending stops. The trauma continues for years and often decades. Many survivors face ongoing medical expenses, counselling costs and lost opportunities because of the abuse they endured as children. For some, maintaining stable employment becomes difficult. For others, trust, safety and stability are things they spend years trying to rebuild. No amount of compensation can ever undo what has happened. No amount of money can erase that trauma, but compensation can help survivors access treatment, counselling and support services. It can help provide stability, and, importantly, it can represent acknowledgement—acknowledgement that harm was done and that accountability matters. As a national parliament, we're coming together in a bipartisan manner to do just that.

Many survivors have described the current loophole as a second injustice. Not only were they abused; they also, after enduring lengthy legal proceedings, discovered the perpetrator had deliberately protected their wealth while the survivor was left carrying the emotional and financial burden. That compounds the trauma, it compounds the sense that the system failed them and it undermines public confidence in the justice system itself—because Australians rightly expect that, when a court orders compensation, perpetrators cannot simply manipulate the system to avoid responsibility.

The need for this legislation becomes painfully clear when we look at the real cases that exposed this loophole. One of the most notorious examples is the former magistrate Peter Liddy. Back in 2001, Liddy was jailed for horrific offences involving the abuse of multiple children. But, before sentencing, he transferred substantial assets into superannuation accounts, effectively shielding his wealth from victims pursuing compensation claims. Lawyer Andrew Carpenter described it as becoming a 'blueprint for paedophiles everywhere'. That statement should disturb every single one of us in this place, because it demonstrates that this was not an isolated technical oversight. It became a known strategy, a loophole that offenders could exploit while survivors were left without justice.

Andrew Carpenter has spent years advocating for reform and supporting survivors through these processes. I recently listened to a podcast he was on and was most significantly impressed by his dedication, over many years, to this cause and by his broader support of abuse victims. Andrew Carpenter put it plainly when he said:

There is not one legal justification for sexually abusing a child. Paedophiles should be made to pay and closing this loophole is a no-brainer.

And he was right.

Another shocking example involved the former boss of Bega Cheese, Maurice Van Ryn. Before being sentenced to prison, he, too, moved assets into superannuation. They were substantial. When victims later sought compensation, they discovered he was broke on paper. Survivor advocate Howard Brown said Van Ryn even boasted:

Everything I have is in my super—and you can't touch that.

Imagine hearing that as a survivor. Imagine enduring the abuse, going through the court proceedings and then hearing the perpetrator openly taunt victims because the law protected his assets. That should outrage all of us, and indeed it does, because we are coming together, as a parliament, in a bipartisan manner in the Australian national interest to say to those abuse victims that we all—every single member in this place—stand with you.

The case of Edan van Haren further demonstrates why reform is urgently needed. In 2023, Mr van Haren was awarded $1.4 million in damages by the New South Wales Supreme Court after being abused by Maurice Van Ryn. Yet legal loopholes enabled the perpetrator to avoid paying damages. It cannot continue. We must not stand for this. Perpetrators should not be able to abuse children, lose in court, declare bankruptcy and preserve retirement savings while survivors are left with nothing. Superannuation was never intended to become a shield for predators. It exists to provide dignity and security in retirement, not protection from accountability.

This bill establishes a court supervised process that seeks to restore fairness, it allows survivors to seek limited superannuation information from the Commissioner of Taxation, it allows courts to issue release orders where compensation debts exist, and it requires the Commissioner of Taxation to facilitate payment through release authorities issued to superannuation funds. Importantly, this is not an arbitrary process. Perpetrators retain the ability to challenge orders on specified legal grounds. There is judicial oversight. There are safeguards. But, critically, there is finally a pathway for survivors to pursue meaningful compensation where perpetrators have attempted to shield assets within superannuation.

The coalition also believe it's important to recognise the organisations and advocates who have fought tirelessly for this reform. I want to acknowledge Andrew Carpenter, who I mentioned earlier, but also Hetty Johnston and the extraordinary work of Bravehearts. I would like to acknowledge Super for Survivors, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia, the Carly Ryan Foundation and many others who have spent years exposing this injustice and pushing for change.

Hetty Johnston said these reforms would 'give the power back to the victims' and take away from offenders, who 'love' exploiting these loopholes. She's right. That is an incredibly important point, because, at its heart, this legislation is about power and accountability. For too long, offenders retained power over survivors even after criminal convictions and court proceedings. This legislation begins to rebalance that in the way that it needs to. It sends a message that our parliament—this national parliament—will not allow legal loopholes to be weaponised against survivors.

I want to also recognise that this bill may not be the final word on reform in this area. Indeed, there is always more to be done. There are advocates who believe broader categories of serious violent crime should eventually be captured by similar provisions. I know there are ongoing discussions around retrospective application and the treatment of civil findings. These conversations are important, and they should continue. Indeed, earlier consultation proposals contemplated access for victims of serious violent crimes beyond child sexual abuse alone. But we should not allow the pursuit of a perfect model to delay meaningful reform that survivors need right now—today—not when survivors have already waited years and not when every further delay risks prolonging injustice. That is why the coalition does not support unnecessary delays or referral processes that would simply postpone the operation of these reforms.

Today, this parliament has an opportunity to send a clear and united message from both sides—a message that survivors matter; a message that justice should be meaningful, not symbolic; a message that perpetrators should never be able to manipulate the law to escape accountability; and a message that superannuation should never again become a safe haven for those who commit horrific crimes against children. The coalition supports this bill. I commend it to the House.

Ms BRISKEY (Maribyrnong) (17:53): Before I begin my remarks, I too want to recognise the contribution of the member for Monash and acknowledge her meaningful contribution and absolutely agree with the point that she made around this being an issue that rises above partisan politics, so thank you very much for that.

There are moments in this parliament when the weight of what we are asked to do is felt so deeply. This is one of those moments. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was a watershed moment for our nation. It opened many Australians' eyes to the systemic violence that had robbed too many children of their innocence and of their futures. For years—decades—victims-survivors had carried their pain alone. And then, finally, their country listened. The royal commission's findings prompted profound change, but that work is not finished. The people who lived through that abuse, who found extraordinary courage to speak, to testify and to name what was done to them, know that better than anyone. Today we continue that work. Today we slam shut a loophole that has allowed perpetrators to avoid accountability.

Before I speak to the details of this bill, I want to pause to acknowledge the strength, the resilience and the bravery of victims-survivors: those who fought for years through the courts to be heard and who lived the worst moments of their lives in pursuit of something that looked like justice only to be left without the compensation a court told them they were owed; those who have suffered in silence, held back by shame that should never have been theirs to carry in the first place; and those who found their voices, often at great personal cost, to advocate for reform to make sure what happened to them would not keep happening to others. Each and every one of those victims-survivors deserves better. They deserved better then; they deserve better now. And this legislation is one more step towards making that a reality.

So why is this legislation needed? Currently, the courts have been awarding compensation to victims-survivors of child sexual abuse. That is the system working as it should be. But too often the system stops there. Perpetrators who have been found guilty of devastating crimes have then been able to dodge that compensation. They have sheltered assets in superannuation accounts beyond the reach of enforcement, or they have declared bankruptcy, causing compensation debts to simply disappear.

So, right now, a victim-survivor gathers the courage to come forward. They endure the police process. They enter an intimidating court system. They relive their abuse. A judge finds in their favour. And then they wait and wait. And the money that was ordered to be paid to them is never paid—because the person who harmed them found a loophole. That is not justice, and it has gone on for far too long, but this bill ends it. It ends it because it makes two important and targeted reforms.

First, it addresses superannuation. Under these changes, where a court ordered compensation debt remains unpaid after 12 months, victims-survivors will be able to apply to a court for an order to access certain superannuation contributions made by the offender. This specifically captures personal contributions and salary sacrifice contributions—the very mechanisms that have been used to shield assets from enforcement. This process will be supported by the Australian Taxation Office so that victims-survivors can identify any potential eligible superannuation before proceeding. There are appropriate safeguards built into the framework. This is not a blunt instrument, but it is carefully designed to deliver on a clear principle.

Second, it addresses bankruptcy. Compensation debts owed to victims-survivors of child sexual abuse will no longer simply vanish when a perpetrator enters bankruptcy proceedings. These debts will survive bankruptcy. And, critically, these changes will apply not only to future cases but to bankruptcies currently in progress. There are victims-survivors right now, today, who are being denied justice under the existing framework. This bill reaches them, too.

There is nothing radical about these reforms. They are a logical and long overdue consequence of a simple belief—that perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to use financial structures to escape accountability.

When the royal commission gave a platform to victims-survivors, our nation had a mirror held up to itself. We learnt that child sexual abuse does not end when the abuse ends. Its effects are lifelong and profound. We know that victims-survivors frequently carry trauma into adulthood, where it affects their mental health, their physical wellbeing, their relationships, their education and their ability to fully participate in work and community life.

The website for the royal commission has a section dedicated to sharing the stories of victims-survivors. I'm reminded of one, from Trev. During his session, Trev outlined how the abuse he endured had shaped his life—his need for lifelong psychiatric help over 40 years and his many trips to psychiatric hospitals. He disclosed that he had been diagnosed with PTSD and severe depression and has been on medication for a very long time.

Trev's story, like that of so many other victims-survivors, highlights why this legislation is so crucial. Many face persistent barriers to stable employment and financial security. The harm they have experienced is not only emotional and psychological; it is deeply material. The financial compensation a court awards is not symbolic. It is a recognition of real, ongoing harm. It's resources that may help a person access therapy, maintain stable housing or rebuild a life that was disrupted in the most fundamental of ways.

When a perpetrator shields their assets in superannuation while a survivor struggles financially, often as a direct result of the abuse they suffered, it does not just deny them money; it reinforces the concern that many victims have that the system is not built for them. That cannot be a message allowed to stand. Compensation orders cannot be unenforced, otherwise it corrodes confidence in the justice system more broadly. If victims-survivors and the wider community cannot trust that court orders will be meaningful and that accountability will be real, then we are failing in our most fundamental obligations.

The courage and fortitude that is required to reach the point where this legislation becomes relevant is enormous. Coming forward is not a simple process, especially decades after the abuse. It requires a kind of strength that is difficult to fully comprehend. Victims-survivors must confront not only their own pain but often disbelief, scrutiny and the retraumatising of legal proceedings. They must relive painful experiences in pursuit of outcomes that are never guaranteed.

For many, the decision to go to the courts represents years of internal struggle. They don't do it only for themselves but because they believe and they hope that the system will deliver justice for them—that the law will say, 'What was done to you was wrong, and there are consequences.' When a court does exactly that, it awards compensation, and then that award goes unpaid, we are not only failing the individual; we are betraying the trust of every victim-survivor who is watching, wondering whether it is worth coming forward. This legislation is an answer to that question. It is worth it.

We know how important this bill is, but we also know that it is not the end of the road. The superannuation and bankruptcy systems are technical and complex. This legislation is carefully designed to be enforceable and consistent with broader legal principles. It closes a clear loophole, but there is more work to do, and the Albanese Labor government is committed to continuing this work. We have heard clearly and powerfully the voices of victims-survivors and advocates who are already looking to us to build on these reforms. Their lived experiences must remain at the centre of this conversation. They know where the system is still falling short.

When victims-survivors tell us that, it is our responsibility to listen and to act. That is why reviewing the implementation of this measure is required. This parliament must not simply pass this legislation and move on. We must remain engaged with whether these provisions are working in practice, whether victims-survivors are genuinely benefiting and whether changes are needed. Our policy work must continue to be shaped by victims-survivors, advocates, legal experts and practitioners. We must ask honestly whether the law is delivering on its intent and whether barriers remain that must be removed.

A court order has to mean something. When a judge awards a compensation to a victim-survivor of child sexual abuse, that shouldn't be the start of another fight; it should be the beginning of some kind of resolution. This bill makes sure perpetrators can't just move money around or declare bankruptcy to get out of paying. That is what this bill does. But, for victims-survivors who have been waiting sometimes for years for that compensation to arrive, this matters a great deal.

I think about the people who will never see this debate and who have contributed to us getting to this point: those who were let down by a system that was weighted against them; those who decided that, after all they had endured, another fight wasn't worth it because nothing ever seemed to change; and those whose light was extinguished by an act of pure evil. I hope this is evidence that it does change—yes, sometimes slowly and imperfectly, but it does change.

I also think about the victims-survivors who are still in the middle of their fights right now, still waiting on a court, still wondering if the compensation order they're hoping for will actually mean anything. We're doing this for them. It means that, if they get that order, we've done more to make sure it sticks. We owe it to every single one of them to get this right, to keep listening and to keep going. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (19:31): I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people here and the Yagara and Yugambeh people back home in Logan, and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is the most important and ambitious budget in decades.

It's important because the world is throwing a lot at us—and this budget is about helping Australia deal with these challenges.

It's ambitious because we have so much going for us—and this budget is about Australia seizing those opportunities.

War in the Middle East has been pushing up prices, pushing down growth, and punishing Australians.

It has exposed weaknesses in the global economy and intensified longstanding challenges here at home.

We didn't decide when this war began and we have no control over when it will properly end.

But how we respond is up to us—how we help each other through and how we come out of this a stronger, fairer, more productive and more resilient nation.

This budget is ambitious in the face of adversity.

It's a responsible budget and it's a reforming budget, which builds resilience and bolsters our economy.

There is more cost-of-living relief, more Medicare, more aged care and more housing.

It makes the tax system fairer and stronger for workers, businesses, first home buyers and future generations, responding to the pressures of the here and now while embracing our intergenerational responsibilities.

The core of this budget is an economic strategy with five main parts:

getting through the global oil shock and building resilience;

taking the pressure off people where we can;

making the economy more productive to lift living standards over time;

reforming the tax system for workers, businesses and future generations—including a new tax cut for every working Australian taxpayer; and

making the budget stronger and more sustainable and helping to take the pressure off inflation by saving more than we spend.

G lobal and domestic outlook

We are dealing with the fifth economic shock in less than 20 years.

The conflict in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted the global economy and the global outlook.

Oil production fell by eight million barrels a day in the first month of the war—almost eight times more than any of the oil shocks we've seen since the 1970s.

The global oil price started the year around $60 and has now been above $100 for the bulk of the past two months.

A third of the world's seaborne fertiliser has been stuck, putting pressure on food production, food security and supermarket prices.

All of this has made the outlook more uncertain.

Treasury's central forecast assumes oil stays around $100 per barrel until the end of next month and glides to $80 by the end of June next year.

On that assumption, it would still be above its pre-conflict price in 12 months time.

This means Treasury now expects global growth to slow from 3½ per cent last year to just three per cent this year.

Inflation is spiking all around the world—and Australia is not immune from these global price rises.

Australians have been paying a hefty price for this war, at the bowser and beyond.

We were already dealing with price pressures in our economy, but Treasury's now forecasting inflation to peak around five per cent in the middle of the year because of the conflict.

For the same reasons, it's expecting growth to come in half a percentage point lower next financial year, to be 1¾ per cent overall.

In this budget, Treasury also presents a more severe scenario where the oil price peaks at $200 a barrel and takes three years to fall back down.

We would still avoid a recession, but unemployment would spike to pre-pandemic levels, and inflation would peak above seven per cent.

As Australians, we confront these serious challenges together from a position of strength.

We are much better placed and better prepared than most countries to deal with this global crisis.

Growth here is still higher than our peers, real incomes have been growing strongly, unemployment is historically low, and we have one of the strongest budgets in the world.

Before the war, GDP growth was strengthening and broadening.

The outlook for business investment remains robust, with a solid pipeline of data centre and renewable energy projects.

Employment is still growing, and even if unemployment ticks up as expected it will still stay around the mid-fours.

Nominal wages growth is expected to remain above three per cent, and annual real wage growth will return from next year, after growing for eight of the last nine quarters.

We know there's more work to do because the immediate costs and consequences of this war are already serious and could be severe.

At the same time, our economy is being reshaped by structural shifts across energy, industry, technology, demography and geopolitics.

And we have longstanding challenges when it comes to our productivity performance, our housing market and our tax system.

This budget is about getting us through the global oil shock and taking pressure off Australians while building a stronger economy, a better tax system and a more sustainable budget and lifting living standards for our people.

R esponding to the global oil shock

We are responding to the biggest oil shock in history with a comprehensive $14.8 billion plan to secure more fuel, strengthen our supply chains, build resilience and take the sting out of prices.

The Strengthening Australia's Fuel Resilience package will deliver more fuel for drivers and industry, more fertiliser for farmers and more fuel security for our economy.

Its centrepiece is a $10 billion investment in immediate fuel supplies and a permanent Australian fuel security reserve to get the fuels and fertiliser that we need.

We're helping businesses and manufacturers bolster supply chains, with $1 billion in interest-free loans through the National Reconstruction Fund and incentives to get more freight moving on trains and ships.

Targeted support for electric vehicles, building more charging stations, and heavy vehicle reform are all investments in our long-term fuel resilience.

We'll produce more fuel through our $1.1 billion Cleaner Fuels Program, backed with reforms to our low-carbon liquid fuels market to support demand.

We're reserving 20 per cent of gas exports for Australian users so there's more supply at lower prices.

And we're making more progress on our Future Made in Australia agenda, supporting mining and processing through our Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve, and investments in domestic smelting and manufacturing.

T aking the pressure of f Australians

We understand that this crisis is adding to the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians.

That's why we are taking some of the sting out of global price rises, by:

More than halving the fuel excise;

Reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero;

Putting petrol companies on notice by doubling the consumer watchdog's maximum penalties and ramping up enforcement and monitoring;

Giving businesses a bit more leeway at tax time if they're facing fuel supply problems; and

Continuing to make it easier and quicker for small businesses to get access to credit if they need it.

Tax cuts to help with the cost of living

Immediate relief from the fuel crisis is coupled with lasting and responsible cost-of-living measures.

This government cut taxes two years ago. We're cutting them again this year, and next year too.

Tonight, we are proud to be delivering another round of ongoing tax cuts for Australian workers.

We will put more money into the pockets of 13.3 million workers with a new $250 Working Australians Tax Offset.

It will begin from the second half of 2027 and be paid each year after that, ongoing and automatically in your tax return just like the instant deduction that we are rolling out as well.

This offset is targeted to workers and it represents the most meaningful, permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since Labor increased it more than a decade ago.

Altogether our five different tax cuts will benefit the average worker by up to $2,816 in 2028.

Averaged out over the year, our three tax cuts, our instant deduction and the new offset are the equivalent of up to $54 back in the average earner's pocket each week.

Cheaper medicines and better health care

Now, the $6.4 billion tax offset is the biggest cost-of-living measure in this budget—but it's not all we're doing to support families under pressure.

As a Labor government, we will always invest in Medicare and cheaper medicines and public health so Australians get the care that they need, when they need it.

This budget includes another $25 billion for public hospitals.

We're also investing $5.9 billion to list more medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, so Australians continue to access life-changing medicines at cheaper prices.

For example, cutting the cost of treatment for cystic fibrosis will save some Australians around $250,000 a year.

Medicare Urgent Care Clinics reduce out-of-pocket costs, because more bulk-billing means less pressure on household budgets and emergency departments.

By July, four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of one of the 137 clinics around the country.

We're permanently funding every one of them with $1.8 billion over the next four years and about half a billion dollars every year after that.

More homes and a fair go for first home buyers

Australia's longstanding housing shortage is making homes unaffordable.

This challenge hits young workers and families hard and we're addressing it from every responsible angle.

The reforms in this budget will lift our total investment in housing to a record $47 billion.

We're levelling the playing field for first home buyers with five per cent deposits and tax reform to help more young Australians into their own home.

We'll invest another $2 billion in the power, roads and drains that we need for new housing developments, which will help build around 65,000 new homes over the next decade.

We're working with the states to cut red tape and planning delays which could unlock tens of thousands more.

We're extending our ban on foreign investors buying existing homes to take pressure off the market and helping to fix the youth housing penalty, to secure homes for 4,000 young people at risk of homelessness.

Reforms to build an economy that works for more A ustralians

These housing reforms go to the very core of our budget strategy, dealing with the very real pressures on people right now—while taking responsibility for the challenges facing the next generations.

The shocks from around the world are coming at us faster and more frequently.

That global uncertainty is not a reason to delay reform, it's why we must move with urgency and with ambition.

The challenges coming at us, the opportunities ahead of us and the better future that Australians deserve will not wait for a time when all is quiet in the world.

That's why this budget invests in resilience and reform, to grow our economy the right way and lift living standards over time.

We'll do that through three ambitious policy packages: a productivity and investment package, a tax reform package and a savings package as well.

Making our economy more productive

To lift wages and living standards we have to lift productivity.

In the market sector, productivity has now grown for five consecutive quarters. It was 1½ per cent last year.

But this budget is about going further and moving faster.

This productivity package will help us attract and absorb more investment, make it easier and quicker to build, and it will slash compliance costs.

The reforms we are announcing tonight will cut regulatory costs by $10.2 billion every year.

Our efforts in National Competition Policy alone could boost GDP by $13 billion a year.

This is the broadest productivity push in a budget since the 1990s.

Boosting p roductivity

Our productivity plan starts with incentivising investment and innovation through the tax system for businesses, startups and venture capital.

We're cutting the unnecessary red tape holding us back, including $780 million every year in the financial sector alone.

We're also making tax time simpler for small businesses, which will save them 376,000 hours a year.

We're getting rid of almost 600 more tariffs to reduce trade barriers, as well as expanding our Trusted Trader program and streamlining biosecurity for fertiliser imports.

We're also building a single national market through our National Competition Policy reforms so Australia works as one economy, not eight, with new work to make mandatory standards free for workers and businesses.

And we're making government simpler to deal with, through a 'tell us once' approach so Australians don't have to keep submitting the same information, and expanding Digital ID.

We will speed up approvals so businesses can quickly move from an investment decision to shovels in the ground.

That's the motivation behind our environmental law reforms, the Investor Front Door and a second round of foreign investment changes.

We'll also simplify building regulations for when these projects begin construction.

And we're doing more on skills recognition and education so tradies can get their qualifications recognised more easily and businesses can find the skilled workers that they need.

We're progressing the most significant reforms to the national electricity market since the 1990s, as the world moves to net zero, including changes to help attract more investment in renewable energy and increase competition.

We're also modernising our energy system with a domestic gas reservation and getting more solar and batteries into homes, which could save $7 billion in systems costs by 2050.

We're seizing the vast opportunities from AI, with grants to commercialise AI innovations, and making government more efficient.

We're investing billions more in science and innovation, through the Medical Research Future Fund and in the CSIRO and the Square Kilometre Array, and billions in the infrastructure that we need to get people to work and to improve our regions, towns and cities.

We're also strengthening the performance test so our $4½ trillion super sector isn't being discouraged from investing productive capital in areas like energy and housing.

T ax reform for workers, businesses and future generations

The productivity package is ambitious and so are our tax reforms.

This budget includes the most significant tax reform package in more than a quarter of a century.

This is about tax relief and tax reform to make our economy work for more Australians, for more businesses and for future generations.

We're delivering a fairer tax system for workers, first home buyers and young people.

This will help rebalance a system which is more generous to assets than it is to labour and help rebalance a system where house prices have decoupled from incomes.

Since 1999, house prices have risen over 400 percent—more than twice as fast as average incomes.

Our tax changes will help about 75,000 Australians achieve the dream of homeownership.

We'll limit negative gearing for residential property to new builds from July next year.

And we're replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with inflation-adjusted indexation to restore the taxation of real gains.

These changes will be prospective, and new builds will retain the option to use the 50 per cent discount.

We'll also introduce a minimum 30 per cent tax rate on capital gains from July next year and on discretionary trusts from July the year after.

This is about better aligning the taxes paid on these types of income with the taxes paid on wages.

These changes will level the playing field for workers and first home buyers and support investment in productive assets, including new housing supply.

They will fund our new round of tax relief for more than 13 million Australian workers.

We're building a better tax system for businesses, too, with over $3½ billion in new measures that lower taxes to encourage investment and innovation.

We'll permanently introduce two-year loss carryback for all companies with up to $1 billion in turnover—bolstering resilience and risk-taking.

We'll introduce loss refundability for startups, to help new businesses invest and grow in their first two years.

We'll also expand tax incentives for venture capital and better target the research and development tax incentive to support more high-impact innovation.

The third part of our tax reform package is to make the tax system simpler and more sustainable.

Simpler for workers with a $1,000 instant deduction, and simpler for small businesses with a permanent instant asset write-off and more dynamic tax instalments.

And we'll put in place more sustainable long-term settings to support the take up of electric vehicles.

Our tax reforms will help workers, create a fairer housing market, and drive more productive investment across our economy.

They build on the significant reforms we've already delivered, and they complement our other efforts to increase housing supply, boost productivity and reduce compliance costs.

The new revenue raised will be returned to workers and businesses over the next four years—so more Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn.

S avings and budget sustainability

This means the heavy lifting on budget repair is being done by savings and spending restraint, not tax increases.

This budget delivers the largest savings package on record.

All up, there are $63.8 billion in savings.

Our decisions improve the budget in net terms by $26.1 billion once you take our responsible provisions into account.

A big part of our savings package will restore the NDIS to its original intent and secure its future, so it grows in a sustainable way in line with programs like Medicare.

This difficult but necessary reform will save $37.8 billion over the forward estimates.

On top of savings there's also very substantial spending restraint.

Real spending growth averages just 1½ per cent for the eight years to June 2030.

This is the lowest average growth rate in any eight-year period for almost three and a half decades and less than half the 30-year average.

As a result:

We've returned every single dollar of revenue upgrades to the bottom line for the second consecutive update; and

Payments as a share of the economy are forecast to go down from 26.8 per cent next year to 26.2 per cent by the middle of 2030.

This responsible economic management means:

The budget deficit next financial year is $2.8 billion lower at $31.5 billion;

The bottom line is better in every year over the forward estimates and medium term;

The budget position has improved by $44.9 billion and this makes it more than a quarter of a trillion dollars better than when we came to office;

Gross debt will be $982 billion at the end of this financial year, and it peaks lower, peaks earlier and is lower in every year for the next 11 years; and

This means, in share of economy terms, gross and net debt remain well below what we inherited in every year going forward.

Debt is lower and the budget position is stronger in every year of the medium term because of our savings.

The medium-term budget position is much stronger and more sustainable as a consequence, creating more room for future tax relief.

M aking room for our priorities

We've made progress getting the budget in much better shape at the same time as we've found room to fund the services and security Australians rely on.

This budget includes record investments in healthcare, defence, and economic resilience.

Reforming and strengthening care

There's $3 billion to deliver more beds, more packages and better aged care for older Australians.

There's $2 billion for the Thriving Kids program and a $3 billion provision for other foundational supports outside the NDIS.

And there's $2.2 billion to strengthen Services Australia and ensure Australians continue to receive safe, secure and reliable services quickly and easily.

Broadening opportunity

We're building an economy that is stronger, fairer, and gives more Australians a stake in our success.

We're investing an extra $1.2 billion to close the gap, doubling the number of jobs created as part of the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program and improving housing quality and expanding our support for grocery stores in remote First Nations communities.

Supporting gender equality

The gender pay gap has never been narrower and women's workforce participation hit record highs last year.

We are proud to have backed $21 billion in wage rises for women working in sectors like aged care and early childhood education, which have been undervalued for too long.

Since 2022, we've also invested more than $4.4 billion to deliver the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

This budget includes hundreds of millions of dollars for frontline services and to make our child support system safer, so children get the financial support they need and women are protected from abuse.

Resilience and national security

Economic security, economic resilience, and national security are now one and the same.

We're investing an additional $53 billion over the next decade in our defence force to keep Australians and our region safe.

And there's almost $800 million for veterans as part of our response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

We're also taking action to strengthen our national security and national unity since the devastating antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach.

We're adopting every recommendation from the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion's interim report and fast-tracking tougher gun laws through the National Cabinet.

There is $600 million in this budget for a new Counter-Terrorism Online Centre, grants to support affected communities and money for our law enforcement agencies to crack down on the hate speech, the violent extremism and the terrorism which has absolutely no place in this country.

Conclusion

Against a backdrop of global uncertainty, this budget invests in Australia's resilience, its economic sovereignty and its national security.

At a time when Australians are under pressure, this budget delivers more help with the cost of living and new tax cuts for workers.

And in an era where people feel like the system no longer works for them, this budget doesn't just acknowledge that—it acts on it.

By levelling the playing field for first home buyers, backing the aspiration and innovation of small businesses.

And renewing the fundamental bargain between generations to help bring the dream of homeownership within reach of more young Australians.

No other budget in the 2000s has set out this much responsible budget repair and this much economic reform.

These are difficult decisions to ensure a stronger bottom line every year, to give us greater insurance in uncertain times at the same time as we build a more resilient, productive and competitive economy.

This is a strategy which helps shield people from the harshest consequences of a global oil crisis.

Stabilises our economy and our budget at a time of extreme uncertainty and volatility in the world.

And strengthens Australia for the next shock.

Faced with a choice between resilience or reform, this budget demonstrates our government and our country are capable of both.

Tonight, we choose the hard road of reform, not the path of least resistance.

By responding to the pressures Australians confront today.

And fulfilling our obligations and responsibilities to the generations to come.

That is why I commend this bill and this budget to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (20:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, are the budget appropriation bills for 2026-27.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of $33.7 billion. This bill provides appropriations for services that are not the ordinary annual services of government for the 2026-27 financial year.

This budget is all about taking pressure off ordinary Australians by reforming the tax system to make it fairer for everyone.

We are helping people keep more of what they earn, with more than 13 million Australian workers benefiting from a new $250 working Australian tax offset.

We are reforming trusts to level the playing field between workers and families who earn a living through wages and salary and people who live off income from assets held in trusts.

We are helping more Australians own their own home with changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing.

These reforms will mean more Australians have the opportunity to buy a home, help millions of Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn, and ensure our tax system is simpler and more sustainable for the long term.

I now outline the most significant items provided for in this bill.

The Department of Defence will receive $15.3 billion to support the implementation of the 2026 National Defence Strategy and the 2026 Integrated Investment Program, including through investments in military capacity.

The Department of Finance will receive approximately $6.4 billion, including funding for Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd and Snowy Hydro Ltd.

The Department of the Treasury will receive over $4.2 billion to provide funding for loans to support social and affordable housing, including concessional loans for housing projects under the Housing Australia Future Fund and loans for the Australian Housing Bond Aggregator.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts will receive $3.6 billion to continue to deliver projects and programs. This includes funding for the Australian Rail Track Corporation for the Inland Rail project; WSA Co for the Western Sydney International Airport; the National Intermodal Corporation for the development of intermodal projects; NBN Co for the National Broadband Network updates; and funding for the Roads to Recovery Program.

The bill also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $3.6 billion to provide the government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The AFM comprises:

$3 billion set aside for the fuel security response, and

$600 million for other urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The size of the general AFM is unchanged from 2025-26.

Strong transparency and accountability safeguards will apply to the AFM allocations. This includes publication of a ministerial media release for each allocation and consultation with the shadow minister for finance for any proposed AFM allocation over $1 billion.

This bill also sets debit limits for payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act that will apply in 2026-27, and they are:

$5 billion for general purpose financial assistance, and

$40 billion for national partnership payments.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio budget statements. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (20:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) provides appropriations for decisions taken by government in the 2026-27 budget for the operations of parliamentary departments. Together with appropriation bills 1 and 2, this bill forms part of the government's budget appropriation bills.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $345.4 million. Funding provided through this bill will support the following significant items of parliamentary departments.

The Department of Parliamentary Services will receive close to $274 million to support the work of the Australian parliament, through services to parliamentarians and as custodians of Parliament House.

The bill also includes an advance to the responsible presiding officer of $1.9 million.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio budget statements.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (20:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, the government introduces the 2025-26 supplementary additional estimates appropriation bills. These bills are:

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2025-2026; and

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2025-2026.

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $2.7 billion. This would ensure there are sufficient appropriations to cover estimate variations related to existing programs, for example, changes in demand driven programs. These bills also pay for the 2025-26 financial year impact of decisions made since the 2025-26 MYEFO, including those in the 2026-27 budget.

Key items in this bill include:

The Department of Defence receiving over $1.8 billion in funding brought forward to address updated expenditure requirements under the 2024 National Defence Strategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program.

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing receiving approximately $643 million, including over $598 million for the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide reasonable and necessary supports for National Disability Insurance Scheme participants.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (20:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $1.1 billion for the 2025-26 financial year. These appropriations will support the following key items.

The Department of Defence will receive $900 million brought forward to meet revised expenditure requirements under the 2024 National Defence Strategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts will receive over $204 million for the Australian Rail Track Corporation to continue to deliver the Inland Rail project.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 20 : 12