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) (09:26): I move:

That:

(1) a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence be appointed to inquire into and report on:

(a) the opportunities presented by artificial intelligence (AI) to lift Australia's resilience, productivity growth, economic competitiveness, and living standards;

(b) the opportunities for the benefits of AI to be spread across Australia's suburbs and regions;

(c) the opportunities of AI and robotics to drive research and innovation, new industries and business, and export opportunities, including in sectors of Australian comparative advantage such as agriculture, resources, health and medical research, advanced manufacturing, financial services and defence industry;

(d) the rate and extent of AI adoption across the Australian economy, and the barriers to adoption, faced by small and medium businesses and family businesses;

(e) the opportunities for Australian sovereign AI capability, including the measures required to build, retain and commercialise domestic capability, grow research and development, and attract and retain investment and talent;

(f) the importance of data sovereignty, and the opportunities presented by narrow, domain-specific AI models trained on Australian data in areas of Australian sectoral expertise;

(g) the workforce and skills implications of AI, including the adequacy of Australia education system, job creation and displacement, and the effects on the quality and security of jobs;

(h) the adoption of AI by Commonwealth departments and agencies to improve services for Australians, and the transparency and accountability measures that apply to AI use;

(i) the adequacy of Australia's existing laws and regulatory frameworks as they apply to AI and whether there are any gaps that warrant reform;

(j) the interaction of AI with existing intellectual property and copyright laws, including the use of Australian creative, cultural and media content in the training of AI models;

(k) the risks and harms arising from AI, including fraud and scams, deepfakes and risks to the safety and wellbeing of children and vulnerable Australians;

(l) the national security and cyber security opportunities to protect Australians, as well as the foreign interference risks, associated with AI, including the security and resilience of supply chains and of systems supporting critical infrastructure;

(m) the implications of emerging AI capability for Australia's national security and strategic resilience, including the ability of regulators, the Australian AI Safety Institute and the intelligence and security community to identify and respond to emerging risks; and

(n) any other related matters;

(2) the committee present its final report by no later than 30 November 2026;

(3) the committee consist of twelve members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, three Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;

(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(5) the members of the committee hold office as a Joint select committee until the committee's final report is presented or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(6) the committee elect:

(a) a Government member as its chair; and

(b) an Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant;

(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;

(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(10) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives;

(15) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and

(16) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (09:26): Artificial intelligence poses multiple challenges to Australia and to our people. We see moral, strategic and economic challenges. AI is reshaping the world, and the geopolitical implications for Australia are clear. Right now we are witnessing a race for AI dominance between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

We have to find a way to adapt to this new era of geopolitical competition in a way that upholds our sovereignty, security and economic competitiveness. We can't get left behind in this race, as AI will drive changes in the geopolitical order and the world economy. We can't pretend that the AI revolution won't impact us. It will, it already has and we need to respond to the risks and the opportunities.

That's why it's vital that this parliament explores the opportunities and risks posed by AI and prepares our nation for the challenges that lie ahead. That's why the coalition will support the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. This was the initiative of opposition along with the member for Curtin, and we are pleased that the government has agreed to work with us on this important matter.

A committee of this nature will give the parliament the platform to lead the Australian people in understanding the risks, the opportunities and the necessary actions required for Australians to thrive in this new era of technology. We will explore how AI impacts our resilience, our productivity, our economic competitiveness and our living standards. We will understand the impact of AI on our national security, our political system and our way of life. We'll engage in moral, economic and strategic questions. The committee will examine the adequacy of existing laws, the importance of data sovereignty and the impact of AI on local communities.

Addressing these matters is an essential task for our parliament. Without doing so, Australia risks falling behind other nations already ahead in the AI race. We need to ask the hard questions now and develop a national response in the committee. That is our role in the Commonwealth parliament. This committee will allow us to deliberate on these important questions along with the Australian public.

Policymakers have a moral obligation to hammer out a new political and economic settlement that ensures that AI serves all Australians, not just a few. Our workers, our businesses, our industry and our kids all need to be considered in the course of this committee's work. We can't let big tech reshape our nation without democratic oversight and accountability. That's our job, and we look forward to hearing from people across Australia during public hearings and through their submissions.

At the same time, we must build a sovereign AI capability or accept that Australia's future will be shaped by other nations. Our national security and economic future must be front and centre, and I want to make three quick points. First, Australia should play to our strengths in this AI race. Australia has an abundance of land, energy and critical minerals. We have a stable government and plenty of homegrown talent. We have a real opportunity to become the AI compute hub of the Southern Hemisphere. This is why the energy debate is central to our AI future. AI is energy intensive. A ChatGPT search is 10 times more energy intensive than a Google search. AI hyperscalers are looking for reliable sources of energy, and Australia has a natural abundance of coal, gas and uranium. We need to create the right conditions for companies to invest here and partner with Australians to build a sovereign AI capability. That's why getting cheaper, reliable baseload power online is so important. Renewables are insufficient, and we must face this hard truth. That's why energy security must take precedence over climate ideology in this debate. Getting the incentives and tax settings right will also be important, as will the governance framework. But this is what we must do to build sovereign AI here at home. This committee will go far in identifying these opportunities.

Second, we must understand the security risks of falling behind in the AI race. AI has many military applications, as we are seeing in the wars in Ukraine and Iran. It also can be used to attack a nation's critical infrastructure, government and businesses, and, without sovereign AI capability, we will be entirely dependent on other nations for our security. As we saw recently with the US government's decision to hit the kill switch on Anthropic's Mythos model, if we don't have sovereign AI capability, we are vulnerable to all sorts of strategic and economic shocks, even coercion by a foreign power. Right now Australia is tethered to the United States's AI capability via submarine cables. That's a risk that we can't keep running. That's why we must build our own sovereign AI capability here on our red dirt with Australian tech and talent.

Finally, our education system needs to get ready for the AI revolution. If we want our kids to be ready for AI, we must fix our education system and get back to basics. Our NAPLAN and PISA scores need to lift, and they've been dropping over the last two decades, consistently, across maths, science, literature, history, writing by hand and time in thought. Innovation is driven by people, not machines. We want our kids to be able to build AI models, not be slaves to them. So we need to invest in the next generation of young Australians who can think clearly, act justly and lead wisely, and there is a lot of work to be done in the education space.

This committee has a big task ahead of it. It won't be a comprehensive report with all the answers when it concludes its work later this year, but it's time that we started the national conversation, and this is a good first step. I am confident that Australia can thrive in this new world of AI. This committee is a step towards doing so.

Mr VIOLI (Casey) (09:33): I commend and echo all of the statement from the member for Canning; I won't repeat that. I want to acknowledge the government. This is a bipartisan committee, and it's important, when it comes to artificial intelligence, that we can agree as much as possible. I want to acknowledge also the member for Curtin, who I know has been engaged in these conversations and has been an advocate for a committee like this as well. It's important we acknowledge that, when it comes to this committee, all parts of the parliament are wanting to work together because the reality is AI touches every aspect of our life today. It's been involved in our lives for decades. While the conversation kicked off about four years ago with the release of ChatGPT, AI has been impacting our lives for decades. But the profound impact of the speed of change means that these conversations have become more urgent and more important. We want to see AI that delivers for our country to increase our standard of living, but this can't be done without a plan to also protect our way of life. Motherhood statements might make headlines, but it's the detail that matters when it comes to AI, and we have to ensure that the decisions we make always put the Australian people at the heart of those decisions, ensuring AI works for our country, for our communities, for our businesses and for individuals.

The committee will explore the detail when it comes to AI. The joint select committee on AI will explore the vast opportunities for Australia to grow our economy and improve the standard of living for all Australians. It will explore the opportunities for our suburbs, for our regions and for those in the cities. It will look at how it can be used to drive R&D and innovation in our nation to drive economic growth, to drive productivity and to improve the lives of all Australians. It will look at how we can use AI to put Australians first and protect our national interest.

While AI has enormous potential to improve our lives and livelihoods, we cannot be and we are not complacent about the risks. This is why this committee will also examine the workforce and skills implications of AI—job displacement but also job creation, the adequacy of Australia's education system and the risks and harms arising from AI, particularly to the safety and wellbeing of children and vulnerable Australians.

There is a very important conversation that needs to take place in this House and across the nation about AI when it comes to democracy and also the parliament. I know the Speaker has been a long-time advocate for civics in schools and has been visiting many schools, including in my community. I know he personally is thinking about the impacts of AI for our committee system, our parliamentary system, our offices and our democracy. That's important work that we need to do. We have seen the opportunities to create AI memes et cetera really change the conversation in our world. It's an important part that we need to look at.

During these uncertain times, the committee will also examine the cybersecurity and foreign interference risks of AI for our democracy but also in everyday life. We need to acknowledge that, just like our adversaries can utilise AI against us, we can also harness AI to strengthen our national security and protect our way of life. Australia as a country is at a pivotal moment. The world is at a pivotal moment. It is incumbent on us as members of parliament to acknowledge the point in history that we are facing, the opportunities that we face and the challenges that we face. We cannot shy away from those opportunities and challenges.

We need to acknowledge that, when it comes to AI, the speed of change is exponential. It is getting quicker every day. That is why this is deliberately a short, sharp committee to look at the challenges we face today while acknowledging that, once we report in November, come December and January new challenges will emerge. So we need to be agile and move as quickly as possible to ensure that we are putting the rules in place to protect Australians and make sure AI works for all of us and can solve many of the significant challenges that we as a nation face.

Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (09:37): I firstly would like to thank the members for Canning and Casey and people in the government and, indeed, across the parliament for their constructive engagement on the establishment of this committee. I think what we see here is that the issue of AI is bigger than our ideological differences. It has huge impacts for our economy and our society and so it makes sense that we have some parliamentary oversight to shepherd how this progresses.

There is so much uncertainty with how AI will actually change our economy and our society. It is very fast-moving, so one of the things that we are going to need to do is make sure that we have institutions and structures that can react to the speed of change in AI. I think this select committee is a good first step in identifying the productivity opportunities, the important role that Australia could play in this and making sure that we protect our sovereignty. As well as getting the structures right and making the most of the opportunities, we need to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared broadly. I think that will be an important part of this discussion. We need to make sure we have the guardrails up for both existing harms and emerging harms so that we can make the most of those opportunities. So I look forward to seeing this committee playing a really important role in navigating the uncertainty and also excitement ahead as we see how AI continues to change the world that we live in. I commend the government for proposing this joint select committee.

Question agreed to.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Attorney-General) (09:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026 represents a vital step in protecting athletes, officials, and fans across all sporting codes by keeping criminal elements out of Australian sport.

Sport is woven into the fabric of Australian life. From the grassroots to the professional level, sport builds community, teaches resilience, and unites us across generations and cultures. Over 14 million Australians participate in sport-related activities annually, helping to generate approximately three per cent of our national GDP. Sport in Australia provides $83 billion in combined economic, health and educational benefits each year and makes a vital contribution towards our national identity.

Competition manipulation, or match-fixing as it is most commonly known, is not a victimless crime. It undermines the credibility of sporting competitions, defrauds the public and exposes athletes to coercion and exploitation.

It can also provide a foothold for transnational crime syndicates to launder money, manipulate outcomes and target vulnerable participants in our domestic sporting codes.

In recognition of these threats to the integrity of the sports sector, the Review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, conducted by the Hon. James Wood AO QC in 2017, recommended that Australia become a party to the Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (the Macolin convention), supporting an effective global response to international sport integrity matters. The Wood review also recommended that the Australian government establish national match-fixing offences.

In line with these recommendations, the bill introduces a comprehensive suite of reforms that will protect Australian sport.

Firstly, the bill prohibits engaging in conduct that would or would be likely to affect the outcome of a sporting event, with the intention of obtaining a benefit for, or avoiding or causing detriment that would not otherwise be due because of participation in the sporting event.

Secondly, the bill prohibits providing a benefit to another person that would tend to influence them to engage in conduct that corrupts a sporting event.

Thirdly, the bill prohibits asking for, receiving or obtaining, or agreeing to receive or obtain, a benefit that would tend to influence a person to engage in conduct that corrupts a sporting event.

Fourthly, the bill prohibits altering, destroying or concealing information about the corruption of a sporting event, where doing so would facilitate, conceal or disguise the obtaining of a benefit

Fifthly, the bill prohibits the improper use or communication of information about conduct that corrupts a sporting event.

Sixthly, the bill prohibits the possession of information about conduct that corrupts a sporting event, where that possession is for the purposes of improperly using or communicating that information.

Finally, the bill prohibits the improper use or communication of inside information.

This bill imposes significant penalties for these offences—including penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment for individuals who engage in conduct that corrupts a sporting event.

The penalties reflect the gravity of the harm that can arise from match-fixing conduct. Where sporting outcomes are manipulated, the resulting harm extends beyond the participants, potentially affecting spectators, sponsors, sporting organisations and the broader community.

The implementation of these offences will mean Australia is compliant with the Macolin convention—a multilateral treaty with the key objective of preventing, detecting and sanctioning the manipulation of sports competitions. Compliance with the Macolin convention ensures Australia is connected to our international counterparts to better combat offshore networks attempting to corrupt our sports competitions.

Australia is privileged to host a variety of international sporting events in the lead-up to the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games. To maintain our reputation as a sport-loving nation, it is essential that Australia has effective laws that ensure the integrity of sport.

A fair, safe and strong sport sector, free from corruption, is vital to the safety and credibility of sports and their participants and to Australia's participation in the international sporting arena.

We owe it to our athletes, our fans, and our future generations to ensure that the sports they play and watch are fair and decided on merit, not manipulation.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy and Assistant Minister for Emergency Management) (09:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 amends the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024 to strengthen the integrity, transparency and effectiveness of these schemes, including by implementing key recommendations from several independent reviews.

This bill marks a significant step in the continuous improvement of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. We've heard from landholders, from industry and from the full range of carbon market participants just how important the timely delivery of these reforms is to their communities and businesses and to our nation's progress towards a more diverse and sustainable economy.

The Australian Carbon Credit Unit, or ACCU, Scheme is a world-leading carbon crediting scheme and it plays a critical role in supporting Australia's pathway to net zero emissions by 2050, while also manifesting a remarkable set of broader benefits.

The scheme underpins a multibillion-dollar market that generates new abatement and supports a cost-effective economy-wide transition to net zero.

It incentivises new emissions reduction activities across the economy by rewarding landholders, including farmers and First Nations communities, as well as other organisations and businesses, for undertaking projects that avoid emissions or remove and store carbon from the atmosphere and store it permanently.

Participating in ACCU Scheme projects can provide game-changing benefits to our regional communities by diversifying income streams, creating jobs, and improving productivity in farming and natural resource industries.

Land based projects are also restoring our precious native ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, building climate resilience, and supporting First Nations people to care for country as they have done for tens of thousands of years.

It is crucial that the scheme provides flexible ways to help hard-to-abate industries decarbonise, with the ability for safeguard mechanism facilities to meet their compliance obligations at a viable cost while effective onsite abatement technologies are developed and implemented. This flexibility supports the competitiveness of our local heavy industries, which provide Australia with sovereign capacity in an uncertain global environment, giving them the certainty required to make long-term investments to reduce onsite emissions over time.

The 2022 independent review of the ACCU Scheme by Professor Ian Chubb and statutory reviews by the Climate Change Authority found that the scheme was sound and delivering genuine emissions reductions.

But they also made it clear that maintaining trust in the scheme depended on strong governance, rigorous integrity settings and continuous improvement over time.

Informed by the recommendations of these reviews, the government has committed over $75 million since 2023 to deliver scheme reforms.

This bill is a central pillar of that reform commitment.

It will reinforce confidence in the integrity of the scheme.

It builds on a scheme that is already well designed and effectively administered, ensuring it remains fit for purpose and keeps pace with a dynamic and growing carbon market.

It does so through a comprehensive package of reforms to strengthen integrity, improve transparency, increase fairness and streamline administration.

We consulted on these reforms in 2023, and on this bill in 2026, and we know they are critical to support the effort of scheme participants and for maintaining the stability of the carbon market. Having worked cooperatively and concertedly with carbon market stakeholders and participants these last two years, I am proud to present this package today.

At its heart, this bill makes a key improvement to recognition of the rights and interests of First Nations peoples in the ACCU Scheme.

Rather than seeking consent for projects on land that is recognised or claimed as native title after those projects have already been registered, this bill requires consent to be sought upfront and in a sensibly structured way, improving the scheme's alignment with the principles of free, prior and informed consent while continuing a focus on streamlined administration.

This is a pragmatic approach which ensures native title holders are aware of projects before they are implemented. Partnerships can then be established to allow project planning to commence, while the final arrangements for consent with respect to exactly how the project will be implemented are worked out.

The bill also takes the important step of recognising registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders, further strengthening consent requirements for ACCU projects on native title land.

The bill's second key shift is the establishment of the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee to advise the government on the integrity of ACCU methods, replacing the existing Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee.

The new committee will bring enhanced independence and expertise, broader functions, and stronger transparency obligations.

These changes will better position the committee to carry out its essential role of ensuring all ACCU methods meet the legislated offsets integrity standards.

The committee will continue to provide the government with expert advice on priorities for the proponent-led method development process, recognising that effective prioritisation is essential to a forward supply of ACCUs and the ongoing refinement and integrity of methods.

Importantly, the new committee will be required to include at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander member so that First Nations knowledge and perspectives are embedded in its work and enshrining what is the current approach of the ERAC.

The bill also transfers responsibility for any future government purchasing of ACCUs from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, to achieve the clear separation of the responsibility for decisions to purchase ACCUs from the responsibility to regulate projects and ACCU issuances within the scheme, implementing a Chubb review recommendation in a way that also provides more flexibility in how the government may purchase ACCUs in future.

What's more, the bill replaces the current requirement for government purchasing of ACCUs to secure least-cost-abatement with a new requirement to make 'value for money' purchases.

This principle ensures the government can consider other factors alongside abatement when making ACCU purchases, including the very considerable non-carbon benefits that arise from the scheme.

Together, these changes will mean that any future purchasing of ACCUs by the government can be done in a way that supports its strategic priorities as they evolve over time.

The bill also strengthens the compliance and regulatory framework that underpins the scheme.

It introduces a new integrity safeguard: the Method Transition Declaration.

In the very rare circumstances where this may be necessary, this mechanism will prevent ongoing crediting of ACCUs to projects using methods found to lack sufficient integrity.

Let me be clear; this is not a tool for routine intervention.

It is a circuit-breaker designed to respond to exceptional circumstances where a serious issue in relation to an ACCU method presents a material risk to the integrity of the scheme as a whole.

Appropriate criteria, conditions, and controls are built into the design of this mechanism to make sure it is used only where an exceptional intervention is warranted, while requiring due consultation on, and consideration of, the impact on projects.

The bill also amends ACCU relinquishment provisions to complement existing mechanisms in the scheme that ensure the crediting of ACCUs is conservative.

It provides a new voluntary pathway for project proponents to initiate relinquishment of ACCUs where they may have inadvertently provided incorrect information to the regulator, allowing proponents to voluntarily correct any ACCU issuance that has occurred by an administrative error.

And it provides the regulator new powers to require relinquishment of ACCUs if new or updated information from proponents affects project abatement estimates and identifies over-crediting.

The bill also enhances the regulator's compliance powers by clarifying their ability to review decisions later found to have been based on false or misleading information, and introduces a power for infringement notices to be issued for lower-level breaches.

These provisions close identified gaps in scheme administration and demonstrate the government's commitment to continuous improvement over time.

Maintaining a high-integrity scheme must go hand in hand with encouraging forward-looking participation and innovation.

Carbon farming is a unique industry. It depends on a combination of land stewardship, science, and long-term investment, supported by clear and predictable rules.

The bill recognises this by incorporating measures to simplify and streamline administration and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.

The bill also aims to encourage more investment and participation in research and development on new emissions reduction technologies, by removing existing barriers to new and varied methods that might otherwise make an effective contribution to the objectives of the scheme.

This addresses concerns we have heard from industry that current 'newness' requirements could lead to projects being excluded from the scheme due to previous participation in legitimate and valuable R&D.

For that reason, this bill creates tailored newness requirements to ensure projects aren't excluded from the scheme due to earlier participation in R&D that has contributed to method development.

In addition, the bill makes targeted amendments so that future methods could allow a single project to include both sequestration activities and separate emissions-avoidance activities, where that can occur consistent with the offsets integrity standards.

This change will enable landholders to have more flexibility and choice in future on the range of activities they may wish to undertake.

The integrated farm and land management method is a great example. Currently under development, this method would also be the first to provide a framework for additional activities to be added over time.

These amendments will mean those activities can include emissions-avoidance activities, such as methane emissions reduction from livestock, alongside sequestration activities, such as regenerating native forest.

These measures will support new projects and a broader range of participants coming into the scheme, while maintaining the scheme's bedrock of integrity.

This bill also supports the transparency and administration of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme, and implements the government's response to the Climate Change Authority's 2023 review of the scheme and its legislation.

The NGER scheme is Australia's national system for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and energy production by Australian businesses.

It is a key data source supporting Australia's international and domestic reporting obligations, underpinning the Safeguard Mechanism, and informing our domestic climate and energy policies.

This bill delivers greater transparency by introducing new flexible powers to require publication of more information submitted under the NGER scheme.

It also closes gaps in the compliance framework by requiring continued reporting obligations in the case of delayed registration.

And it improves scheme administration by allowing the regulator to deregister a corporation on its own initiative where the corporation is in liquidation and unlikely to further participate in the scheme.

Finally, this bill amends the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024 to adjust the timing and alignment of key milestone dates.

By changing the dates for the calculation of interim emissions values, final emissions values, and the date to extinguish a liability, the bill provides certainty to industry by ensuring that legislative timelines allow them to adjust their vehicle mix to meet the NVES and therefore drive emissions reductions.

By updating and strengthening the ACCU Scheme, this bill represents the next stage in the ongoing improvement and evolution of Australia's carbon market. Enacting these reforms will reinforce the fundamentally sound foundations of integrity that our market is built upon, and at the same time provide the certainty it needs to drive more investment in emissions reductions across the nation.

As Australia moves towards net-zero emissions, demand for high-integrity ACCUs is expected to grow, and this bill makes sure the scheme can continue to meet that demand on a diversified basis with confidence and integrity.

Debate adjourned.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) (10:00): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Upgrade and Fit-out of Building 302 Research Way, Clayton, Victoria.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation seeks parliamentary approval to upgrade and fit out building 302 at the organisation's Clayton site in Melbourne, which will provide purpose-built laboratory facilities for research staff relocating from the organisation's site in the Melbourne suburb of Aspendale. The estimated project cost is $18.27 million, excluding GST. The proposed works were referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on 30 March 2026. Following its inquiry, the committee recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in late 2026 and be completed by August 2027. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) (10:01): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Federal Police—Proposed Fit-out of Leased Premises, 949 Ann Street Brisbane.

The Australian Federal Police seeks parliamentary approval to fit out a new purpose-built facility which the AFP will lease from July 2029. The facility is located at 949 Ann Street, Brisbane, and will allow for the consolidation of AFP operations from its two existing premises at 45 Commercial Road, Newstead, and 180 Alfred Street, Fortitude Valley. The estimated total cost of the works is $89.3 million, excluding GST. The proposed works were referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on 23 March 2026. Following its inquiry, the committee recommended that the House of Representatives resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in mid-October 2027 for practical completion by July 2029. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Makin, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER (10:08): The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mayo be agreed to.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Attorney-General) (10:12): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (10:14): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 20), after subsection 30-5(8), insert:

Publication of reasons for determination or variation

(8A) The Minister must ensure that, within 14 days after the day on which the Minister makes or varies a *total allocation pool determination, a written statement setting out the Minister's reasons for making or varying the determination is published on the Department's website or on the ATEC's website.

(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 30 (line 30) to page 31 (line 4), omit the item, substitute:

17 Paragraph 36-10(1)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) if the unit is the first unit that the person has undertaken that forms part of a particular *course of study being undertaken with the provider—that course of study is one:

(i) for which the provider has been allocated one or more Commonwealth supported places for the year in which the person is undertaking the unit; or

(ii) that is a *demand driven higher education course; and

(3) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 4), after item 17, insert:

17A After subsection 36-10(1)

Insert:

Changes in status of course of study after enrolment in unit have no effect

(1A) Subsection (1B) applies if:

(a) the condition in paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied in relation to a person and a unit of study at the time when the person enrols in the unit; and

(b) at some time after the person enrols in the unit of study, the unit ceases (for whatever reason) to form part of a *course of study:

(i) for which the provider has been allocated one or more Commonwealth supported places for the year in which the person is undertaking the unit; or

(ii) that is a *demand driven higher education course.

(1B) To avoid doubt, in a case where this subsection applies, nothing in paragraph (1)(a) prohibits a higher education provider from advising the person that the person is a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to the unit.

(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (line 22) to page 32 (line 2), omit the item, substitute:

22 Section 36-65

Repeal the section.

(5) Schedule 1, item 24, page 32 (after line 23), at the end of section 37-1, add:

Minister to table report

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

(6) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (after line 27), at the end of section 39-75, add:

Minister to table report

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

(7) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (after line 14), after subsection 46B(4), insert:

Publication of reasons for determination or variation

(4A) The Minister must ensure that, within 14 days after the day on which the Minister makes or varies an international allocation pool determination, a written statement setting out the Minister's reasons for making or varying the determination is published on the Department's website or on the ATEC's website.

(8) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (after line 23), at the end of section 46E, add:

(3) However, the Minister must not give directions in relation to:

(a) a higher education provider; or

(b) a class or classes of higher education providers.

(9) Schedule 2, item 15, page 60 (after line 27), at the end of Part 4A, add:

46G Evaluation of operation of this Part

(1) The Minister must cause an independent evaluation to be conducted of the operation of this Part.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the evaluation must include consideration of the exercise of powers and performance of functions by the ATEC under this Part.

Timing of evaluation

(3) The persons conducting the evaluation must commence the evaluation before 1 January 2031.

Minister to be given report of evaluation

(4) The persons conducting the evaluation must give the Minister a written report of the evaluation.

Minister to table report

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

(10) Schedule 2, item 17, page 61 (lines 1 to 3), omit the item.

I support the intent of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 bill to expand opportunity and access to higher education. I support the principles of managed growth, needs based funding and proper stewardship of the international student sector, but I believe there are a series of improvements that can be made to this bill.

The first set of amendments aims to protect students from having their places withdrawn. Amendments (2) and (3) have the effect of ensuring that, once a student is given a Commonwealth supported place, or CSP, it cannot be taken away through any power given by this bill to the minister or to ATEC. This protection already exists in the Higher Education Support Act, but this bill creates significant ambiguity around this protection. For example, if the minister designated a course under proposed section 30-30 of this bill and then allocated an insufficient number of places, some students could potentially lose their CSP. This amendment addresses that ambiguity. Universities should, of course, be able to withdraw places for students on disciplinary or academic grounds, but we don't want a system where second- and third-year students are losing their places because of bureaucratic decisions made in Canberra.

The second set of amendments increases oversight of ministerial decisions. This bill gives the minister power to determine the overall number of domestic and international students. These decisions are crucial for Australia's higher education system. Reasons for these decisions should be published to support scrutiny and oversight and ensure decisions are made in the public interest. Amendments (1) and (7) would have the effect of ensuring the minister must publish reasons for two important decisions—the total number of domestic student places and the total number of international student places.

The bill also overhauls the higher education funding model, introducing new systems for managed growth, needs based funding and international student allocations. The bill rightly introduces independent evaluations of the managed growth and needs based funding systems, but these are not made public. Amendments (5) and (6) would ensure that the independent evaluations of the new managed growth and needs based funding systems would be made public.

While the bill includes requirements for independent evaluations of the new managed growth and needs based funding systems, it doesn't require an evaluation of the new international student allocation system. Amendment (9) would establish an identical independent evaluation process for the international student allocation system. Considering how politicised this topic can become and how significant it is for our economy and education system, this evaluation should be a no-brainer.

The next set of amendments seeks to preserve the autonomy of universities and higher education providers. As this bill does centralise power to the minister and to ATEC, it's vital to ensure universities are still allowed to compete, specialise and thrive. This bill gives the minister the power to set conditions on each higher education provider that must be met for the provider to receive Commonwealth funding. This unqualified, unrestricted power is clear overreach. A minister could set undefined, highly political conditions on individual universities. This is also duplicative of ATEC's role, which is to negotiate mission based compacts with each higher education provider. Amendments (4) and (8) would remove this power. I note the government's amendments do put some limited safeguards around this power, which I'm glad to see, but I still believe that that power should be removed.

The bill also gives the minister the power to set provider-specific directions to ATEC when it's considering international student allocations. This allows for highly political directions in an area that is highly politicised. A minister could hypothetically direct ATEC to allocate zero international student places specifically to the University of Western Australia. It's the role of the independent ATEC to allocate international student places. It should not be the role of the minister. Amendment (10) would remove this power, bringing the international student allocation system in line with the domestic student allocation system, where the minister is not able to make provider-specific directions to ATEC. I appreciate there may be some positive applications of this power, but at a minimum the power should be appropriately safeguarded.

I acknowledge that my team has had constructive conversations with the minister's office, and I accept that the government will not support these amendments while the Senate committee inquiry is ongoing. But I call on the minister and the government to consider these amendments alongside the committee's report and enact some of those improvements in the Senate, if not in this place.

Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (10:19): I thank the member for Curtin for her support for this important legislation. This bill means that more young people from poor families, from the regions and from the most remote parts of Australia will get a chance to go to university and get the extra support that they need when they get there. I want to do everything I can to make sure that the bill does what it says on the label—that it opens the doors of opportunity wider—and I know that the member wants that too.

As always, I'm open to considering sensible and appropriate amendments. I think an indication of that is the way in which we approached the Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation earlier this year, where the government accepted 36 amendments to the bill that was originally presented in the House through the Senate inquiry and the Senate process. And, as the members foreshadowed on Monday, the education and employment committee will hear from the sector and other stakeholders, and I look forward to their report and any recommendations for improvements to this important bill. But I'll wait to see that report before considering further amendments. As such, the government is not in a position to support these amendments today.

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:20): I want to acknowledge the amendments made by the member for Curtin. I want to say to her that, in the coalition, we are reserving our position on these amendments. As we've said all the way along, since this bill was introduced, it does need very careful scrutiny. We will form our final position on the basis of the scrutiny that's occurring in the other place. We will not be supporting these amendments in this chamber today for the same reason we're not going to support the government's amendments. That's not an expression of our view about the amendments or the policies or merits that lie behind it; it's about ensuring we get this right.

And can I say to the member for Curtin: I want to thank her for the engagement that her office has had with my office on the amendments. It's been appreciated; I appreciate the collaboration.

Question negatived.

Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (10:22): by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 23), after "30-15(1)", insert "or (1A)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 20), after "30-15(1)", insert "or (1A)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 2 to 7), omit subsection 30-15(1), substitute:

Allocation to Table A providers

(1) The *ATEC must, in writing, allocate a specified whole number of Commonwealth supported places for *higher education courses for each year to each *Table A provider.

Allocation to providers other than Table A providers

(1A) The *ATEC may, in writing, allocate a specified whole number of Commonwealth supported places for *higher education courses for a specified year to a higher education provider referred to in subparagraph 30-1(1)(a)(ii).

Domestic student profile

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 9), after "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 12), after "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)".

(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 14 to 15), omit subsection 30-20(1).

(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 16), omit the heading to subsection 30-20(2), substitute:

Number of places that must be allocated

(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 17 to 18), omit all the words from and including "The" to and including "exceed", substitute "A *Table A provider's *domestic student profile for a year must be equal to".

(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 23), after "growth allocation", insert "(if any)".

(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (line 30), omit "30-15(1)", substitute "30-15(1A)".

(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 29), after "30-15(1)", insert "or (1A)".

(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (lines 6 to 7), omit paragraph 33-5(2)(a).

(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 8), omit "such an allocation has been made and".

(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 10), omit "such an allocation has been made and".

(15) Schedule 1, item 5, page 15 (lines 7 to 11), omit paragraph 33-5(5)(a), substitute:

(a) if the provider does not have a *designated courses profile for the year—nil; or

(16) Schedule 1, item 5, page 20 (line 12), omit "30-15(1)", substitute "30-15(1A)".

(17) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (after line 29), after subsection 36-65(2), insert:

Limits on conditions

(2A) The Minister must not determine a condition under subsection (1) that:

(a) specifies a matter in respect of which the Minister could have made a determination under subsection 36-15(2) of this Act (or could have made such a determination but for subsection 36-15(4) of this Act or section 48 (remaking disallowed legislative instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003); or

(b) relates to industrial relations matters.

Note: The Minister has the power under subsection 36-15(2) to determine, by legislative instrument, that students are not to be enrolled as Commonwealth supported students in particular courses. Subsection 36-15(4) requires the determination to be made at least 6 months before students are able next to commence the courses.

Conditions to be published

(2B) The Minister must cause each determination made under subsection (1) to be published on the Department's website.

Determination not a legislative instrument

First, can I offer an apology to my friend and colleague, the shadow minister for education. This debate concluded this week sooner than I expected and anticipated, and so we've gotten to this point in consideration in detail of the bill this week rather than in September. I recognise the point that he made in his comments just a moment ago that the coalition is yet to consider and form a final position on this bill in its totality and reserves its position until the Senate inquiry is completed and presents its recommendations for the consideration of the Senate.

With those remarks, can I just outline briefly what I'm presenting here to the House to consider. These amendments would clarify the effect of certain provisions and fix minor drafting errors that have been identified by my department since the introduction of the bill. They clarify that universities will receive a guaranteed allocation of Commonwealth supported places at the level of their existing core student load. This confirms that, where a university fills a funded Commonwealth supported place one year, they won't lose it the next. Universities will continue to be able to negotiate additional places with the ATEC, as already set out in the bill.

Amendments also preserve existing safeguards in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 regarding the minister's power to set conditions on funding to ensure conditions on funding cannot be extended to industrial relations matters, to ensure the minister's powers do not displace existing protections around how Commonwealth supported places may be excluded for certain courses and to require any conditions on funding imposed by the minister to be published on the Department of Education's website.

Amendments ensure the minister's powers to impose conditions on funding have the same effect as the provisions already existing in higher education legislation. I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:25): I rise to speak on the government's amendments on sheet HG137, and I acknowledge the minister's, as it were, apology in relation to what's happened, that these amendments have come on a little earlier.

I want to say something about the coalition's position on the amendments. We will not support the amendments, as I mentioned earlier, when it's put to a vote. That's not because we're opposed to it in principle, but because, even though it's been ready to go for some time, it was only introduced last night, and we haven't had time to work through it. We reserve our position on the merits, and we're not prepared just to wave it through. We're not sure these amendments are right.

I'm a little amused about this, because, for everyone in this chamber and for everyone watching, I think these amendments are an admission that the government got it wrong, that it stuffed up and that there are errors and unintended consequences in the legislation that it only introduced into this chamber a few weeks ago. It seems that the government only became aware of these after I pointed them out. Before we've even completed the second reading stage of the bill, before the bill's been scrutinised by the committee, the minister has announced 17 different amendments into this parliament. The only conclusion to be drawn here is that the bill doesn't do what the minister says it does, so let's unpack what happened here.

In the last sitting block, the minister introduced a bill. He said it was about opening the doors of opportunity, about poor kids getting a go, about regional students getting support. It was all about places and all about money. Then, on the last day of the last sitting week before the winter break on 2 July, I gave the coalition's second reading speech. I said we hadn't formed a position on the bill one way or the other, but the thrust of my speech was that this is not a bill about money or places. It's a bill about control, not places.

One of the most egregious examples of this was the minister's unilateral power to impose conditions on universities. Right now, the law says that providers must comply with conditions that they agree to. That is section 36-65 of the Higher Education Support Act, or HESA. That's fair enough. If you're a university and you agree to a condition, you must abide by it. I pointed out that, for some reason, the minister was changing that dynamic. The new section 36-65 introduced by this bill says, among other things:

The Minister may, in writing, determine conditions that a specified higher education provider must comply with for the purposes of this Division.

What does that mean? It means that at any time the minister can impose a condition on a university and that that university will be required by law to comply with it. They don't need to agree to it. The minister just decides and the uni must comply. The minister is not required to consult. The minister is not even required to publish the condition. The condition can be retrospective, and it is unfettered in its scope. As I specifically pointed out, it can deal with industrial relations matters. It is an extraordinary degree of power. It is not subject to disallowance in the parliament, and it's not subject to merits review.

Item 17 on this sheet changes it. It specifically and deliberately removes from the minister the power to make conditions in relation to industrial relations conditions. You can only imagine how the NTEU dropped their bundle at the prospect of a future minister having control over their industrial conditions, and no doubt they told the minister to fix it. You can imagine the flurry of activity that followed. Let's be clear here. I finished talking about this bill around 12.45 pm on 2 July. These amendments were ready to go before the very next sitting day. Helpfully, the government amendments have a time stamp. They were finalised on 10 August 2026 at 3.13.04 pm.

Ten days ago, on Monday of last week, before this parliament had even returned for this sitting block, these amendments were ready to go. If you work the process required to amend the bill back from there, there's a long tail. You need to identify the problem, as I did on 2 July. You need to give drafting instructions. You need to get the amendments through your internal processes, through cabinet, and at least obtain the agreement of the Prime Minister. Presumably you need to explain the stuff-up to caucus. This is the fix that I hazard a guess has actually been weeks in the making. No wonder the minister had to tell the Financial Review conference he was open to amendments. No wonder he had to try and describe this as Hanson-proofing the bill. He's already had his marching orders from the NTEU and needed to try and make a virtue out of necessity.

I've got some questions for the minister. What does item 17 on this sheet do? Why have you introduced it? When did you give drafting instructions? Did you consult with the NTEU or other unions first? Why didn't you consult across the parliament before circulating it?

I want to say something about the process that's being followed, and I'm now talking to members of the parliament more broadly, particularly to the Labor caucus; to university administrators; to the leaders of Universities Australia; to the various university groups; to higher education specialists; and to journalists in this nation's major mastheads. As I said, the bill doesn't do what the minister says it does. The reason we're voting on these amendments now before the bill has even been considered by a Senate committee is because it's been obvious that the bill does something different. We're not prepared to wave these amendments through on less than 24 hours notice. We will work through things sensibly. We want the record to show we're not simply prepared to give a blank cheque.

As I pointed out, these amendments have been ready to go for 10 days. Even though the bill has been in the works since May 2025, it's apparent that the legislation introduced into this chamber contains errors and unintended consequences that weren't revealed until we pointed them out, as I pointed out some of these issues when I spoke on the bill on 2 July and there were government amendments ready to go before the very next sitting day.

Let me look at how some of the other provisions on this sheet, other than item 17, operate. The government is now removing and replacing subsection 30-15(1) of its bill. As it was introduced, this provision said that the ATEC may in writing allocate a specified whole number of Commonwealth supported places to a table A provider or another higher education provider. It's a fundamental provision of this bill. It's about allocation of Commonwealth supported places by the ATEC and how that is done. They are repealing the provision that they introduced a few weeks ago and replacing it. That sounds significant, so I ask the minister: what exactly is changing here? The new provision says the ATEC must allocate Commonwealth supported places to a table A provider, which, for those who are not familiar, means a public university. It must allocate those places. It doesn't have a choice.

Then there's a new provision, subsection 1A, which says a TEK may allocate places to another higher education provider. My question to the minister is why we are having this change. Can he—through you, Deputy Speaker—explain why item 3 on the government's amendments sheet why was deemed necessary? What is the unintended consequence that the government is trying to address before this bill even gets to the Senate? What has spooked them? The point I make is this. These aren't mere technical changes. This is one of the central provisions of the bill that is being changed—the provision of the bill that deals with the allocation of CSPs. As I said previously, the bill only really deals with four things: allocation of domestic student load, allocation of international student load, ministerial control and needs based funding. The provision you are changing here is one of the key provisions that deals with domestic students, arguably the most important of those four areas.

Why the urgent unannounced change? Is the minister concerned the legislation as introduced would have allowed the ATEC not to give places to the public universities at all? Did the government discover the original bill didn't actually guarantee every table A university an allocation? Was there a legal possibility that ATEC could choose not to allocate places to a particular public university at all? Could ATEC have allocated a table A university fewer places than its calculated core student load? Could it have allocated none? The government should tell the House whether this amendment creates a statutory entitlement for every table A provider to receive an allocation every year and what is precisely the content of that entitlement.

Is the guarantee simply that the number must be greater than zero, or does the interaction with the core student load provisions mean that every table A provider is guaranteed its statutory core student load? This is the very drafting issue the higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton identified shortly after introduction. If the policy was that domestic student profile would be the core student load plus growth, why did the bill merely say that it must not exceed that amount? The government is now addressing that issue. So was the original bill wrong? What would have happened if parliament had passed the bill in its original form?

Then there's the other side of the amendment—the non-table-A providers, the private higher education providers. Is there any minimum allocation for non-table-A providers? Which non-table-A providers will be eligible for these places, and what is the process for them to obtain places? Is there any right to reasons? Is there any transparent competitive process? Is there a review mechanism if ATEC refuses an allocation?

These are the core provisions of this bill. They go to how university places are allocated in this country. For students, it means this. These rushed amendments go to where and whether you will have the opportunity to study. I point out to those listening this: if within days of introduction it's having to make changes to the fundamental provisions of the bill, what else has the government missed?

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the government be agreed to.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (10:46): I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (after line 26), after subsection 39-70(2), insert:

(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to subsections (3C) and (3D).

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (after line 28), after subsection 39-70(3), insert:

Spending in accordance with ATEC institutional equity strategy

(3A) The *ATEC may, by notifiable instrument, publish a strategy (the ATEC institutional equity strategy) for widening access to higher education for persons in target cohorts.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a person is in a target cohort if:

(a) the person is any of the following:

(i) an *Indigenous person;

(ii) a person from a *low socioeconomic background;

(iii) a person included in a class of persons specified in the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines for the purposes of subparagraph 39-25(1)(b)(iii);

(iv) a person included in a class of persons specified in the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines for the purposes of this subparagraph; and

(b) the person satisfies any requirements specified in the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines for the purposes of this paragraph.

(3C) Subject to subsection (3D), a higher education provider may spend an amount of a grant that the provider receives under this Part on activities to implement the ATEC institutional equity strategy (if there is one).

(3D) The higher education provider must ensure that any spending undertaken by the provider in accordance with subsection (3C) does not prevent from the provider from spending, on activities covered by subsection (2), an amount of the grant that is equal to or greater than:

(a) unless paragraph (b) of this subsection applies—the *total equity component for the provider for the year; or

(b) if the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines specify, for the purposes of this paragraph, an amount that is less than the total equity component for the provider of the year—that lesser amount.

(3) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (after line 33), after subsection 46B(1), insert:

(1A) An international allocation pool determination:

(a) must not make provision in relation to a particular course; and

(b) must not specify, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), matters that relate to a particular course.

These amendments in relation to the Universities Accord bill are to ensure that we find the right balance. I support the ambition of the Universities Accord to expand access to higher education and ensure more Australians have the opportunity to attend university, but this bill needs stronger safeguards in two important areas: protecting university autonomy and properly supporting outreach to students who are currently missing out. I acknowledge that, in the amendments the government just introduced, which I supported, there were some measures to start to clarify that question—for example, stopping the minister from using opaque, university-specific grant conditions to control courses or industrial relations and requiring those conditions to be made public. These are all important in assisting university autonomy, which goes some way towards my amendments. Again I point out that it would have been nice to have the opportunity for more clarity and discussion with the minister in relation to the amendments that I am proposing and the government's amendments, but that was not forthcoming.

My first amendment explicitly prevents allocations being imposed at the level of individual courses, fields of education or classes of courses. Under this bill, the government determines the overall number of international student places and the Australian Tertiary Education Commission allocates places between institutions. Whatever members think of that broader framework, there should be a clear limit on how far government interference can go. Once a university receives its allocation. It should be for that university to decide how these places are distributed across its courses. Canberra should not be deciding whether a university can enrol more international students in engineering, nursing or business than humanities or any other disciplines. Those are decisions for universities based on student demand, workforce needs, research strengths and the communities they serve. We have already seen through the Job-ready Graduates scheme the problems that arise when governments try to pick and choose which fields of study students should pursue. We should not create another mechanism that allows a minister or government agency to micromanage academic offerings. My amendment therefore draws a clear line. Allocations may be made at the institutional level but not at the course level. That is an important protection for university autonomy.

The second amendment addresses another fundamental objective of the accord: widening participation in higher education. If we want more students from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend university, support cannot begin only after they enrol. For many students, the barriers arise much earlier. They may be the first person in their family to consider university. They may live in a regional or disadvantaged community where higher education feels distant or simply out of reach. They may never receive the information, encouragement or support that allows them to see university as a realistic option. Universities already undertake important outreach work with schools and communities to change that, preparing students to think about university and then take up that option.

My amendment makes clear that a portion of needs based funding can be used for pre-enrolment outreach. That can support sustained partnerships with schools, with mentoring, with aspiration-building programs and with other initiatives that help students understand the opportunities available to them—to actually consider and take them up—because widening participation is not simply about creating more university places and it's not simply looking at the number of enrolments; it's actually about looking at the whole picture. It's about ensuring that students who have traditionally missed out can see a pathway to university and have a genuine opportunity to take it.

These are practical and targeted amendments. They don't undermine the central architecture of this bill, but they strengthen it by protecting universities from unnecessary interference while giving them greater flexibility to reach students who are currently underrepresented in higher education. A stronger higher education system requires both institutional autonomy and genuine investment in opportunity. I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (10:50): I thank the member for Warringah for her support for this important bill. As I said in response to the amendments moved by the member for Curtin, I am very open to considering sensible and appropriate amendments. As has been said in this debate on Monday, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment will hear from the sector and other stakeholders. I suspect that amongst the evidence that they will hear, there will be similar arguments to the ones that you have just presented to the House of Representatives. I look forward to their report in due course and the recommendations that they present to us for improvements to the bill, but I'll wait to see that report before considering further amendments. As such, the government won't be supporting these amendments today.

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:51): I say to the member for Warringah that we are reserving our position on these amendments, as we did with the member for Curtin's amendments. We've said all along that the bill needs careful scrutiny. It's a matter that is before the Senate committee. We won't support these amendments in the chamber for the same reason we didn't support the government's amendments.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (10:52):  by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr FRENCH (Moore) (11:17): I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. This bill covers a fair amount of ground. It deals with tax practitioners, foreign investment, capital gains tax, renewable energy, mergers, competition policy, philanthropy and tax administration. That is quite a journey for one piece of legislation—an odyssey, one might say. But there is a clear thread running through it. This bill is about making our economic rules fairer, clearer and more effective. It strengthens regulation where stronger powers are needed, it removes unnecessary complexity where it serves no useful purpose and it makes sure the tax system applies fairly to everyone who benefits from doing business in Australia.

Schedule 1 is a good place to start. It strengthens the powers of the Tax Practitioners Board in response to the weaknesses exposed by the PwC leaks scandal, Australians rightly expect people who receive confidential government information to keep it confidential. They certainly do not expect that information to become a commercial opportunity. The scandal showed that the system regulating tax advisers needed stronger safeguards. But the weakness was not new. An independent review in 2019 had already identified a significant gap in the Tax Practitioners Board's enforcement powers. The regulator had too few options between low-level sanctions and the much more serious steps of suspension, termination or civil penalties.

The previous government received that recommendation and noted it. Then, as sometimes happens in government, the recommendation appeared to enjoy quite a few years on the shelf. This government is acting on it. The bill gives the Tax Practitioners Board a broader range of proportionate sanctions. There will be criminal penalties for unregulated, unregistered preparers as well as strong civil penalties, new consequences for breaches of the professional code, and penalties for false or misleading statements by unregistered preparers. The board will also be able to issue infringement notices, accept enforceable undertakings and impose contingent or interim suspensions. For the most serious conduct, the maximum period before a person can reapply for registration after termination will increase from five years to 10 years. That matters because regulation works best when the consequences fit the conduct. Not every breach requires the regulatory equivalent of a sledgehammer, but a regulator should not be standing there with a rolled up newspaper when serious misconduct occurs either. The Tax Practitioners Board needs tools between those two extremes.

Most Australians who go to an accountant, tax agent or BAS agent are not tax experts. That is precisely why they are paying someone else. They are placing trust in that professional, and they should be able to expect competent advice, lawful advice and ethical conduct. The overwhelming majority of tax professionals meet those standards. Strong regulation protects them too, because people who cut corners or provide unlawful advice should not gain commercial advantage over professionals who are doing the right thing.

There has been broad support for giving the board a wider enforcement toolkit. While some stakeholders have raised reasonable questions about safeguards around the new powers—and those concerns should be taken seriously—whenever parliament gives a regulator stronger powers, proportionality and procedural fairness matter. But the answer cannot be to leave a known enforcement gap in place. If the rules are important enough to have, the regulator must have the tools to enforce them, and that principle runs through much of this bill.

Schedules 2 and 3 deal with foreign resident capital gains tax, and the basic principle is straightforward if an Australian investor makes a taxable capital gain from an Australian asset, they can be required to pay Australian tax. A foreign investor should not receive a better deal simply because their head office happens to be overseas. These reforms clarify that capital gains tax applies where a foreign investor sells assets with a close economic connection to Australian land and natural resources, and that includes certain infrastructure connected with energy transport, telecommunications and water.

Until now, uncertainty has arisen because state and territory property laws can influence whether a particular asset falls within the Commonwealth regime, and that can result in different tax treatment depending on where the asset is located. Commonwealth tax liability should not be an accident of state property law. The legislation establishes a clearer Commonwealth definition and brings Australia's treatment closer to international standards and to the treatment of Australian investors.

It also strengthens the integrity of the regime. Foreign investors disposing of an interest worth $50 million or more where they claim the interest is not taxable Australian property will be required to notify the ATO. The principle asset test will also apply over the 365 days before disposal, rather than simply at the point of sale, and that is sensible. If tax treatment depends on the economic substance of an investment, we should look at the substance over time. We should not design tax laws around who can take the most convenient photograph on settlement day.

The legislation also protects settled historical liabilities. Foreign investors who have already paid capital gains tax as intended will not be able to reopen those assessments simply to obtain an unintended windfall following recent Federal Court decisions. Australia welcomes foreign investment. We need it. But welcoming foreign investment does not mean giving foreign investors an advantage over Australians. They benefit from Australian infrastructure, Australian institutions and Australian natural resources. It is reasonable that they contribute fairly. Foreign investment is welcome in Australia, but fair taxation is part of the deal. Schedule 3 shows that fairness and investment can be balanced.

The government recognises that Australia needs very significant private investment in new energy infrastructure, so the bill provides a targeted 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for eligible foreign institutional investors disposing of renewable energy assets until 30 June 2030. Eligible assets include wind, solar and hydro generation as well as large-scale energy storage such as grid batteries. For indirect investments, at least 75 per cent of the relevant underlying real capital must be attributable to renewable energy assets. This concession is targeted and time limited, and that is important. We are strengthening the long-term integrity of the foreign resident tax regime while recognising the scale of the investment task between now and 2030.

As an electrician, I am reasonably supportive of policies that result in more electrical infrastructure being built—call it professional bias! But the serious point is that building new generation storage and network infrastructure requires enormous amounts of capital. Government has an important role, but government cannot and should not finance the entire energy transition itself. We need private capital, including international capital, invested in productive Australian assets. The tax system therefore needs to do two things at once: protect Australians' revenue base and encourage investment where Australians need it. And that is what these schedules do. The concession has an end date because it is designed to address the immediate investment task, not create a permanent, preferential tax treatment.

Schedule 4 turns to Australia's merger regime. The government introduced the largest reform to Australia's merger control system in around half a century. When you make reform of that size, you watch how it operates in practice and refine it where necessary. That is not a sign the original reform was wrong; it is how competent regulation should work. The mandatory system commenced this year after a transition period designed to give the ACCC, businesses and advisers practical experience with the new framework. These amendments respond to that experience. First, where a merger should have been notified but was not, the transaction will be voidable rather than automatically void. That is an important distinction, because automatic voiding can create serious consequences for innocent third parties and surrounding transactions. Under these amendments, the ACCC can instead apply to the Federal Court for an order voiding the acquisition. The incentive to comply remains strong, but the consequence becomes more targeted.

Second, where an approved acquisition cannot reasonably be completed within 12 months, parties will be able to seek extensions of up to six months from the ACCC. Commercial transactions do not always run according to the optimistic timetable in the first board paper. Financial charges and conditions need to be satisfied. Approvals take time. Sometimes reality simply refuses to cooperate with the spreadsheet. Allowing extensions in appropriate cases is common sense.

Third, acquisitions that are unlikely to result in a practical ability to influence competition will not unnecessarily be pulled into the notification system. That is particularly important for venture capital and startup investment. We want the ACCC focused on transactions that that can genuinely harm competition, not wasting resources on low-risk investments that pose little practical concern. The goal is not maximum regulation; the goal is effective regulation, and that means strong intervention where there is genuine risk and less unnecessary paperwork where there is not. The practical benefit is certainty. Businesses should be able to identify whether an acquisition requires notification, what happens if something goes wrong and how an approved transaction can proceed where unavoidable delays arise. The ACCC, for its part, should be able to concentrate its attention on acquisitions that could substantially lessen competition. That is a better use of regulatory resources and a better outcome for consumers.

Schedule 5 updates Commonwealth legislation to give legal force to the National Competition Policy agreement reached by the Commonwealth, states and territories in 2024. It replaces references to the 1995 agreement and futureproofs the framework so parliament does not need to amend legislation every time those intergovernmental arrangements are updated. I suspect that even those of us who enjoy parliamentary debate can accept there are better uses of the House's time than repeatedly changing the name of an act. And the broader principle is worthwhile. Competition puts pressure on businesses to improve services, innovate and offer better value. Competitive neutrality also helps ensure that, where government businesses compete with private businesses, they do so on a fair basis.

Schedule 6 and 7 turn to philanthropy. The bill extends deductible tax recipient status to a number of organisations, helping them attract tax-deductible donations. The DGR changes specifically support the Ross House Trust, Tanarra Social Purpose Ltd and the i4Give Foundation while extending existing arrangements for the Australian Academy of Law and Cambridge Australia Scholarships. These are targeted changes, but they reflect a broader point: governments can continue to support community organisations without telling them how to do their work. Sometimes the most useful contribution is simply making it easier for Australians who want to give to do so.

The bill also renames ancillary funds as 'giving funds', implementing a Productivity Commission recommendation. This is not the most revolutionary proposition ever put before the House—but it is a better name. If an ordinary person needs a tax lawyer and a Productivity Commission report to work out what an ancillary fund actually does, there is probably room for improvement. 'Giving funds' do what the new name suggests; they allow donations to be pooled, invested and distributed over time to charities undertaking useful work in the community. Sometimes clearer language is a reform in itself.

Finally, schedule 8 makes a technical change to ensure foreign-resident capital-gains-withholding tax credits can be claimed in the same income year in which the underlying transaction is recognised. That reduces unnecessary compliance and avoids some taxpayers needing to lodge two returns for essentially the same transaction. There are few occasions on which I will object to removing unnecessary tax paperwork.

Taken together, these reforms are practical. They strengthen accountability after serious failures in the tax profession. They make sure foreign investors contribute fairly when they profit from Australian land and resources. They support the investment needed to build Australia's future energy system. They refine the merger regime based on practical experience. They modernise competition law, philanthropy and tax administration. Good government is not always about creating another rule. Sometimes it means strengthening a rule, sometimes it means clarifying one and sometimes it means recognising a rule that creates paperwork without achieving much and fixing it.

A fair tax system depends on people believing that the rules apply properly to everyone—individuals, businesses, advisers and international investors alike. Fair rules maintain public confidence. Effective regulators protect both honest businesses and the public from those who choose not to play by the rules. That is what this bill seeks to achieve. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (11:32): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. Although this bill derives its name from schedule 1 of this omnibus bill, my speech will focus on schedules 2, 3 and 4.

Schedule 2 of this bill legislates a long anticipated decision by this government to include a definition of 'real property' in the Income Tax Assessment Act for the purpose of CGT for foreign investors. It has long been a principle of the tax system—and, indeed, international best practice—that foreign residents are liable to tax on gains from assets that derive their economic value from the use of Australia's land and natural resources. But, until now, there has been no actual definition of real property in Commonwealth legislation.

As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, this bill is required to remove ambiguity created by the unintended narrowing of adjacent definitions under various state and territory laws that has emerged over time. The supposed ambiguity particularly relates to the treatment of assets affixed to land. This bill makes clear the expectation that foreign investors pay capital gains tax on such assets affixed to land, including utilities, infrastructure, transmission lines and substations but also wind turbines, solar panels and battery storage. In doing so, as the EM admits, the bill therefore 'broadens' the definition of real property.

It had been clear since the 2024-25 budget that the government intended to clarify this position, as they are entitled to do, to protect the stated policy intent and government revenue. I also don't dispute the principle that assets affixed to land do derive some economic value from Australia's land and therefore should be considered in reasonable terms under foreign-resident CGT regimes.

However, my concerns are twofold. Firstly, I don't accept the government's characterisation of this bill as a clarification. I believe it's reasonable that existing investors feel entitled to transition arrangements. My second concern is about the impact that perceived sovereign risk might have on foreign investment in Australia, particularly investment required to meet Australia's energy transition.

These provisions are being explained by the minister as if they are a simple clarification of the original policy intent. In his second reading speech, the Assistant Treasurer said:

This confirms that assets with a close economic connection to Australia … are in scope of the foreign resident CGT rules.

This responds to a longstanding area of uncertainty …

But I don't believe that honestly is the case.

The foreign investors and tax practitioners I have met with to discuss this bill outright reject this. To them there was no uncertainty and no confirmation required as there was a long precedent that determined certain assets excluded from the CGT regime. Law firm Clayton Utz described the broadening of the definition of 'real property' as a 'significant diversion from case law', and I have here a previous ATO ruling that summarises such case law to conclude that—in this case, for a wind turbine—the CGT regime does not apply: 'On balance, the circumstances indicate that the objective intention of the affixer is that the wind generation assets do not become part of the land. Accordingly, the wind generation assets should be characterised as common law chattels.' Incidentally, I am told that this ruling, which I received via email, has since been removed from the ATO website. The assertion that this is therefore a simple clarification is an unfair characterisation of how reasonable investors might have made investment decisions. It's therefore not unreasonable that existing investors could expect concessional treatment for investments that were under the regime they invested under, only to change.

This brings me to the transition arrangements included in schedule 3 of this bill. As first drafted, this bill was retrospective. Understandably, given the very reasonable interpretation of previous case law as I've just described, the draft legislation caused an enormous amount of outrage among foreign investors. Now, some people won't care about the outrage of foreign investors, but I do think this is for Australia always a question of sovereign risk. I'm therefore pleased that the government has since agreed that this change would be prospective only. Furthermore, I'm pleased that the government has made arrangements in schedule 3 for renewable energy assets to receive a 50 per cent CGT discount for CGT events. The bill before us does apply that discount only between commencement and 30th June 2030, a grossly inadequate timeline to achieve the stated objectives. Even at its earliest possible commencement, that window would be 16 days shorter than the average development approval timeline for onshore wind in New South Wales over the past five years. In other words, a project could exhaust the entire concession period before it had even been approved.

Foreign investors in clean energy assets tell me their average holding period is eight to 10 years, after which they typically sell the completed infrastructure on. Under the originally proposed 3½-year transition, any investment made in the last four to six years would be unlikely to have seen any benefit from this arrangement at all and would be paying the full 30 per cent rate on disposal. If it stayed at 2030, I honestly believe this would be in bad faith, and I think investors would have been reasonably disappointed with this. Again I raise the question of sovereign risk because Australia must maintain its reputation as a safe and stable country for investors to invest in—particularly those helping to grow Australia's energy infrastructure that we desperately need.

I have been engaging with both the sector and the government on these issues, and, while many in the sector would like to see the transition period extend to 2050 to support Australia's target of net zero by 2050, I believe the worst of these unintended consequences could be avoided with a date of 2040 while still preserving the policy intent. I really recognise and acknowledge the assistant minister's engagement with the crossbench and me as well as with the sector on this issue, and I'm very pleased to see that the amendment has been circulated extending the concession until 2040.

Australians are already paying for climate change. In June, the New South Wales Net Zero Commission put a number on it. University of New South Wales modelling found that 1.2 degrees of warming already locked in has been quietly eroding the state's economy for decades to the tune of roughly $21,000 per person in lost output in 2024 alone. Deloitte's forward look is worse: on the world's current trajectory, the average New South Wales worker is about $3,500 a year poorer every year for the next 50 years and a family of four faces a $3,000 higher annual grocery bill by 2070. That is not a 2050 problem; that is a payslip problem, it is a cost-of-living problem and it is already here. So let me say plainly that there is no pace of decarbonisation in this country that is too fast if we can do it economically. We must at an absolute minimum meet our 2035 target, and there is no version of that arithmetic that works without first decarbonising electricity and building the energy assets that we need.

So what does this actually require? AEMO's 2026 Integrated system plan has grid-scale wind and solar rising from 23 gigawatts today to 61 gigawatts by 2030. That is close to 10 gigawatts a year every year, starting now. Last year we switched on less than six, but, worse, last year just 2.3 gigawatts reached financial close, down 46 per cent on the year before—one of the weakest years in a decade. Capital committed to new generation fell from $9 billion to $4.4 billion. We can't build by 2030 what we don't commit to today. We are investing at a quarter of the required rate, and the gap is widening, not closing. Among the investors who actually write the cheques, just eight per cent believe we are on track. Tax treatment alone cannot bridge that gap, and no-one is pretending that it can.

The Clean Energy Investor Group's latest survey found that 77 per cent of investors say Australia's investment environment has deteriorated over the last year, with transmission delays now the single biggest barrier. Behind that are planning approvals, grid connection, curtailment risk, community opposition and the persistent fog around when coal is actually going to close. Just 58 per cent still rate Australia as an attractive destination, down from 69 per cent a year ago. The government needs to be laser focused on every one of these because these are the main game.

This is why tax changes still matter. Foreign investors supply around three-quarters of clean energy investment in this country. They are not reading our budget papers looking for reasons to stay. They are pricing risk, and every change that arises without warning, without grandfathering and with a transition window shorter than the life of the asset gets priced in as a higher cost of capital on every project forever.

I want to stress that I understand the motivations of this bill. I recognise that these changes are not the biggest impediment to our transition, but they don't land in isolation. They land on top of the transition delays, on top of connection queues, on top of coal closure uncertainty and on top of changes to thin cap and reporting requirements. They have the danger of accumulating into a slowly decaying investment environment. I commend the government, and I particularly commend the minister, on the sensible amendments they have made since the exposure draft. The bill is better for the consultation process and the government's good faith engagement with the crossbench. It's an approach I really encourage them to take—so thank you.

I'd also like to briefly touch on schedule 4 of the bill. Schedule 4 addresses some of the core concerns raised during the first six months of the new merger regime, and I want to commend the government for listening and acting on that feedback swiftly. I've been contacted by people, particularly within the venture capital sector, who were particularly concerned with the reporting for minority interests which were deemed as exercising joint control, which created significant, unnecessary and onerous reporting requirements for potential acquisitions from minority partners. The feedback from the sector was that the interpretation of the law was significantly outside the intention of the law—certainly when it was first explained. That was of enormous concern. It was actually, again, slowing down investment in some of our fastest growing and most important sectors.

I raised this directly with the minister for competition at the time. I'm really pleased to see the government acted swiftly on this, and I have had feedback to say that the government's swift action on this and bringing forward of this bill have meant that the sector is already recognising the changes, and this is making a significantly positive impact on the investment environment, which is so important. So I thank the government and the minister for this. Again, on behalf of my constituents, I'm grateful to the ministers for the work that they have done to bring this bill to a place that is a very sensible compromise for many and still supports the transition.

Mr HOLZBERGER (Forde) (11:43): I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. It's a bit of a mouthful, isn't it? In doing so, I'm glad that I get a chance to talk about this bill in the presence of the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, who has done a lot of work not only on this bill but across the government's economic strategy, particularly around looking after ordinary Australians and ordinary businesses that don't have the advantage of access to the big consultants and the big money—the ordinary mums and dads and small businesses that play by the rules. They play hard, but they play honestly. Whether it's in superannuation, in reforms around digital assets or in strengthening the safeguards that Australian consumers have with regard to tax professionals, I appreciate the Assistant Treasurer's work. I'm glad the Assistant Treasurer is here to be able to hear that this colleague particularly appreciates that work.

This work sits well and truly within the core Labor mission, which is, at its heart, to make sure that there is equality of opportunity, that there is equality of access to the law and that people should play by the rules. Those are very much core Labor values. In fact the recent 2026 ALP conference reaffirmed that this legislation very much sits within the platform. Chapter 1 paragraph 17 says:

Australia's taxation system should be efficient, simple, transparent and equitable. There is no place for tax evasion. Meeting Australia's economic and fiscal challenges requires everyone, including Australian and multinational corporations, to pay their fair share of tax.

It's no coincidence that is in our first chapter, because that is a core part of our platform. It is a core part of the government's strategy around taxation and around levelling the playing field for Australians. It is within that part of the platform that this work exists well and truly.

When you look at the 2026 ALP National Conference, it's because ultimately the Labor Party is made up of teachers, electricians, pensioners, students and people who through disability aren't able to work. We are the most broadly representative party in the country. We hold our conferences in public, so it is hardly surprising that you end up with a platform like that and you end up with a government, the parliamentarians elected, to implement that platform who take it very seriously and are very focused on delivering on that platform. Ultimately it means that everyone should contribute their fair share, that nobody should be able to use their wealth or their contacts to get around the rules and that they shouldn't be able to play by a different set of rules.

What this legislation does is make sure that somebody who's getting their tax done by an agent has the confidence that it's being done properly, that the honest small accountant shouldn't have to worry about competing against the dodgy or unregistered provider, that that an Australian business shouldn't have to compete against foreign multinationals who are able to use big consultants to game the rules and that foreign investors should play by the same rules and should not have tax advantages that Australians don't have. At the very heart of this legislation lies the PwC scandal, something that really tells the story of this legislation. This legislation, of course, is a part of the government's response to that scandal. It sets the principle that there should be one set of rules applied fairly and that everyone does their bit.

I have taken the opportunity in this House before to talk about my own personal experience of running my own businesses. I know that there are two ways to run a business. In fact it's the philosophy that I apply to how a country can be run—There are two ways to run a business as there are two ways to run a country. You can strip out the profits and you can run the business into the ground, or you can invest in your plant and your people. The Labor way is very much about investing in your plant and your people, because we want to see an economic return on that investment, because we value what business does, but, more importantly, we value what Australian businesses do, and we really want to back Australian businesses.

The irony of this legislation is the story of PwC, because this legislation does two things. It enhances the Tax Practitioners Board's sanctions framework, and it strengthens the foreign resident CGT regime. It deals with dodgy tax advisers, and it's part of the government's strategy to deal with foreign multinationals having a lend. This legislation tries to do those two things. The story of PwC, in fact, was exactly those two things. You had dodgy advisers trying to get around the very laws they helped to write, when it came to making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Rather than me try garble my own version of it, I came across a story from 5 May 2023 by the ABC business reporter Kate Ainsworth, who I thought summed it up really well. I'll just read a bit of what she had to say in her story, so I know that what PwC did is on the record. She said:

To understand what's happened, we need to go back in time.

About a decade ago …

She wrote this in 2023, so that's somewhere in 2014. She goes on:

… the federal government asked PwC's international tax expert Peter-John Collins to help them design laws that would solve a problem …

And that problem was getting big multinationals to pay their fair share of tax. She goes on:

That legislation was known as the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL) …

I'm not quite sure how it's pronounced. She goes on:

… and was a major strategy of the then-treasurer Joe Hockey under the Coalition government … The MAAL was designed to stop major companies, particularly tech giants, from shifting their profits away from higher-taxing countries like Australia to others with lower tax rates, such as the Netherlands and Singapore.

In his dealings with the government and designing the tax laws, Mr Collins was required to sign multiple confidentiality agreements which specifically stated that the knowledge could not be disclosed.

But the Tax Practitioners Board found Mr Collins shared that secret knowledge with people within PwC, which gave the firm an advantage by being able to come up with ways for companies to get around paying the new tax.

PwC then used this inside information to get new clients and make money. They were even boasting about it internally, and all of this was happening without the government's knowledge until earlier this year.

Put simply, PwC had some juicy but confidential information that big companies could benefit from—and pay them for.

How did it all unravel?

Fast forward to December 2022 and the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) announced it had suspended Mr Collins's tax licence for two years because of integrity breaches.

The TPB was scathing in their assessment of Mr Collins, finding he had been leveraging his insider knowledge to benefit PwC and had failed to manage his conflicts of interest—putting him at odds with the codes he must comply with as a tax agent.

The ruling stated:

"Internal communications within PwC indicated that Mr Collins was aware that the confidential knowledge he gained from the consultations with Treasury would be leveraged to market PwC to a new client base."

It wasn't until a month later, in January, after the Australian Financial Review (AFR) published a story saying Mr Collins leaked government tax plans to clients which led to his deregistration, that Treasurer Jim Chalmers commented.

"[I'm] absolutely furious, absolutely ropeable about these revelations," …

…   …   …

"This is a shocking breach of trust, an appalling breach of trust."

Later in the article, Kate Ainsworth says:

What PwC did was put profits before purpose. If they got away with it, the Australian economy would have been $180 million worse off, because these big foreign companies wouldn't have been paying as much tax.

At a Senate estimates hearing in February 2023, the ATO commissioner said that an avoidance scheme to help big companies avoid paying tax was being marketed to overseas companies within weeks of the new laws taking effect in 2016. The commissioner told the hearing that it was noted at the time how quickly the scheme had been put together and found it frustrating that the new laws were being potentially dodged so quickly. He said:

Normally it would take a while for people to look at it, how it all fits together.

Well, it didn't take a while, because they were designing the system and then they were out there marketing ways to get around it. I think 'a shocking breach of trust' does sum up exactly how the Australian people should feel. We know that, when we found out about it, the Australian people were truly disgusted that PwC had been carrying on in this way.

This latest legislation fits within the government's work to make sure that, if that ever happens again, they will not only be caught quickly but be prosecuted properly. In fact, a lawyer friend of mine told me that it is white-collar criminals who look at the penalties and then weigh up whether or not it's worth it and that often they're the ones doing the calculations. So the tougher the better—and these laws are tough.

To finalise, there are two things that this legislation does that I want to really commend to the House. We end up with a system that is safer for Australian consumers, we end up with a system that will properly penalise and deter the sort of behaviour that we saw with PwC and we end up with another arm of our plan to look after Australian business and to make sure that there is a level playing field for Australian business against foreign investors.

Look at how important it is to protect the integrity of our tax practitioner system. There's something like 43,000 registered tax agents in Australia, 20,000 registered tax financial planners and 15,000 registered BAS agents. Last year, according to the explanatory memorandum here, something like $426 billion was collected by the ATO, and much of that money was reconciled, it says here, via the tax returns and BAS prepared by those agents. In fact, 74 per cent of individual income tax returns were prepared by tax agents. The TPB annual report of 2024-25 said that essentially 3½ thousand clients were assisted to reset their tax affairs following sanctions against their tax adviser and that the TPB dealt with tax advisers who failed to act lawfully and ethically, including around 275 serious sanctions to stop misconduct and protect the public. It is important that we maintain the integrity of our system, both for consumers and for the public, and it's important that we advance the cause of making sure that multinationals and foreign investors pay their fair share of tax. To that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (11:58): The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is an omnibus bill containing a number of unrelated measures. My remarks today will focus on schedules 2 and 3, which amend Australia's foreign resident capital gains tax regime and establish a concessional framework for renewable energy investments.

First, I acknowledge that the government is trying to address a genuine problem. Australia's foreign resident capital gains tax regime has become overly complex and difficult to administer. Key concepts have relied on ordinary meanings and differing interpretations across jurisdictions. In particular, the absence of a statutory definition of 'real property' has created uncertainty regarding the application of capital gains tax to assets with a close economic connection to Australian land and natural resources. It's appropriate that the government addresses this inconsistency such that the introduction of a clear statutory definition of real property is a worthwhile reform. The bill recognises that modern infrastructure and commercial arrangements often derive substantial value from their connection with Australian land. The new definition appropriately encompasses interests in land, rights over land, contractual rights, licences and certain assets which are fixed or installed on land.

The expansion of Australian taxable real property is also a positive step in this legislation. The government's bill clarifies that taxable Australian real property includes land situated in Australia, assets fixed or installed on Australian land, water entitlements and options to acquire taxable Australian property. These changes will provide greater certainty, will improve consistency and will ensure that assets are deriving substantial value for foreign investors from Australian land are appropriately brought within Australia's tax base.

Australians expect investors to contribute appropriately to our tax system, holding mature discussions about capital gains tax reform, as has taken place already on the application of CGT to property assets. It's encouraging, albeit long overdue. For much too long we've allowed distortions in our tax system to compound inequality across generations. Young Australians in particular have borne the brunt of that inequity. They have been locked out of housing, forced to stump up ever more income on their rising rent and power bills, and are inheriting the increasing costs of living on a warming planet. This is a conversation that we have to have.

My electorate in Kooyong has participated very enthusiastically in two recent surveys, which have elicited almost 2,000 responses from community members who have expressed overwhelming support for changes that limit CGT concessions applied to property investment. I'm also really pleased to see the Albanese government now adopt the substance of an amendment that I put forward recently to increase eligibility for CGT exemptions to businesses with an annual turnover of more than $10 million. This is a commonsense change which will make a real difference to 2.7 million small businesses.

However, while it's right to frame tax reform as a real opportunity to address intergenerational inequity and to establish more consistent settings across our economy, there are some lines that we shouldn't cross. Imposing reforms retrospectively, I believe, is one of those lines. Forcing foreign investors who've made decisions in good faith based on one set of rules to suffer financial consequences when those rules are later rewritten will inevitably distort investment decisions and will inevitably send global capital elsewhere. Earlier iterations of the legislation now before the House caused significant concern to industry groups, institutional investors and clean energy advocates in that regard. It was really positive news to see them removed from the bill before it came before the House today.

But while the government has responded appropriately on retrospectivity, schedule 3 still contains significant flaws. Foremost among them are changes which may threaten Australia's clean energy transition. At issue is not whether foreign investors should contribute to Australia's taxation base. Of course they should. The central issue is whether the design of the renewable energy concession properly reflects the realities of clean energy investment and the scale of the transition that we have to undertake. Australia is embarking upon the largest energy transformation in our history. We're undertaking this colossal challenge to overhaul the foundation of our economy because renewable energy is cheaper, more efficient and more reliable for households, for businesses and for industry. It gives future generations the best shot possible as at a safer future as our climate warms.

Delivering this transformation requires enormous quantities of capital—new wind farms, new solar farms, more batteries and associated infrastructure to move energy from where it's generated to where it's consumed. It's going to require significant investment over several decades. Much of that investment currently comes from international investors who are already providing the finance and expertise that is powering our energy transformation. Global investors comprise 75 per cent of Australia's renewable energy capital. Much more of that capital is going to be needed for us to meet our climate and clean energy targets.

The government's bill concedes the importance of this investment by issuing a 50 per cent CGT discount for investors who are disposing of eligible renewable energy assets such as renewable energy generation and battery storage assets. At this stage, however, the sunset date for this concession is 30 June 2030—less than four years from today—for investment horizons that are typically set at least two decades into the future. A tax concession that expires in 2030 cannot possibly provide meaningful certainty for investors making decisions today about projects expected to operate into the 2030s and beyond.

The arc of Australia's energy transition brings this disconnect into sharper focus. Our 2030 renewable energy target is 82 per cent. It is a target that the Climate Change Authority has warned we are not on track to meet, even if the pace of clean energy deployment doubles for the rest of this decade. We're pursuing an even steeper rate of emissions decline to reach our 2035 climate target of 62 to 70 per cent emissions reduction on the 2005 baseline. The biggest challenge of all is reaching our legislated net zero emissions goal by 2050. A key concession supporting investment in the very technology required to meet these goals is currently slated to end before most of that work has been completed and before those assets have delivered returns to investors.

So I and many of my crossbench colleagues have been asking the government to reconsider this expiry date. The Clean Energy Investor Group and the Investor Group on Climate Change have argued that the transition period does not adequately reflect the long-term nature of renewable energy investment. They've recommended extending the concession such that it will better align with Australia's clean energy objectives and the expected retirement time line for Australia's coal fired power stations, most of which take place in the second half of the next decade. They're right: the clean energy CGT discount has to be aligned with Australia's decarbonisation pathways and the reality of investment decisions for clean energy assets. It shouldn't be aligned to the end of the forward estimates.

As the Clean Energy Council has noted, there is a direct precedent in Australian tax reform for a longer transition period linked to the life of infrastructure assets. The 2018 Stapled Structures integrity reforms package introduced a 15-year transition period for existing economic infrastructure staples. Renewable energy assets have operational lives of 20 to 30 years, and the policy rationale for a transitional period of these assets is at least as strong. It makes perfect sense to align the transition period for clean energy infrastructure with a federal emissions reduction target of 62 to 70 per cent by 2035 as an intermediate milestone and ultimately with the 2050 net zero objective. We should ensure that the concession remains in place for as long as the capital that is required to attract it is needed.

Another concern with the government's four-year concessional CGT window is that the projects that are reaching financial close in 2027 or 2028 are unlikely to be disposed of before 30 June 2030. As a consequence, the practical beneficiaries of the concession are much more likely to be investors involved in secondary market transactions involving operating renewable energy assets than those who are actually financing the next wave of generational capacity. Australia's energy transition does not need tax policies that will facilitate ownership changes just between existing assets. We need new additional investment in generation, in storage assets and in enabling infrastructure.

Recently at the National Press Club the Minister for Climate Change and Energy rightly celebrated some of the Albanese government's successes, such as the Cheaper Home Batteries Program and the EV rollout. He announced new initiatives that lean into Australia's traditional cleaner energy strengths, like the Missing Middle scheme for midcscale rooftop solar. In the same speech he also acknowledged that there remain significant challenges—headwinds, roadblocks to progress. A short concessional period is an unnecessary additional roadblock to progress. It would be an own goal, of the government's own making. So I make the point again that the concessional CGT period must be extended well beyond 2030.

Investable assets are narrowly defined in this bill. Explicit reference to renewable energy generation and storage are positive inclusions. However, the transition to a low-emissions economy depends on a much broader suite of infrastructure. Critical minerals processing, electrification infrastructure, sustainable fuels and other supporting assets all form part of Australia's long-term energy transformation, but they're not mentioned or defined in this legislation. Does this mean that investors who back these mission-critical low-carbon assets and infrastructure are ineligible to receive the CGT discount?

Australia's clean energy future can't be understood solely through the lens of generation assets. In this legislation the government has taken a broad and contemporary approach to defining real property and taxable Australian real property. It should apply the same forward thinking when it's considering the infrastructure that is required to support decarbonisation throughout the economy.

I commend the Albanese government's substantial focus on tightening Australia's capital gains tax regime. I support strengthening Australia's foreign capital gains tax regime, the introduction of a statutory definition of real property, and the expansion of taxable Australian real property to ensure that assets connected to Australian land are properly captured within our tax base. I also support the government's decision to remove retrospectivity from these reforms following stakeholder feedback, including feedback from the crossbench. However, it's also the case that Australia needs to build renewable energy infrastructure as fast as we ever have in order to meet established renewable energy and climate targets. We are not currently on track to meet those targets.

For this reason, schedule 3 of this legislation needs further improvement. The renewable energy concession should be extended well beyond 2030, and it must be aligned much more closely with our established decarbonisation goals. The current sunset date is too short, too narrow and too poorly aligned with investment horizons that underpin large-scale renewable energy projects.

Australia needs more clean energy investment as we electrify the foundations of our economy, not less. Our tax system should support that objective. A strong tax regime and certainty for foreign investors are complementary goals. While the government has made good progress on the former, as it stands, there's still significant room for movement on the latter. I urge this parliament to ensure that these reforms strengthen Australia's tax base without weakening the flow of the capital required to build the clean energy systems that will underpin the safety and prosperity of future generations.

Australians expect a fair return of tax from the profits made by global investment into assets built on our shores, just as we expect local businesses and investments—not to mention multinational gas corporations—to pay their fair share of tax. But we have to be careful that we don't tax away the clean energy transition in the process. I commend the legislation to the House.

Ms BOELE (Bradfield) (12:13): This is a subject very close to my heart, and this bill, frankly, does many things, but I'm going to focus on just one part of that today: the tax changes that, until today, risked making it significantly more difficult to build clean energy that we need for an affordable, reliable, competitive and secure energy system. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 increases the value of the CGT payable by international investors in Australian wind, solar and large-scale energy storage. The consequences of these changes is to disincentivize investment in clean energy.

But today, after months of pressure from the crossbench and industry, the government has announced an important change to the bill, which will greatly decrease the risks posed to clean energy. To be clear, these risks are not entirely gone, but the situation is much improved, and I commend the government for making these changes. Let's step through what's going on in this bill. But let's also be very clear from the beginning that, like it or not, tax—like death—is a certainty. Tax is also necessary. It pays for things like hospitals, schools, roads, public housing and social supports—all the things that make this country function.

When foreign investors profit from Australian land and natural resources, it's entirely reasonable for them to contribute their fair share to the country that generated this wealth. This bill does that by broadening and clarifying what counts as taxable Australian real property so that CGT will be payable on a wider range of assets, including renewable energy assets. This isn't changing the CGT rate itself; it's broadening the tax base. But the practical effect for foreign investors is the same as if the rate had gone up. More of what they hold and sell will now be subject to more Australian tax.

Ensuring that foreign investors pay their fair share is a good idea, so my argument today is not that these reforms are ill advised in principle. My objection is that in practice the changes disproportionately affect clean energy projects, which we should be doing everything we can to support. We know renewables are pushing down power prices. We know that they are displacing imported fossil fuels and improving Australia's energy security. We know that we need to be building more of them faster. Building renewables is capital intensive, and much of that capital comes from offshore because the scale of what we need simply outstrips what domestic capital alone can provide.

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of investment in Australia's clean energy sector comes from international investors. Long approval times and issues with transmission are already making it hard for projects, wind projects in particular, to meet financial closure. Our 2030 target of 82 per cent clean energy is a worthy goal, but it's looking doubtful as we stand. Disincentivising clean energy investment at this critical juncture is the exact opposite of the kinds of policy signals that we should be sending.

These tax changes have been signalled since the 2024-25 budget, but when the government announced the detail earlier this year it included an ability to retrospectively tax investments all the way back to 2006. This would have been unprecedented, and, to its credit, the government has since removed this retrospectivity. Until today the government had included a transitional 50 per cent discount for four years to foreign corporate investors who dispose of Australian renewable assets. It framed this as a generous concession, reflecting its commitment to Australia's clean energy future, but this was misleading because a four-year transition window is simply not how renewable energy investment works. These projects are built, at a minimum, on eight- to 10-year investment horizons, often much longer—multidecades. A four-year window would have created a very obvious incentive to sell before 2030 while the 50 per cent discount still applies, and then commit no further capital after 2030—in other words, a fire sale of existing assets in the lead-up to 2030 followed by a freezing of new investment once the discount ceases.

Thankfully, after months of advocacy from the crossbench and industry, the government has agreed to extend that transitional period all the way to 2040. I commend the government for this concession. It's an extra 10 years, and this is very welcome. I'm very pleased that the government has engaged constructively and in good faith on these amendments, and I thank the minister for doing so. Extending the transition period for an extra 10 years will mean that the law more accurately matches the timescale of this century's energy economy build-out, and it aligns with real investment cycles rather than the arbitrary four-year political deadline.

A 2040 date will now capture one to two whole investment cycles, ensuring that more clean energy is built, and more cheaply, and with the knowledge that the policy risk factor doesn't have to be baked into the cost of capital. The reality of the clean energy build-out so far is that we are relying on private capital to do much of the heavy lifting. The government is underwriting projects through the Capacity Investment Scheme, but it's not building its own renewable energy projects. If we want to deliver an energy system at the pace required for industries to remain internationally competitive then we need to be doing everything we can to support international clean energy investors.

Some will say, 'Won't Australian super funds simply fill the gap left by departing foreign capital? They have so much money under management.' Yes, they do. But, unfortunately, their track record to date shows that they won't fill that gap. Australian super funds have consistently and disappointingly underinvested in domestic clean energy, in large part due to a very conservative risk appetite, which is baked into their regulations. Australian super funds have contributed only 0.8 per cent of investments in renewable energy projects since 2020. They've been hamstrung by the performance test rules, which, to its credit, the government is in the process of fixing, as I've spoken about elsewhere. But given such low levels of investment, even if changes to the performance test help the volume of investments from Australian super funds to double or even triple, it's still going to be far below the 70 per cent that international investors make up. So I will be moving two additional amendments to this bill.

The first amendment will provide additional transitional support for clean energy by resetting the cost base of renewable energy assets when the tax changes come into effect. This means that the new CGT rate would apply only to capital gains accrued from now rather than to all the gains accrued since the project was initiated. This is not full grandfathering. I recognise the government's intent here is to broaden the tax base, and a blanket exemption for existing assets isn't realistic. But this amendment would strike the right balance between respecting commercial decisions that were made legally and in good faith on the basis of existing taxation rules before any investor could have known that these changes were coming with the government's tax policy intent.

This amendment has broad support from investor groups. As the Global Infrastructure Investor Association told Treasury in its submission, 'Introducing a deemed market value cost base reset at a time of commencement would address the government's concerns while preserving Australia's reputation for policy stability.' As EY put in its submission, 'Many investments were priced, financed and held on the explicit understanding that they were not taxable Australian real property. The absence of transitional relief imposes an unfair and retrospective tax burden on genuine commercial decisions made under the law as it stood.' This idea has precedence in our law. It's a sensible change.

I will also be moving a final, further amendment to make it very clear that battery energy storage assets qualify for the concession and that the definition is technology neutral, with flexibility for new clean energy technologies involved in transmission and grid stabilisation. Unfortunately, the government signalled that it's not open to accepting these changes. That's regrettable. It's a missed opportunity, in my opinion, to further accelerate the build-out of clean energy at a time when we need it more than ever.

Finally, I want to register a broad objection to how this legislation has been put before us. The bill bundles eight different schedules together, all of which address different topics: tax adviser misconduct, foreign investment, CGT, national competition policy arrangements, DGR listings and so much more. Some of these schedules do really worthwhile things. I won't detail them all here; I don't want to detain the House. I understand the case for legislative efficiencies. No-one wants a parliament clogged up with dozens of small technical bills when they could just sensibly group them all together. But in some cases, as here, it makes it really hard for the parliament to hold the government to account when we're being asked to deal with legislation that's so varied all at once. It would be great to see these consequential changes split off from the rest of the bill so they can be properly scrutinised.

I want to end by saying that I support the intention of these changes. Foreign investors should pay their fair share. Until today, the bill risked dealing a very large blow to investment that we need to deliver cheap, secure energy that's going to set us up for long-term prosperity. It simply didn't make sense for the government, in one breath, to express support for cheap, clean energy and simultaneously to make it harder for investors to build the wind farms, the solar farms and the battery energy storage that are going to make this economy cheap and clean. I commend the government's willingness to extend the transitional period to 2040 and I urge it to continue doing everything it can to support the clean energy that we need and make our economy as competitive as possible so households can have the cheapest possible energy for their livelihoods.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (12:25): On a day where we have crossed the $1 trillion public debt threshold, on a day when we have seen unemployment rise, we have a government that is not focused on improving the economic welfare of the Australian people. We have a government that is only interested in setting up the rules to favour their mates. We heard from members in this chamber only just now about how terrible it is that the rules aren't rigged enough in favour of their mates and not in favour of their donors rather than being concerned about the impact it is going to have on the Australian people.

Mr TIM WILSON: The member for Monash correctly interjects and outlines just how dodgy the rules—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): The member should be heard in silence.

Mr TIM WILSON: That's cute, Deputy Speaker! However, the member for Monash always has something of value to add to this conversation, and so we welcome her interjection, it being correct, because she is highlighting and reinforcing the central point.

The Australian people need a government that's on their side. At the moment, they have a government which has only one objective: rigging the rules in favour of their friends. They want to give tax concessions and tax benefits to the renewable energy industry, because they are the donors to their movement and to other political movements associated with them. They can't deliver on things, like a $275 reduction in power bills, that they promised to the Australian people, so their answer is to use public money and move it over to industry to try to reduce costs for them at the expense of the rest of the economy.

At every point, this government focuses only on how to favour its friends. We saw it yesterday when the Assistant Treasurer went and gave a speech to the National Press Club. Lo and behold, all the benefits, all of the subsidies, all of the assistance, all the rules and all the regulations—where did they all go to? They went to their friends in industry super funds while they left actual financial advisers, self-managed superannuants, people who use retail products and anyone who doesn't sit outside the corrupt Labor ecosystem completely adrift. And now we see this with this bill as well, where they've snuck in what we'll call Easter eggs but, let's face it; could be poison pills, which are taxes, which would be increased on some people while they exempt the industries that they want to prosper and succeed, because it benefits them and they are reinforced by the borrowing that their mates in industry super funds—nudge, nudge, wink, wink—are financing. So they're trying to rig the rules again to favour their mates.

This government has a perverse obsession with how they make sure they get outcomes they want to improve the financial wellbeing of the people associated with them. We know this, of course, because, every time there's a public project that needs public money and it's got the CFMEU involved and they're taking out graft and corruption every step of the way, the Prime Minister opens the chequebook and says, 'How much do you want for that public project' along the way. We've seen this in Victorian's Big Build, the suburban rail loop, a scheme that's known as involved with corruption and organised crime. The federal government continues to pour money into the scheme. It's often funded by debt. Yes, this is a Treasury bill and talking about tax is an incredibly important part of it, because tax is something you raise from the public that then gets spent. So what does the government do? They tax the Australian people. They raise the revenue. They then spend it on public projects, and very often that money has ended up in the hands of organised crime. Even worse than that, we've seen today that the government continues to issue bonds, raise public debt, pass the cost on to future generations and then spend it today.

They stoke inflation, then tax inflation, then spend the inflation in a vicious cycle so the government can keep taking more and more tax revenue silently, without having to change a single law before this country. What we have now is a government run by inflation addicts, inflation junkies. They're tapping their veins trying to find out where they can inject the next round of inflation. We've got the Prime Minister walking down to the Treasury building and looking to see if there are a couple of shoes hanging from the powerlines ahead, looking to see whether there is any more inflation they can inject into the system that is undermining the Australian people.

And what are we seeing? On average, Australians going backwards $1,600 a year in the life of this government. This government is addicted to spending, and it's addicted to inflation. Any pathway where they can find more money they can take from the Australian people to feed that addiction, to empower themselves, is part of the perpetual cycle that they run. They're not focused on how to grow the economy. They're not focused on how to build industry. They're not even focused on how to create jobs. Do you remember, once the Labor Party focused on how they create the number of jobs in the economy?

Unemployment is up. Inflation is up. While cost of living continues to rise, standards of living are going backwards under this government. This is the problem—

Mr TIM WILSON: We're now hearing the interjections. We heard from the last deputy speaker that no interjections should be welcomed, but we're hearing it now from the Labor Party because it's touching a very raw nerve. They know the inflation addiction that this government has directly undermines the economic welfare of the Australian people. Their only answer is how they take a bigger chunk of the Australian tax revenue for themselves, and how they do it—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ): The minister, on a point of order?

Mr Giles: I think perhaps the speaker could turn to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the member for Goldstein that we are debating a piece of legislation at the moment and remind the member for Goldstein to remain relevant to that task.

Mr TIM WILSON: Deputy Speaker Garland, I can assure you that inflation is directly connected to government spending and taxation revenue. In fact, I'm constantly reminded of it in the number of times I talk about this government's inflation addiction—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, please talk about the bill.

Mr TIM WILSON: I am talking about the bill. I'm constantly reminded in this chamber how members of government seem completely oblivious to the fact that government spending is driving inflation. When government is talking about how you raise the revenue, you can actually talk about how you spend the revenue as well. It's a completely legitimate part of the conversation. I also know how many Labor members get upset and interject every time we talk about their inflation addiction and how it is corroding the living standards of Australians. This bill talks about how it's going to raise revenue, so everything I'm saying about revenue and expenditure is utterly related, just as the government's inflation addiction is relevant to this bill, because that is what is driving it.

What's driving this isn't the best interests of the Australian people or improving their economic welfare. What is driving this bill is: how does the Labor Party control more of the lives of the Australian people? They've found a secret ploy which is, if they tax more, they then use that tax revenue to spend more. They do it by raising debt and then spending that as well. They're able to perpetuate a vicious cycle of stoking inflation, then taxing that inflation, then spending that inflation to take more of the Australian people's money. That's why this government is overseeing the biggest collapse in living standards in the advanced world—not a record to be boastful or proud about. Nothing in this bill seeks to reverse that; it seeks to turbocharge it.

What we have is a government that is always looking for its next inflation hit because it wants to keep the cycle going. It can't stop its addiction. We know from the last federal budget, connected all the way to this bill, which comes in part as a direct result of that federal budget, that they're going to keep finding ways to get a new hit while the Australian people live with the consequences of their inflation addiction.

Time's up for this government. The Australian people are sick of the legacy of their active inflation agenda. They're sick of the ruin and the pain that it is causing. Australians are living it every day through declining living standards—the biggest drop in living standards in the advanced world. Wages have been going backwards by up to $1,600 a year on average since 2022. In every index, in every data point and by every measure, the Australian people are going backwards. Today, not only have we seen a crossover of the $1 trillion public debt threshold; we've seen unemployment rise as well. We need a change of government. We need a government that speaks to the hope and aspiration of the Australian people, not more tax rises and the inflation addiction that we're seeing under the Albanese Labor government.

Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (12:35): I rise to speak on Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. At the outset, let me say I support the measures contained in schedule 1, which strengthen the integrity and accountability of the tax practitioner regime. I also support the reforms in schedules 4 and 5, which improve Australia's competition framework and give effect to nationally agreed competition principles. I want to focus my remarks today, however, on schedules 2 and 3. These schedules deal with the foreign residents capital gains tax regime, in particular the implications of those changes for investments in Australia's renewable energy sector.

Schedule 2 broadens the foreign resident capital gains tax regime to ensure gains from assets connected to Australia's land and natural resources are appropriately taxed, and I support the intent of these changes in principle. It is entirely reasonable that foreign investors pay tax on gains derived from assets that draw their value from Australia's land and natural resources. That has long been a principle of our tax system, and it is consistent with international practice. I also accept the need for greater clarity in the law. The government has identified uncertainty around the treatment of assets attached to land, and resolving that ambiguity will help create a more consistent and predictable tax framework.

But, while I support the objective, we must also be mindful of the consequences. The definition of 'real property' being legislated captures a broad range of land connected assets, including wind turbines, solar installations and battery storage projects. In practical terms, that changes the tax treatment of many renewable energy investments. At a time when Australia is seeking to attract enormous amounts of private capital to fund the energy transition, we need to ensure that sensible tax reforms do not inadvertently discourage the very investment we are relying upon to deliver affordable, reliable and cleaner energy and do not unfairly punish investments made in good faith based on the rules of the day.

That brings me to schedule 3. The bill provides transitional relief through a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for eligible foreign investors in renewable energy projects. The discount applies to both direct and indirect investments and covers assets such as wind farms, solar farms and battery storage facilities. That relief is very welcome. However, as originally drafted, the concession was due to sunset on 30 June 2030—a very short transitional window. I did not believe that was sufficient. The message from the clean energy and investment sectors has been clear and consistent: a four-year transition period created significant uncertainty and risked undermining future investment decisions. Stakeholders also warned that the original 2030 deadline risked distorting market behaviour, creating pressure for the premature disposal of assets and potentially driving capital away from Australia altogether. That would not be in our national interest.

The reality is that international investors continue to provide a substantial proportion of the capital required for utility-scale renewable energy projects in Australia. While I would certainly welcome greater participation by domestic investors, we cannot ignore the important role international capital currently plays in building the generation and storage assets our energy system, quite frankly, needs. If we make Australia a less attractive destination for that investment, the consequences will ultimately be felt by Australian households and businesses. Less investment means fewer projects. Fewer projects mean less competition in the domestic electricity market, and that risks higher power prices and reduced energy security at a time when Australians can least afford it.

I'm pleased that the government has engaged constructively on this issue and intends to move an amendment extending the transitional arrangements to 2040, similar to what I proposed in the amendment that I circulated but have since withdrawn. A 2040 end date better reflects the realities of renewable energy investment and that these projects are often planned, financed, constructed and operated over periods of 10 to 15 years or more. The amended timeframe provides a more credible transition pathway and gives investors greater certainty while still allowing the government to implement its broader policy intent.

I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his willingness to listen to industry concerns and engage constructively on this matter. While some of the concerns remain, particularly regarding the retrospective impact of these changes on investments already made, the extension to 2040 is a significant improvement and an important step forward towards preserving Australia's attractiveness as a destination for long-term clean energy investment. For those reasons and noting the improvements the government has agreed to make, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (12:41): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I move the government amendment as circulated:

(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 43 (line 25), omit "1 July 2030", substitute "1 July 2040".

This amendment extends the 50 per cent discount to eligible foreign resident disposals of renewable energy assets until 30 June 2040, acknowledging that renewable infrastructure assets can have a long construction and development phase. This reflects the importance of foreign investment for Australia's net zero transition while ensuring the tax treatment of these assets aligns with the treatment of other assets in the longer term.

I'd like to thank the members for Warringah, Curtin and Kooyong; senators in the other place; and also the Greens political party for their constructive discussion on this schedule. I'd also like to thank the member for Mackellar for an amendment circulated which also called for an extension to 2040, and I thank her for withdrawing her amendment to enable the government's amendment and the supplementary explanatory memorandum. The 2040 timeline in this amendment, which has been advocated for by those members that I just referenced, balances this policy objective to ensure fairness in the tax system with still supporting continued foreign investment into renewables. The government also continues to support investment into the renewables industry through other measures, such as the Capacity Investment Scheme, and through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (12:43): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ) (12:45): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.

Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Skills and Training) (12:45): by leave—I move:

That Ms Briskey, Mr Hastie, Ms Mascarenhas, Mr Violi and Mr Watts be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.

Question agreed to.

Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Skills and Training) (12:46): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (12:47): I rise to speak on the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026.

At the outset, I want to recognise the early childhood educators and teachers, those ECEs and ECTs that I spent quite a lot of time with last term when I was the shadow minister for early childhood education and care—those around the country who are in the sector simply because they love it. They love their work; they love caring and educating the children and they love being in the sector.

I want to thank them for their tireless efforts with our littlest learners—those that spend all of those hours on their knees playing with the children but also educating the older ones in early childhood education and care. Their work matters, because it matters to children and it matters to parents—to working parents.

It matters to communities and it matters to our economy because, without a strong and stable early childhood workforce, many parents simply cannot go to work. They can't study. They can't run their businesses. In a cost-of-living crisis of this government's making, parents are forced to go back to work. Both parents have to go and earn a wage in order to pay the bills, with rising electricity costs, rising mortgages and rising grocery costs across the economy.

The coalition does support better pay for good educators. We support certainty for the sector, and we will support the continuation of the worker retention payment, as we did in the last term. But support for this bill does not mean giving the government a another blank cheque. It does not mean ignoring flaws in the design, and it certainly does not mean pretending that another temporary extension amounts to a long-term plan by this government.

Quality child care is ultimately about people. It's about people and relationships and the safety of children, which I'll get to, but buildings matter, regulations matter and qualifications matter. Ratios in early childhood settings matter.

But at the centre of a good early childhood experience is the relationship between a child and, of course, that educator who is caring for them and educating them. Every day, early childhood educators comfort children when they are upset. They help our littlest learners to learn the skills of communication and fine motor skills. They encourage them to try something new. They notice when something's wrong. They celebrate their milestones, and over time they come to understand the individual child who is in front of them and where they're up to in their personal development.

That work is enormously important. Young children need the opportunity to build trust with the adults who are caring for them, and that takes time. A child should not constantly be confronted with a revolving door of unfamiliar faces. We've all had those moments when we've left our young children, or in my case grandchildren, in early childhood education and care settings and seen their little faces cave in when we walk away and we feel the guilt of leaving them in somebody else's care. So they do need those educators who know them, educators who understand their little personalities, their routines, their strengths and where they might need some extra support.

I can remember going into an early childcare setting last term. I washed my hands before lunch, and I had a little learner next to me. She was probably only three years old; it was a three-year-olds room. We washed our hands, and I took two paper hand towels, and she said, 'Oh no; you're only allowed to take one!' She was absolutely across the rules and trying to conserve the environment, which was to her credit.

Indeed, the consistency of having the same educators helps children to feel secure and confident in their care environment. The continuation of educators is recognised within our national quality standard for exactly that reason. This is where workforce retention becomes a question of quality, not simply a question of pay or wages. If we want children to have the opportunity to form strong, secure relationships with their educators, we need good educators to stay in the sector. We need experienced educators to see early childhood education and care as a profession in which they can build their careers. And we need services to be able to attract and retain the people families trust with their children.

There are thousands upon thousands of educators around Australia doing extraordinary work every day, and the overwhelming majority care deeply about the children entrusted to them by their parents and carers. They know the responsibility that comes with being one of the adults that a young child may spend a significant part of their week alongside. That contribution deserves recognition. That's why I am, some would say, gushing over all those educators and teachers in the sector.

So, when we talk about supporting better pay and retaining educators, we should not lose sight of the child who is at the centre of it, that little being. Retention means greater continuity. Greater continuity gives that little being, that little learner more opportunity to build trusting relationships, and those relationships are an important part of delivering genuinely high-quality care. That's one of the reasons the coalition supports continuing wage support and avoiding a sudden funding cliff in November, which would have been the case. The question before us is not whether retention matters. I've just outlined that plainly it does. The question is whether the government has designed this $3.6 billion extension in the fairest, most effective and most sustainable way possible. That is where scrutiny is indeed required.

As I said, we have been here before. When this parliament debated the original wage justice legislation—the worker retention payment—in 2024, the coalition supported it. We made clear then that we would not stand in the way of a pay rise for early childhood educators. But we also warned that the government had not answered the long-term question. We asked what would happen when the temporary fund ended. We raised concerns about the administrative burden on providers, the workplace instrument requirements, the fee restrictions and the financial uncertainty being created for small and medium services. We said that a temporary taxpayer funded payment could not become a substitute for a sustainable workforce plan. Two years later, we stand by what we said then.

When I spoke on the original bill in this House in October 2024, I put the concern plainly. I said that, when the two years of grant funding ended, providers would be left to pick up the tab for the increased wages and that there was uncertainty for providers about what came next. That indeed has been the case. That was not an argument against educators receiving the increase. It was an argument that a government creating a multibillion dollar wage program had a responsibility to explain the destination, not just the first two years of that journey. The government had two years to resolve that uncertainty. Instead, the answer now before the House is another two years. That history matters because this is not a new policy being assessed on a blank sheet of paper. We can look at the concerns raised in 2024, look at what's happened since and ask whether those concerns have actually been resolved.

The government has returned to this House asking for another $3.6 billion and another extension of the same temporary scheme. It's rinse and repeat from this government. The worker retention payment was originally due to finish on 30 November this year, and this bill extends the funding to 30 June 2028 and extends the wage justice special account itself to 31 December 2029. The original payment was established as an interim measure while the Fair Work Commission considered gender based undervaluation in the sector and while the government considered longer term funding arrangements. Since then, the Fair Work Commission has acted. It found that children's services work has been subject to gender based undervaluation, and new classifications and minimum award rates commenced from 1 March this year. Yet the long-term funding question remains unanswered.

There is an important difference between the circumstances in 2024 and the circumstances of today. In 2024, the payment was expressly presented as a bridge while the Fair Work Commission dealt with gender based undervaluation. That was the position then. That Fair Work Commission process has occurred already. The award has changed. Providers are now operating in an environment where those higher minimum wage obligations are part of the industrial landscape, and that makes a sudden end to Commonwealth support in November a very, very real concern.

The wage obligations do not simply disappear because a grant expires. All of those educators and teachers and people that work in the sector expect the wages to continue. If the payments stopped abruptly, providers would still face their wage costs. Many would have little choice but to absorb those costs, reduce other expenditure or ultimately pass those increases on to families. These are families who simply can't afford for their childcare expenses to go up—they have, by the way, under this government, by around 14 per cent. That is one reason we support continuity rather than a cliff. But it's also the reason the government must stop treating the long-term funding question as something that can simply be deferred. The problem becomes harder, not easier, every time a temporary scheme is extended without a clear destination.

The government has not replaced its temporary model with a permanent model, a permanent solution. Each time we want to keep this going, it's going to have to be another $3.6 billion fund created by the government. It's only extended a temporary model. Sure, that gives the sector more certainty today, and we welcome that certainty, but what about tomorrow? Moving the expiry date from 2026 to 2028 does not answer what happens in 2028. A temporary bridge can be extended, but it's still a temporary bridge. It's like a temporary root canal. It still has to be attended to at some place and time.

Providers need to know how they are expected to plan their businesses. Educators need to know whether the wage support they're receiving is indeed sustainable. Parents need to know whether the costs will ultimately flow through to the fees that they themselves have to fork out. Those questions matter because the consequences of uncertainty in child care do not stay on a government spreadsheet. They show up in family budgets, in service viability, in workforce decisions and in whether a parent can actually find care. That's a whole other problem under this government—finding a childcare place. So our position is straightforward. We support better pay, we support workforce retention, we support avoiding a sudden funding cliff in November that could place pressure on providers and especially families, but we will continue to scrutinise the design of the scheme and will continue to argue for changes where the government has got it wrong.

There is one area where the gap between the government's announcement and the reality of its policy is particularly stark, and that is FDC, known as family day care, and in-home care. When the government announced this extension in June, it also announced that family day care and in-home care would finally be included in the worker retention payment. It fixed one of its own mistakes, as it seems to do a lot around this place with all its amendments to its own legislation. The coalition welcomed that announcement. We welcomed it because those services matter. Child care is not just centre based day care. For some families, family day care is the model that works best for their family and for their child. It can offer a small setting, local care and flexibility that a large centre cannot always provide. For some families, in-home care is simply not a preference and is simply not available with the numbers. It exists specifically for families who cannot access other approved forms of care because of circumstances such as non-standard or variable working hours—shift workers, for example—geographic isolation or indeed complex needs children. These are exactly the same families for whom a one-size-fits-all childcare system can fail, and many families still do not have access to early childhood education and care.

When the government said family day care and in-home care would be included, that sounded like a positive change, but headline inclusion is not the same thing as genuine eligibility. Under the grant settings, family day care and in-home care services are only eligible where educators are engaged as employees. Services using lawful independent contractor models are—surprise, surprise—excluded. That is not a minor technical issue. Independent contractor arrangements are used across both family day care and in-home care, yet, under the government's grant rules, services operating under those models cannot access those payments. So while the government says family day care and in-home care are now included, it has designed the scheme in a way that excludes part of the very workforce it claims to be bringing in. The government has not demonstrated how many educators will actually qualify. That's not meaningful inclusion.

The government was asked to provide the number of family day care and in-home care workers broken down by employment type, including employees and independent contractors. Neither the minister's office nor the department held documents within the scope of that request. Instead, the government pointed to published workforce census data. That matters—employment status is the gateway to this payment—yet the government could not produce the basic employee versus contractor numbers needed to show how many newly included educators will actually receive it. Before the government congratulates itself on expanding this scheme, it should be able to answer a simple question, and that simple question is: how many additional educators will actually get the payment? A $3.6 billion announcement should be backed by basic evidence about who can access and who qualifies for it. That's why scrutiny matters.

The coalition will continue to pursue changes so otherwise eligible approved services are not excluded simply because they use a lawful contractor model. Government policy should reflect the childcare workforce that actually exists. We support better pay for educators. We do not support eligibility rules that unnecessarily lock parts of that workforce out. If the objective is workforce retention, the scheme should not exclude workers simply because they do not fit the government's preferred employment model. Think about what that means. The government has made employment status the gateway to accessing this payment. It has announced the expansion of a multibillion-dollar scheme to new forms of care, yet it could not produce the basic employee versus contractor numbers needed to show how many of the people it says are newly included will actually qualify.

Before the government congratulates itself for expanding this scheme, it should be able to answer another very simple question. How many additional educators will actually receive the payment? This announcement does not have the evidence behind it that the government should be able to answer. That's why scrutiny matters. It's also why the coalition will again continue to pursue the changes and continue to uncover what the government is doing here when it comes to this worker retention payment.

This bill is about wages, but childcare policy cannot be considered in isolation from what families are paying. Families were promised cheaper child care. Do you remember that? Australians remember that—'Cheaper child care, cheaper child care, cheaper child care.' Then, suddenly, the Prime Minister stopped talking about it. He dropped it from his rhetoric. Why? Because it's another broken promise from Labor. The latest figures show out-of-pocket childcare costs increased by 7.6 per cent in the year to June 2026, twice the headline inflation rate of 3.8 per cent. Average centre based day-care fees rose from $11.35 an hour in the June quarter of 2022 to $14.50 an hour in the March quarter of 2026. That's an increase of around 28 per cent. Certainly it's increased. What happened to cheaper child care? That would mean it had decreased. But, frankly, the numbers say it's increased.

At the current average hourly fee, 50 hours of care a week for 50 weeks amounts to around $36,250 a year before subsidies. In the March quarter of this year, 40.9 per cent of centre based day-care services were charging an average hourly fee above the childcare subsidy hourly rate cap. For family day care, it was 52.9 per cent. So, when the government asks this parliament to commit billions more, it's reasonable to ask a basic question: what is the long-term outcome for families? Affordability is not an abstract concern. For a family deciding whether a second parent can increase their hours, whether mum or dad can return to work after parental leave, whether they can take an extra shift or whether they can afford—goodness me!—another child, childcare costs are part of that calculation. The system can receive more Commonwealth funding and still leave a family feeling worse off if those fees continue to rise.

That's why the coalition rejects the idea that the amount appropriated is itself the achievement. The objective cannot be to build an ever-larger stack of subsidies, grants and special accounts while families keep asking why their weekly bill is going up. Public funding should purchase better outcomes—stable workforce, safer services, more reliable access and genuine affordability. More government spending is not by itself a measure of success. The measure of success is whether children are safe and receiving quality care, whether families can afford the care they need, whether they can actually access it, whether they have genuine choice and whether services can attract and retain good educators.

This bill also broadens the wage justice special account to include quality and safety. Of course, the coalition always supports stronger child safety. The safety of children must be paramount in every early childhood education and care setting and service. But we should also be clear about what this bill actually does. The bill allows worker retention payment grant agreements to include conditions linked to quality area 2, and that is children's health and safety. That provides the Commonwealth with another level of services receiving this funding, but it's not by itself a comprehensive child safety reform. The provisions are discretionary and they apply through a wage grant.

So there remain legitimate questions about how these conditions will operate, how they'll interact with existing state and territory regulation and what will happen to services outside of the worker retention payment. If a safety requirement is necessary to protect a child, we should also ask whether it should apply consistently across the sector rather than depending on participation in a particular Commonwealth program.

The coalition will continue to scrutinise those provisions as this bill proceeds because strengthening safety requires more than putting the word 'safety' in the title of a bill. It requires clear standards, effective enforcement, strong workforce screening, good information sharing and governments acting quickly when risks to children are identified. On child safety, the test must always be simple: does the reform actually make children safer? What the sector needs is a long-term plan, not another announcement followed by another expiry date, not a system in which family day care is included in the headline and excluded in the fine print, not an approach that treats every service as though it operates like a large centre based provider and not a childcare debate in which success is measured only by how much money Canberra spends.

The coalition believes families should have genuine choice and flexibility. For many families, centre based day care is the right option—that's true—and it should be high quality, safe, accessible and affordable. For others, family day care works better. For some, in-home care is essential. Families work different hours. They live in different communities. Children have, indeed, different needs. Parents make different choices, and they should be able to make those choices. Government policy should respect that reality.

The coalition will support this bill because we support better pay for educators. We support workforce retention, and we do not want families or providers facing a sudden price shock when the current arrangements expire in November. But our support comes with clear expectations. The government must fix the eligibility settings that risk excluding family day care and in-home care. It must justify the industrial requirements attached to the scheme and remove unnecessary barriers. It must explain how the new safety provisions will operate in practice and what they will achieve for children's safety.

And it must finally provide the sector with a credible answer to the question we asked in this place just two years ago: what is the long-term plan? Extending a temporary payment is not a long-term plan. Educators deserve better than an uncertainty from one funding deadline to the next. Providers deserve rules that are workable and fair. Parents deserve child care that is safe, affordable, accessible and flexible. Taxpayers deserve confidence that billions of dollars are being spent in a way that delivers lasting results.

We supported better pay in 2024. We support it now. We raised concerns about the design in 2024. Where those concerns remain, we will raise them again now. That is not inconsistency. It is very consistent. That is exactly what a responsible opposition should do—support what is right, scrutinise what is not and keep pushing for a childcare system that puts children and families absolutely first.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:12): Earlier this month, I had one of those gorgeous visits that I sometimes get to do to one of our early learning centres in the electorate of Macquarie. This one was to Explore & Develop in Emu Plains, and that visit was to mark Early Learning Matters Week. Owner Diane Pelle and early educator Cathy talked me through their approach to caring for, educating and developing the wellbeing of their charges. They do that both here in my electorate and in another one of their centres, which is also in my electorate in North Richmond. As always, I donated flags for their flag poles and books for their library.

Whenever I can, I love to read to the kids, but this visit was on such a glorious afternoon. The children were spread around the outdoor area in between having their afternoon tea. They were engrossed in their play, and I was not going to be the one to interfere with their afternoon, because at that time they were engaged in learning. They were learning how to share. They were learning how to solve differences. They were learning how to judge distance as they navigated the play equipment. They were learning how to look after each other, and some managed to refine their conversation skills by sharing news with me.

Every day early educators help children learn, grow and get ready for school. It's not always obvious when the learning is taking place, but those brains of those young children—we know that 90 per cent of brain development happens up to the age of five. Every one of those kids was engaged in something new, whether it's those motor skills, fine motor skills, cognitive skills or emotional skills. All of that happens in these centres where we entrust our children. It is one of the most important jobs in the country, and I hope everyone in this place agrees that early educators should be paid fairly for their work.

What I was really keen to hear about from Diane and Cathy was the impact of the worker retention payment on her educators, her families and her business. She tells me all three have benefited, and that's why I'm so pleased to see this legislation, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026, which locks in the pay rise for another two years.

I think it's important to reflect on how this came about in the first place. When we came to government, after nearly a decade of the Liberals being in charge, we found major issues in early education. Workforce retention and stability, both of which are absolutely critical to quality and safety in the early learning environment, were at rock bottom. That important retention and stability of workers enables educators and children to develop consistent and stable relationships.

All of us who have had kids in early education know how much a kid can become attached to at least one of their carers and look forward to seeing that person. But, unfortunately, workers were leaving the sector. They were leaving in droves because they simply couldn't afford to do the job that they loved. Services were delaying expansion plans, closing rooms and limiting enrolments because they simply couldn't find the staff that they needed, and when they did find the staff, they couldn't hang on to them. So, in August 2024, we took action. The Albanese government announced it would fund a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers.

That has led to some enormous changes. Since that payment was announced in 2024 and came into effect, there are around 20,000 more early childhood educators than there were back then. That's about an eight per cent increase in a little over two years. Job vacancies in the ECEC sector have decreased by almost 31 per cent, so there are 30 per cent fewer centres trying to find staff on any given day. The percentage of services operating with a staffing waiver has fallen from 8.9 per cent to 4.3 per cent—it has halved.

Fees at centres that are receiving the payment that we put in place grew at around half the rate of centres that were not signed up. That is where it helps manage the costs of child care for families. They grew at half the rate of centres who didn't sign up to our payment. The payment has worked to bolster the early educator workforce, and it's helped to keep costs down for families. In Macquarie, 59 centres are receiving the worker retention payment. That means around 600 workers are receiving the additional money in their pay packet every week.

I've spoken to some of the directors of centres to get their feedback. Helen Mann, who has run the Katoomba Children's Cottage for many years, said to me:

The Worker Retention Payment has allowed the Management Committee to prioritise supporting the critical work of our educators and teachers, while maintaining fees at a more affordable level for families.

Early Childhood services provide educational learning environments for children while providing support to families, and maintaining the employment of qualified educators is critical to running a high quality service. The Worker Retention Payment has allowed us to build a more sustainable and consistent group of educators, who feel better recognised for their work.

Connect Child and Family Services also operates centres in the Blue Mountains, from Possum's Patch up at Mount Victoria all the way down to Lapstone Preschool and out to Bunya Early Childhood Centre in Winmalee, and not forgetting their two centres in Hazelbrook. Ann-Marie Ellot, who is the director and operator of those centres, describes it thus:

The Early Childhood Retention Payment has been a fantastic step toward recognising our early childhood team.

For Connect, it has played a vital role in supporting the employment conditions of our early childhood workforce, resulting in an additional $700,000 in wages being delivered across our four eligible ECEC services in the Blue Mountains (approx. 65 staff).

That's approximately 65 staff receiving that additional $700,0000 dollars. Ann-Marie says:

These teams carry significant responsibility, managing increasing regulatory requirements while making a critical contribution to children's brain development and their early experiences of the world.

I really value the input from both Helen and Ann-Marie, and I acknowledge Anne Marie's comments that, while staff have really appreciated the acknowledgement and the investment, they felt some uncertainty about the continuity of the payment into the future. I also acknowledge that there was a really significant administrative burden that centres had to undertake. That is something we'll continue working on.

Ultimately, what it tells us is that the extension of this payment is vital for the sector. Those two case studies alone tell us that, and Diane at Emu Plains and North Richmond made that equally clear to me. It is something that needs to continue, and that's why in June this year the Albanese government announced it was going to extend the benefit over the next two years and lock in that historic pay rise. What this bill does is deliver on that commitment. The Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill—very catchy—gives effect to the commitment.

The funding extension will save the average family around $1,500 over the next two years. At the same time as supporting our early childhood education and care workers, it's supporting families. The bill amends the act, crediting the special account with an additional $3.6 billion and extending the act's sunset date to 31 December 2029 to support the wage-funding extension. That is peace of mind for a whole lot of workers and for families. When combined with the government's support for minimum wage rises, this extension will mean $255 more per week for a typical full-time educator and $410 more per week for early childhood teachers compared to December 2024, when the government first implemented the pay rise.

The funding will continue to be tied to a commitment from services receiving the payment to limit fee increases for families, and that's where the savings for families come. This helps ease cost-of-living pressure while delivering better early learning for children. For the first time, employees in all Child Care Subsidy approved services will be eligible for the payment—so it will expand the eligibility—so long as they meet the other grant requirements.

The bill also introduces a new object and condition of funding through the wage justice special account, building on this government's commitment to continually strengthening quality and safety in early learning. From July next year, if services don't meet the national quality standard when it comes to safety, their funding may be cut or suspended. Services will be required to meet quality area 2 relating to children's health and safety under the National Quality Standard. Currently, around 95 per cent of services meet this standard, but we want that number to be higher. We want our kids and our families to continually see improvement in quality of care. This bill works with other legislation that we have brought in in our time in government, making safety improvements and creating safer environments for every child in early education.

Around the country, there are more than a million families who rely on early education. They rely on it for a number of reasons. They know the benefits that their child receives in sharing time with other kids and with well-trained educators. I know parents also really appreciate early education because of the things that it allows them to do, whether that is to have a sanity break or whether that is to be working. Sometimes they're the same thing. It really facilitates a healthy family environment. And it is vital that we continue to expand the availability of child care and early education to those who aren't currently able to access it.

Certainly, in electorates like mine, there are still challenges to being able to find the places that you need when you need them. Some of my areas are quite remote, and there are not a large number of children. That raises its own challenges. A whole lot of services that look after those communities are a vital additional thing to have. But, more than anything, we know that a quality early childhood education sets kids up for lifelong learning. When you're a kindergarten teacher in a New South Wales school, knowing that all your kids had a quality early education changes the game for the first day of school. I'm so impressed at the work that early educators in Macquarie do for that transition period and for the really strong connections between our local schools and our early education centres.

I want to give a shout-out to all the early childhood education and care workers in Macquarie. They are in centres right across the Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury and Emu Plains. They do something that I could not do. I laugh when people say we have a tough job. Imagine doing what early educators do. There are so many professions that I look at where I think, 'I don't have those skills.' They're really special people. They care. They deal with unpredictable emotions. They steer children to safe ground and steady ground at any given moment in a day. I remember, as a parent, being so grateful knowing that there were people who cared about my kids almost as much as I did, that they understood their moods, their gifts, their talents and their frailties. For us, early childhood educators were almost part of our extended family. Even now, I see them, and we do a catch-up on how my now 31- and 35-year-old children are, because they remember them when they were just a couple of years old.

So I commend this bill. This is one of the things that doesn't just support our early educators now; it helps us change the future for every child that has the opportunity to be in quality early childhood education.

Ms BYRNES (Cunningham) (13:27): I am pleased to rise today in support of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. Our early childhood educators do an incredible job across our communities. The Albanese Labor government values early childhood educators because we know the difference that they make for children, for families and for communities. It's one of the most important roles in the country, and they deserve to be paid accordingly. That's what this bill is about—backing educators, backing safer and more affordable services and backing local families.

Early childhood educators nurture children's curiosity, encourage a love of learning and build the confidence and social skills that carry them through school and beyond. If we want to attract qualified, skilled educators who love to teach, then their pay must reflect the responsibility and the hard work involved. That's what is at the heart of this bill—securing fair pay with a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood education and care workers for another two years. This is a $3.6 billion commitment to 31 December 2029, and, when combined with the government's support for minimum wage rises, it means around $410 more per week for early childhood teachers compared to December 2024, when the government first implemented the pay rise.

Limiting the turnover of staff is particularly critical for early learning centres. Not only does staff stability create the kind of consistent environments children need to form strong relationships that help them learn and thrive; it is also essential for keeping them safe. Retaining workers and creating stable workplaces means that, when something isn't right, it's more likely to be picked up sooner. And we have, tragically, seen what can happen when unstable environments allow serious risks to go unnoticed and unreported. That's why this pay rise is funded through the worker retention payment grant to early childhood education and care providers. In my electorate, there are around 900 workers receiving the worker retention payment across 75 local services. That's 900—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ): This debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

The SPEAKER (15:11): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Selection Committee.

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) (15:11): By leave—I move:

That Ms Chesters, Ms Mascarenhas and Ms Roberts be discharged from the Selection Committee and that, in their place, Ms Comer, Ms Stanley and Ms Thwaites be appointed members of the committee.

Question agreed to.