2026-05-14 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 14 May 2026

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 1 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Women's Budget Statement 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 4 09:22 Ms WHITE 224102 Lyons I move: That further statements on the Women's Budget Statement be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Appropriations and Administration Committee 4 Report 4 09:22 The SPEAKER 53517 On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's Report No. 35:Budget estimates 2026-27. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 4 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 4

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026

Second Reading 4 09:22 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment of the motion moved for the second reading of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question we're dealing with is whether the amendment moved by the honourable member for Page be agreed to.  

The House divided. [09:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

40 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 95 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Boele, N. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Campbell, J. P. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 6 09:38 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 6

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:39 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 seeks to return the NDIS to its original intent—providing lifetime supports for Australians with permanent and significant disability. The measures in this bill will secure the future of the NDIS, so future generations can count on its promise in decades to come. The bill will improve the quality of supports and the operation of the scheme for participants, and deliver more capability to address fraudulent activity by providing the National Disability Insurance Agency with the necessary powers that it needs to regulate and monitor the payment of over $50 billion dollars each year. The bill takes up recommendations on measures to improve delivery of the NDIS that have been made to government by various independent reviews of the NDIS, including the Independent Review into the NDIS, in 2023, and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, as well as advice of the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce (known as the registration taskforce), which was completed in 2024 and chaired by Ms Natalie Wade. The bill consists of five schedules. Schedule 1 sets out changes to access and eligibility to the NDIS, as well as the management of plans for scheme participants. The NDIS review found that the current approach to accessing the scheme is inconsistent and inequitable and not always targeted to those people with disability who require the most support. This has led to unfair outcomes and contributed to higher participant numbers in the scheme, well beyond its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability, as was modelled by the Productivity Commission. The bill seeks to address this inequity by clarifying the meaning of 'functional capacity' and providing for the assessment of thresholds of that functional capacity. This will introduce a more consistent and robust approach to determining eligibility for access to the NDIS based on transparent methods for assessing functional capacity. Further work is needed to identify the appropriate threshold of functional capacity for the NDIS context, and the bill provides the basis for that future work. The Australian government will establish a technical advisory group to provide expert advice on an appropriate threshold and assessments for substantially reduced functional capacity—informed, obviously, by consultation with the community and states and territories. This bill will also limit unscheduled plan reassessments. Unscheduled plan reassessments are a key driver of spending growth, and the agency has not been able to reduce the number of plans undergoing an unscheduled reassessment. One in five plans are currently subject to an unscheduled reassessment every year. And the average result of these reassessments is a 20 per cent increase in plan value. Some requests for plan reassessments are made by intermediaries, such as support coordinators and plan managers, and some requests are made even without the knowledge of the participant. This bill will make sure that only participants, or their plan nominee or guardian, will be able to request an unscheduled plan reassessment. Unscheduled reassessments will only be possible when: there have been significant and ongoing changes to a participant's support needs arising from changes in their functional capacity, or there has been an unanticipated, significant and ongoing change in a participant's living, education, work or informal support arrangements. Schedule 1 also includes provisions designed to strengthen the link between an impairment and the need for support. This seeks to address situations where participants have multiple impairments, some meeting the disability requirements or early intervention requirements, and others not. In such cases it is difficult, based on the current criteria, to limit reasonable and necessary funding to only the impairments that meet the NDIS eligibility requirements. The bill introduces a clear, strengthened and direct link between a participant's support needs and impairments which have met the disability requirements or early intervention requirements. Schedule 1 will enable the Commonwealth minister to make determinations to reset funding for groups of supports like social, community and civic participation and capacity building. Currently we don't have adequate controls to effectively target and tighten the funding of supports for old framework plans. This has resulted in the scheme growing too fast. Five years ago, the social, community and civic participation support stream alone cost $4 billion per year. This year, it's more than $12 billion. Triple the spending in just five years. If left unchecked, that spending would skyrocket to around $20 billion by the end of the decade. The use of support determinations will stabilise growth in funding for certain groups of supports. It will keep plans aligned with what is 'reasonable' for the scheme as a whole to fund, and put the scheme on a more sustainable footing into the future. This will stabilise costs in the scheme and guarantee the essential services the NDIS provides—here and now. We will also establish a $200 million fund—the Inclusive Communities Fund—to rebuild capability among community organisations so NDIS participants have new options to genuinely participate in their local community. Schedule 1 also establishes plan renewals by introducing a legislated end date for all participant plans. Currently, old framework plans do not have an end date, and most plans do not undergo a plan reassessment. Instead the agency regularly extends plans, and rolls over any unspent funds from the previous plan period to the next one. This inflates the value of participants' plans over time, beyond what was originally considered to be reasonable and necessary. This bill will ensure all plans have an end date, and any unspent funds from the previous plan will not be carried over to the renewed plan. The renewed plan will be based on the previous plan, but will remove one-off funding for things like home modifications, and the value will be indexed. Reasonable and necessary supports will be made clearer. The provision of 'reasonable and necessary supports' is one of the key foundations of the NDIS. However, its interpretation has broadened over time, which has a direct impact on the sustainability of the scheme. This bill will clarify what it means for a support to be reasonable. This will be determined in part by deciding what is reasonable to expect the NDIS to fund. This means considering consistency across government funded social service systems, scheme sustainability, value for money and family support. Schedule 1 also tightens the meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated. The NDIS review recommended a more effective approach to determining how permanence is assessed, to refocus the scheme on supporting people with significant and permanent disability. This bill clearly outlines that people must undertake all appropriate treatments, before an impairment can be considered permanent or lifelong for the purpose of accessing the NDIS. The NDIS was never intended to replace health, rehabilitation and treatment services which play a critical role in preventing lifelong disability. Schedule 2 sets out amendments that further strengthen the ability of the National Disability Insurance Agency to effectively manage integrity of the NDIS. This builds on existing fraud measures and responds to calls from both the NDIS review and the disability royal commission for strengthened safeguards to protect participants, and improved processes to protect the scheme from fraud and non-compliance. Fraud and non-compliance have a direct and devastating impact on the lives of participants and their families, often leaving them without the means to cover everyday supports that enable their basic human rights. When exposed to fraud and non-compliance, participants are subjected to lower quality services, to exploitation and to harm. When someone defrauds the NDIS they're taking resources that should be spent on a participant who genuinely needs this funding. Our biggest concern is that often when we see fraudulent behaviour, we also see risk and harm to vulnerable people, and that simply can't be allowed to continue. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce has identified eight recurring design failures in longstanding government programs, that make them susceptible to fraud. The NDIS has all eight. It also has none of the seven fundamental building blocks for high-integrity programs. As a result, the NDIS has become a soft target, and a lack of integrity has opened the door to organised crime. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has advised that criminals are paying cash kickbacks to participants and their families. The bill addresses this intolerable situation. Schedule 2 includes measures that address fraud and improve integrity within the NDIS and provide the agency with necessary powers to regulate the payment of NDIS amounts. Provider registration is an effective measure for combatting fraud. Currently, only one in 16 providers are registered. Registration requires providers to meet defined quality and safeguarding standards, undergo independent audits and suitability assessments, comply with worker screening and reporting obligations, and maintain ongoing adherence to governance and safety requirements. The current definition of 'NDIS provider' under section 9 of the NDIS Act is an obstacle to effective registration of providers. The current definition is too broad and encompasses retailers and suppliers it was never intended to cover. Within the current definition, mainstream retailers who are paid for their goods and services with NDIS funding are obliged to comply with a code of conduct despite their lack of awareness that they are providing supports under a participant's plan. The bill addresses these issues by amending the definition of 'NDIS provider', consistent with the advice of the registration taskforce. Another key provision in the bill is strengthening the civil penalties and regulatory powers of the National Disability Insurance Agency. The agency's legislative framework and monitoring and investigative powers are weak when compared to other comparable program administrators across the Commonwealth. The NDIA does not have, for example, access to monitoring and investigative powers under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. Additionally, the agency does not have sufficient, effective and proportionate midrange enforcement powers to deal with low- to mid-level fraud and noncompliance that does not warrant criminal sanctions. The bill extends the monitoring and investigation powers in parts 2 and 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act to the NDIA. This will enable the NDIA to investigate serious fraud and noncompliance in relation to claims and payments in the scheme. The bill also inserts a range of new civil penalty provisions, including parallel civil penalties, to existing criminal offences within the act. These new civil penalty provisions are intended to deter providers and individuals from engaging in unlawful, non-complaint conduct by imposing financial penalties. The bill will also improve the plan management market. Plan managers have an important role within the NDIS to assist participants to manage funding within their plans—but the market isn't working. Of the 1,500 plan managers, around a third support fewer than 10 participants. The agency estimates that almost nine in 10 of these intermediaries have at least one integrity risk flag, such as conflict of interest, the potential for collusion or fraud. Between 2018 and 2024, seven reviews and studies have recommended reform to the plan management and support coordination market. Of note, the NDIS Review and the NDIS Commission's Own Motion Inquiry into Support Coordination and Plan Management found: Inconsistent quality and standards of plan management services and systems, Low barriers to entry and insufficient oversight, resulting in conflicts of interest, Fraud and poor governance, and Inconsistent provider integrity in supporting participants. This bill will enable the government to commission a panel of plan managers. Providers will be required to meet a range of standards, processes and requirements that strengthen governance and integrity. Amendments will also strengthen protections against conflicts of interest. We will also commission providers directly to deliver a new support coordination and connection service. This will address issues raised by the disability community about the quality and integrity of the current support coordination market. This includes poor and inconsistent service quality, conflicts of interest and fraudulent practices. The new model will be informed by recommendations from the NDIS review and further consultation with the disability community and providers. Finally, we will be exploring different commissioning models for supported independent living, which provides support to some of the most vulnerable NDIS participants. We will look at how commissioning can benefit both participants and providers to achieve funding certainty, better manage cost growth and improve outcomes. Schedule 3 sets out amendments relating to the governance arrangements that support the effective operation and administration of the scheme. The bill will make the minister the decision-maker on pricing. Currently, the agency undertakes an annual pricing review to determine what changes, if any, are required to NDIS prices. The NDIS review found that the agency's current approach to setting NDIS prices is not always transparent and prices were sometimes bluntly applied. This change will establish a clearer and more transparent mechanism to set and enforce prices under the scheme. The minister will consider the advice of the agency following its annual pricing review and will then: set maximum prices for NDIS supports; set different pricing for different types of supports—like social, community and civic supports; set different pricing for registered and unregistered providers; and apply indexation to plans. This is comparable to the arrangements in aged care and overtime the government will consider whether to move to independent pricing advice to the minister. This bill will also protect participants from being overcharged. If a person is overcharged, the agency will be able to recover the difference from the provider. The bill contains provisions to govern the automation of administrative action in the NDIS. As members know, technology is increasingly part of how governments deliver services. When used properly, it can help deliver decisions more quickly, more consistently and more fairly. It can also free up the skills and judgements of our public servants to focus on the interactions where human involvement matters most. The government is clear-eyed about the risks. Australians rightly expect care when technology is used in human services. We are acutely aware of the consequences when technology is introduced without proper safeguards. This government will not repeat those mistakes. That is why this bill takes a cautious, deliberate and legislated approach to the automation of administrative action. Schedule 4 makes minor amendments to facilitate the operationalisation and rollout of new framework planning. Schedule 5 deals with transitional matters relevant to the entirety of the bill. The NDIS is one of Australia's great human rights achievements. Within 13 years, the scheme has gone from a dream of generations of activists to a deeply cherished institution. It has changed lives—and changed our country—overwhelmingly for the better. The government is determined to return the scheme to its original purpose. We will do this by: fighting fraud and stopping rorts slowing rapid cost increases making eligibility requirements clearer and delivering quality services and supports to participants. Australians expect the NDIS to continue to support people with a disability and their families, and to continue to transform their lives. This bill sets the course for securing the NDIS for future generations. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026 10

Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 09:59 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill delivers urgent and practical reforms to strengthen Australia's business registers. These registers are critical national infrastructure that underpins trust, transparency and confidence across the economy. Australia's business registers sit behind millions of ordinary decisions. Before a supplier extends credit, before a bank lends to a small business, before a landlord signs a commercial lease, or before a customer checks who is behind a company name, these registers help answer a basic question: who am I dealing with? The registers hold essential information about companies and their directors. They record whether a company exists, where it is registered, who the officeholders are, and how the corporate identity can be traced. That information gives businesses, consumers, journalists and regulators a reliable starting point for due diligence. It helps a contractor decide whether to take on a job, a creditor work out where to send a notice, and a regulator connect the dots when a director shifts from one corporate entity to another. These records are trusted because they are established under statute and administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), an independent regulator. They provide the basic corporate map that allows markets to function, regulators to act, and the tax system to operate with confidence. However, the systems that support these registers rely on ageing legacy technology that has been underfunded for many years. In 2023, following an independent review, our government took the decision to cease the former coalition government's Modernising Business Registers program, which experienced a five-fold cost increase and did not deliver its intended outcomes. In its place, the government endorsed a targeted approach to stabilise and uplift the registers—focused on delivering practical improvements, strengthening integrity, and updating services in a measured, modular and achievable way. Since the cancellation of the former government's Modernising Business Registers program in August 2023, our government has committed substantial funding to this work, including funding to support the next stage of delivery. This program is being delivered by ASIC and is known as RegistryConnect. The program is tracking on time and on budget, and is already delivering tangible improvements for users, including new and streamlined digital services. The next milestones include improved company search services, new online company registration services, and the linking of the director identification number, or director ID, regime to the ASIC companies register. These reforms will make ASIC's registers easier to use, harder to misuse, and more useful for anyone trying to work out who stands behind a company. To keep this program on track, urgent legislative change is required by 30 June 2026. If this bill is not passed by that date, multiple legacy provisions from the former Modernising Business Registers program will automatically commence on 1 July 2026, even though the underlying program ceased in 2023. Those provisions would transfer responsibility for administering the relevant business registers away from ASIC and into the registrar framework established for the former Modernising Business Registers program. That registrar is currently the Commissioner of Taxation, with registry functions supported through Australian Business Registry Services within the Australian Taxation Office. That transfer of responsibility away from ASIC would significantly disrupt registry operations, destabilise the uplift program, and delay key reforms, resulting in increased costs and uncertainty for businesses and the community. This bill prevents that disruption. It ensures responsibility remains with ASIC and provides the powers needed to administer and update the registers effectively. The bill contains three schedules. Schedule 1 strengthens director ID requirements to support linking director IDs to the companies register. Schedule 2 provides ASIC with targeted new registry powers to effectively administer the business registers. Schedule 3 stabilises the registers by repealing legacy provisions from the former Modernising Business Registers program that would otherwise automatically commence on 1 July 2026. The director ID regime has applied since 2021 and is administered by Australian Business Registry Services, part of the Australian Taxation Office. Since its introduction, three million directors have obtained a director ID. A director ID is a unique identifier that stays with a director over time. It helps distinguish between people with similar names, trace directors across companies, and make it harder for someone to disappear behind a chain of corporate entities. The regime was designed to support action against misconduct, including illegal phoenix activity. But director IDs are currently separate from the ASIC companies register, limiting the transparency and integrity benefits of the regime. Schedule 1 strengthens the regime by enabling director ID information to be linked to, used within, and published on the ASIC companies register. Companies will be required to provide director IDs to ASIC through existing registration and reporting processes, including at company registration, through annual reviews, and when director details change. This does not create a new standalone reporting regime, but integrates director ID information into processes that companies already follow. Linking director IDs will make it much easier for the public, businesses, regulators and journalists to verify identities and trace relationships across corporate entities. This will reduce the risk of fraud and identity misuse, help tackle illegal phoenix activity, and support a fairer marketplace. Schedule 1 also includes targeted integrity and compliance measures. These include mechanisms to maintain data accuracy, proportionate enforcement tools for ASIC, and director notification and consent measures at the point of linking. These safeguards help ensure individuals are aware of their directorships and provide an avenue for those who may be unaware of, or coerced into, an appointment to take appropriate action. The core requirement for companies to lodge director ID information with ASIC is intended to commence from 1 July 2027. This timing allows ASIC to prepare its systems and gives companies and directors sufficient time to understand and meet their obligations, supported by transitional arrangements aligned with ordinary reporting cycles. Schedule 2 provides ASIC with a targeted set of new registry powers needed to effectively administer Australia's business registers. The existing legislative framework was developed for an earlier era. It limits ASIC's ability to run a modern digital registry, respond to privacy and security risks, and provide efficient services to users. Schedule 2 enables ASIC to interact with users through expanded electronic communications, reducing reliance on paper based processes and supporting more efficient regulatory engagement. The bill also strengthens privacy and security settings by allowing ASIC to better manage access to registry information, including the ability to redact or restrict sensitive information where privacy or safety risks outweigh the benefits of disclosure. Schedule 2 also strengthens integrity and enforcement. It expands ASIC's ability to correct inaccurate information on the registers, disclose information in the public interest subject to safeguards, and deregister companies in limited and serious circumstances where false or misleading information has been provided. These are practical powers for a digital registry system: fixing errors, protecting people at risk of harm, responding to fraud, and stopping company records from being misused in scams. Most of these powers commence shortly after royal assent, enabling ASIC to support the next phases of the uplift program. Some elements commence from 1 July 2027 to align with when systems changes can be developed and implemented. Schedule 3 is a technical but critical component of the bill. It repeals legacy provisions from the former Modernising Business Registers program that are scheduled to automatically commence on 1 July 2026. If left in place, these provisions would transfer responsibility for the registers away from ASIC, despite the program having ceased. Allowing these provisions to commence would disrupt registry operations, delay reforms such as director ID linking, increase costs, and undermine the stability of the current uplift program. Schedule 3 must be enacted before 1 July 2026 to prevent those automatic commencements and provide certainty for registry operations. Treasury consulted publicly on an exposure draft of the bill from 12 December 2025 to 10 February 2026, following targeted consultation in 2024 on the director ID linking model. That earlier consultation helped answer practical questions, including the process companies would use to update director details. Stakeholders strongly supported the program and proposed design during consultation. Following consultation, only minor technical changes have been made to refine the operation of the bill based on analysis and feedback. These changes do not affect stakeholder rights or obligations. Stakeholders recognised the importance of reliable registry information for market confidence and effective regulation. They also highlighted the need to balance transparency with privacy. That feedback helped shape the bill. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and has approved the measures as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. This bill is about continuity and confidence. It keeps responsibility for Australia's business registers with ASIC. It prevents outdated provisions from disrupting registry operations. It supports the linking of director IDs to company records. And it gives ASIC the practical powers needed to run a modern, secure and reliable registry system. In doing so, the bill will help businesses trade with greater confidence, assist regulators to detect misconduct, provide appropriate transparency and make it easier for Australians to know who they are dealing with in the corporate marketplace. Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. TARIFF PROPOSALS 12 TARIFF PROPOSALS Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2026 12 10:12 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: Custom Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2026. The customs tariff proposal that I have tabled eliminates the five per cent general customs duty rate imposed on goods under approximately 500 tariff classifications, making them 'free'. The reduced rates will commence on 1 July 2026. This change simplifies the importation of a range of goods, including certain household and consumer wares, personal care products, clothing and textiles. By removing duties where concessions are already widely used, we are reducing red tape for businesses, lowering costs for Australians and boosting productivity. Those goods classified under the approximately 500 tariff classifications have been selected for this measure because very few, if any, importers pay the five per cent general duty rate as a result of the widespread use of tariff concessions and preferential rates available for these goods. To meet Australia's free trade commitments, this proposal also amends schedule 14 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to ensure Australia complies with its Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, RCEP, obligations, ensuring that preferential rates of customs duty imposed on RCEP-originating goods that fall within the scope of this measure are not higher than the general rate of duty. Schedule 14 is the only free trade agreement schedule to the Customs Tariff Act under which preferential customs duty rates have not yet been incrementally reduced to 'free' for some of the 500 tariff headings and subheadings affected by this measure. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2026 13 10:15 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2026. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2026 amends section 18B of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to continue the concessional customs duty arrangements for goods produced or manufactured in Ukraine for an additional two years. Since 4 July 2022, most Ukraine-originating goods, apart from petroleum fuel, tobacco and alcohol products, have been eligible for a customs duty rate of free. This measure was scheduled to cease on 3 July 2026 but, as a result of the proposed alteration, will now remain in place until 3 July 2028. Maintaining the concessional tariff arrangements helps sustain Ukraine's engagement in global trade and reflects Australia's ongoing commitment to supporting Ukraine and its people. This tariff measure complements Australia's wider defence, economic and humanitarian assistance efforts. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 13 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 13 Approval of Work 13 10:16 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner 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: Department of Defence—Blamey Barracks Kapooka redevelopment project, Kapooka, New South Wales. Following the presentation of a report by the joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works to both houses of the parliament, the House of Representatives is now asked to resolve that it is expedient to carry out the Blamey Barracks Kapooka redevelopment project. The proposed works include the upgrade and replacement of site-wide infrastructure, including services, roads and footpaths, living-in accommodation, working accommodation, and training, health and wellbeing and logistics facilities. Redundant facilities will also be demolished. The estimated total cost of the works is $889.2 million, excluding GST. The proposed works were referred to the Public Works Committee on 2 September 2025. 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 2026 and be completed by mid-2033. On behalf of the government, I would 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. BILLS 13 BILLS Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 13

Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

Report from Federation Chamber 13 Third Reading 14 10:20 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 14

Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026

Report from Federation Chamber 14 Third Reading 14 10:22 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 14

Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026

Report from Federation Chamber 14 10:28 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Clark be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

10 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 71 NOES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 15 10:33 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin by leave—I move amendments 1 to 3 as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph 122.4(1)(d), substitute: (d) the communication of the information harms, or the person intends or is reckless as to whether the communication harms, an essential public interest. (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 1, insert: 1A After section 122.4 of the Criminal Code Insert: 122.4AA Meaning of essential public interest (1) For the purposes of section 122.4, each of the following is an essential public interest: (a) the security or defence of Australia; (b) the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of a criminal offence against a law of the Commonwealth; (c) the health or safety of the Australian public or a significant section of the Australian public; (d) the effective functioning of the Australian financial system or a significant part of it; (e) the protection of individual privacy or personal information held by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity. Note: This list is not exhaustive. A court may find that a communication harms an essential public interest in other circumstances having regard to the nature and importance of the interest affected and the gravity of the harm caused or intended. (2) For the purposes of this section, harms an essential public interest includes: (a) actual damage to that interest; and (b) damage that is reasonably likely to result from the communication. (3) For the purposes of paragraph 122.4(d): (a) a person intends to harm an essential public interest if the person means to bring about harm to that interest, or knows that harm to that interest will occur in the ordinary course of events; and (b) a person is reckless as to whether the communication harms an essential public interest if the person is aware of a substantial risk that the communication will harm such an interest, and it is unjustifiable in the circumstances to take that risk. Note: The fault elements in subsection (3) are consistent with the definitions of intention and recklessness in sections 5.2 and 5.4 of the Criminal Code. Those provisions apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with this section. (4) For the avoidance of doubt, a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it: (a) reveals wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability by a Commonwealth entity or official; or (b) is made in the course of, or for the purposes of, journalism in the public interest. (3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 21 (after line 26), after section 123.6, insert: 123.6A Review of section 123.6 (Attorney-General consent to prosecution of journalists) (1) The Attorney-General must cause an independent review of the operation of section 123.6 to be conducted: (a) within 5 years after the commencement of section 123.6; and (b) within 5 years after the completion of each preceding review under this section. (2) The review must consider: (a) the effectiveness of section 123.6 in protecting press freedom and safeguarding the prosecution of journalists for secrecy offences; and (b) the number of applications for consent received under section 123.6 during the review period, and the outcome of each such application; and (c) whether the consent requirement adequately balances the public interest in protecting national security and other sensitive information with the public interest in press freedom and the free flow of information; and (d) any developments in Australian or international law relevant to the protection of journalists in the context of secrecy and national security legislation; and (e) whether any amendments to section 123.6 or the broader secrecy framework are necessary or desirable. (3) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person or body that: (a) is independent of the Commonwealth; and (b) has appropriate expertise in matters of press freedom, criminal law, and national security. The new secrecy offence in this bill turns on whether it would be reasonable to conclude that a use or communication of information was improper, a concept that's undefined and dangerously vague. 'Improper' is not a harm but a broad, uncertain standard of conduct that no independent reviewer recommended. The government's own independent reviewer, the INSLM, has been clear: any new general offence should be harm based and directed to essential public interests, with criminal sanctions reserved for disclosures that cannot be adequately addressed through administrative or contractual means. The government agreed in principle with the INSLM's harm based approach, and this provision doesn't reflect that agreement. My amendments (1) and (2) will address this. They replace the 'improper' test with a harm based threshold. The offence would only be committed where the communication harms, or the person intends to harm or is reckless as to harming, an essential public interest. The amendments define essential public interests as national security and defence, criminal justice integrity, public health and safety, financial system stability and the privacy of personal information held by the Commonwealth, while making clear that courts may recognise others as well. Critically, the amendments also make clear that a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it exposes wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability, protecting the space for whistleblowing and public interest journalism without creating an unlimited defence. Amendment (3) addresses the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions. I support this mechanism, but not without reservation. Politicians should not, as a matter of principle, be final arbiters in the functions of our criminal justice system. But in the absence of stronger protections, including a general public interest defence or effective whistleblower laws, this mechanism is desirable in practice and may safeguard against prosecutions that would otherwise proceed contrary to the public interest. Well-balanced secrecy laws would negate any need for the Attorney-General to act as the final safeguard at all. Amendment (3), therefore, requires a mandatory independent review every five years to assess whether this mechanism is working as intended and whether it remains necessary, with findings reported to parliament and a required government response to any recommendations. Open government is a condition of democratic accountability. Secrecy is sometimes necessary, but it must remain the exception and it must be justified by reference to real harm to real public interests. I urge the government to consider my amendments: making the new test harm based and directed to essential public interests, and including a five-year review to make sure that the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions is actually working as it should. These are reasonable changes, and I commend these amendments to the House. 10:37 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Curtin. I acknowledge the constructive approach she has taken to moving these amendments and note her long advocacy for reform in this area. The government will not be supporting these amendments. First, the proposed amendment to change the harm threshold is inconsistent with the recommendations of the AGD secrecy review, which recommended a broader offence that captured disclosures prejudicial to the working of government, including scenarios akin to the PwC incident. The proposed amendment would not sufficiently close gaps in secrecy laws that were identified following the PwC incident. The essential public interests in the list contained in the proposed amendments are matters covered by other general secrecy offences in the Criminal Code and in specific secrecy offences in other legislation. Secondly, notwithstanding the importance of establishing clear and robust safeguards around the prosecution of journalists, the government is not convinced that a periodic review as contemplated by the amendment is necessary given the infrequency with which secrecy offences are prosecuted. An independent statutory review is costly, and a five-yearly review may not present particularly useful insights for the parliament. The government remains committed to improving protections for press freedom and will consider whether further amendments are necessary in the future. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

10 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 73 NOES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Brien, L. S. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:47 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move: (1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert: 8A After subsection 122.5(4) of the Criminal Code Insert: (4AA) Where a defendant seeks to rely on the defence at paragraph 122.5(4)(a), on the grounds that they have made an external or emergency disclosure in accordance with section 26 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, it is sufficient for the defendant to show: (a) in the case of items 2 and 3 of the table in that section—all the further requirements set out in column 3 of the item are met; or (b) the disclosure is otherwise reasonable and in the public interest, having regard to all of the circumstances. I rise to move this amendment to the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026. As I flagged in my second reading speech, I'm pleased with this legislation being introduced and I commend the government. However, in the absence of simultaneous reform to protect whistleblowers, and reforms to the PID Act, there are omissions in this bill which ultimately may harm those who are protecting the public interest. My amendment attempts to address one of these issues. Under section 122.5(4) of the Criminal Code, a person has a defence to a secrecy offence if they have made a public interest disclosure in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. On its face, that looks like an adequate provision. In practice, it is in fact deeply flawed, because the PID Act's requirements for a qualifying external emergency disclosure under section 26 are technical in the extreme. Before a public official can make an external disclosure—that is, disclose to a journalist, a member of parliament or any other person outside government—they must navigate a set of conditions that are easy to fail on a technicality. Miss one step in the sequence and the PID Act immunity does not attach. If a person is not familiar with the whistleblower schemes, they may find themselves facing serious criminal charges. The Human Rights Law Centre, which runs Australia's only dedicated whistleblower legal centre, was clear about this issue in its submission to the Senate committee. In its experience, the PID Act is not fit for purpose. The conditions are difficult to satisfy. Genuine public interest disclosures regularly fall outside them, and when they do there is no current legislative safety net, just criminal exposure. My amendment creates that safety net. It inserts a new subsection, 122.5(4AA), which provides that, where a defendant cannot satisfy every technical requirement of the PID Act's external or emergency disclosure pathway, they may still access the defence if they can demonstrate that their disclosure was reasonable and genuinely in the public interest, having regard to all circumstances. If someone makes a disclosure and does not fulfil the technical requirements but it cannot be proven they were completing this disclosure for a reasonable public good, they will still be held liable under the secrecy provisions. This is seeking to protect those who are sharing for the genuine public interest. I want to be precise about what this amendment does and does not do. It does not override the PID act. The existing section 122.5(4) defence for compliant PID Act disclosures remains entirely intact. My amendment adds a parallel pathway. It does not replace or weaken the primary one. Compliance with the PID Act's full requirements remains the clearest and most certain route to protection. Within the PID Act remains an express carve-out: a disclosure to a foreign public official cannot attract the defence, regardless of the claimed public interest. National security concerns about disclosures to foreign governments are real, and this amendment does not disturb them. I accept this amendment does not resolve every problem with the whistleblower framework. The PID act needs comprehensive reform. That work is pending by the government. I understand they have committed to the second tranche of reforms in this area. But, where there is room for progress, we should try and achieve it instead of waiting for the next suite of reforms. This amendment is a small but real step towards giving whistleblowers what they deserve. Having moved the amendment circulated in my name, I commend it to the House. 10:51 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway The government does not support this amendment. Subsection 122.5(4) of the Criminal Code provides a defence to the secrecy offences in the code where the conduct was engaged in for the purpose of disclosing information in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act. To meet the defence, the defendant is required to point to evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility that they were disclosing in accordance with the PID Act. The burden then shifts to the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. The government is committed to the second tranche of PID reform. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:56]
(The Deputy Speaker—Dr Freelander)

9 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 69 NOES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 19 10:59 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 19 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 19 11:00 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the whole debate time limit on the motion to take note of Regional Ministerial Budget Statement 2026-27—Investing in Australia's growth and prosperity being removed. Question agreed to, with an absolute majority. COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 20 Membership 20 11:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that has nominated Ms Comer to be a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in place of Ms Lawrence. 11:01 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser by leave—I move: That Ms Lawrence be discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and that, in her place, Ms Comer be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 20 BILLS Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 20

Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025

Second Reading 20 11:03 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam Reliable telephone and internet services are key to all aspects of life in today's world. Telecommunications is an essential service as critical as other core utilities like power and water, and, at its best, it enables Australians to fully participate in and contribute to society. Modern telecommunications allows people to stay connected with friends and family, and, importantly, this includes overcoming barriers that may be created by age and distance. It provides access to important government services, including vital health services as well as banking and retail shopping services. It empowers us to stay informed about what's happening in the world, and it assists businesses to become more productive and competitive. Modern telecommunications enables remote study and work, revolutionising both education and labour—a shift that has accelerated and become entrenched since the COVID-19 pandemic. This change in the way we live and work has placed even greater importance and reliance on telecommunications. Telecommunications is fundamental to our private and public lives, and that is why the Albanese government is committed to keeping Australians connected no matter where they live. This government also believes that Australians deserve a telecommunications system that is fair, accountable and built on trust. That is why we introduced the telecommunications financial hardship industry standard, which requires telecommunications providers to take all reasonable steps to proactively identify customers who may be experiencing financial hardship, to ensure they provide appropriate support and to prioritise keeping customers connected. Importantly, the standard provides the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, with strong enforcement powers to ensure telecommunications companies are following through on their obligations. The Albanese government also established a mandatory telecommunications industry standard to further protect Australians impacted by domestic and family violence. The domestic, family and sexual violence industry standard, which came into effect on 1 July last year, ensures victims-survivors receive better support from their telecommunications provider and removes barriers faced when seeking help. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 was amended last year to establish a scams prevention framework that places consistent obligations on the telecommunications, banking and digital platform sectors to prevent, detect and disrupt scams. The Albanese government recently took action to strengthen our triple zero system following two Optus outages that affected these vital services in September 2025. The first outage resulted in the failure of over 600 triple zero calls, mostly in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Tragically, three failed calls may be linked to deaths. The second outage resulted in at least nine triple zero calls from the Dapto area—which is in my electorate of Whitlam—failing to reach emergency services. Thankfully, welfare checks confirmed all those who called triple zero during this second outage were okay. These unacceptable outages are being investigated by the independent regulator, and the Albanese government has taken action to strengthen oversight of the triple zero system through legislation. The new laws give the triple zero custodian the power to demand information from telecommunications providers through ACMA so it can monitor triple zero performance, identify risks, respond more quickly to outages and make improvements. The legislation also increases the maximum penalty faced by telcos to $30 million for failing to follow the triple zero rules. Other actions taken by the Albanese government to strengthen the triple zero system include real-time reporting of outages to ACMA and emergency services; new rules forcing telcos to test triple zero during upgrades and maintenance; new requirements for providers to ensure triple zero calls fall back to other networks; mandatory improvement after triple zero outages; additional performance requirements, to be issued by the custodian, through ACMA, to telcos within six months of the commencement of the laws to assure Australians of best practice; and a public register of network outages, to be maintained by telcos. The Albanese government's implementation of the legislative amendments and new standards that I've outlined confirm that we understand the critical role telecommunications plays in today's world and that consumers must be protected. The bill currently before the House, the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill, continues this positive work by equipping ACMA with the tools and powers it needs to protect Australian consumers from poor and harmful telecommunications practices. This bill will result in several important changes. First, it increases the civil penalties the Federal Court can issue for breaches of industry codes and industry standards by 40 times. Currently, civil penalties for breaches of industry codes and industry standards are not in line with the harm that can be caused or high enough to deter noncompliance. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to increase the maximum general civil penalty for breaches of industry codes and industry standards from $250,000 to 30,300 penalty units—which is currently equivalent to just under $10 million—to align with penalties currently available for breaches of service provider determinations. The amendments also modernise the penalty framework for industry codes, industry standards and service provider determinations to allow for penalties based on the value of the benefit obtained from the conduct or the turnover of the relevant provider, allowing for penalties greater than $10 million. The Federal Court will now have the option to issue fines for regulatory breaches, which can include $10 million fines, three times the benefit gained from the regulatory breach, or 30 per cent of turnover. This penalty framework better aligns with those in other relevant sectors like energy and banking, and, under Australian Consumer Law, it more adequately reflects the telecommunications market and the varying size of the entities engaged in the market, ranging from small to medium businesses to very large companies, allowing the Federal Court to determine the appropriate penalty imposed on an entity for a breach. The bill also expands and clarifies the Minister for Communications' authority to increase infringement notice penalties that ACMA can issue for breaches of industry codes, industry standards and service provider determinations. This bill establishes a carriage service provider registration scheme. Under the Telecommunications Act, there is a distinction between carriers, which operate telecommunication networks and infrastructure, and carriage service providers, or CSPs, which provide a range of telecommunications services such as phone or internet access. Currently, only carriers are required to be licensed and registered with ACMA, and there is no comprehensive list of carriage service providers operating in the market. This omission hampers ACMA's efforts to proactively educate carriage service providers about their obligations and target compliance and enforcement activity. In September 2023, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts released a discussion paper concerning whether a CSP registration or licensing scheme should be developed for the telecommunications industry. The paper noted: … there has traditionally been a low barrier to enter the telecommunications market as a CSP. This low barrier has enabled a large and diverse market for the supply of telecommunications services. However, some stakeholders have argued it has also allowed some providers to operate in a manner that causes significant consumer detriment … The market is open and competitive, with a significant number of CSPs—with estimates there may be approximately 1,500 'eligible CSPs' and a much larger number of general CSPs. Telecommunications have become firmly entrenched as an essential service in general life and commerce. Against this backdrop, it is appropriate to revisit fundamental aspects of the framework, including whether CSPs should be covered by a registration or licensing scheme. The discussion paper noted that both Canada and Singapore operate telecommunications service provider registers or licence systems, and it outlined arguments in favour of a CSP registration/licensing scheme that included 'increasing visibility of CSPs operating in the market', which would assist regulatory agencies such as ACMA to provide education on CSP obligations, and 'facilitating an effective mechanism' for ACMA to stop CSPs that 'pose unacceptable risk to consumers, or cause significant consumer harm' operating in the market. Establishing a CSP registration scheme will increase visibility of the market and stop the operation of dodgy CSPs who pose an unacceptable risk to consumers or cause significant consumer harm. It will also give ACMA and other government agencies the ability to educate providers, streamline complaints and compliance process, and create better overall market accountability. In the energy sector, the Australian Energy Regulator has the power to exclude energy retailers from the market, and it has used this power to quickly prevent and stop consumer harm. ACMA's power to exclude CSPs from the market is expected to be used as a measure of last resort, with suitable arrangements for a review of decisions, avenues for reregistration and maintaining connectivity for impacted consumers. Importantly, this reform means CSPs that are doing the wrong thing will face consequences, and consumers will be better protected. Another amendment in this bill will make telecommunications industry codes directly enforceable by ACMA. This will incentivise industry compliance and enable the regulator to take swift action to address consumer harm. ACMA currently cannot take direct enforcement action for breaches of the industry codes it has registered under the act. Compliance is, initially, technically voluntary. If a breach is found, ACMA can direct a provider to comply with the code or issue a formal warning. ACMA can only take stronger enforcement action if the provider continues its noncompliance—that is, it fails to observe ACMA's direction to comply. The bill introduces amendments to part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 to make compliance with industry codes mandatory and remove the need for ACMA to direct a particular participant to comply with the code in the first instance. These reforms will ensure ACMA is an empowered and effective regulator and that appropriate structures are in place to drive better behaviour by telecommunications companies. In supporting this bill, I believe that it is important to note that the Albanese government is delivering on a more connected Australia by investing in regional connectivity. This includes $50 million for Regional Roads Australia Mobile Program pilot programs, with $10 million invested in my home state of New South Wales. These pilot programs test new and innovative solutions to increase mobile communications coverage on regional highways and major roads. Round 3 of the Regional Connectivity Program awarded over $115 million towards 74 projects that respond to local priorities, with the objective of maximising economic opportunities and social benefits for regional, rural and remote communities. This includes $7.4 million towards seven projects targeting improved connectivity for First Nations communities in central Australia from a dedicated central Australia stream. Two successful rounds of the On Farm Connectivity Program have provided over $30 million in rebates, delivering thousands of connectivity solutions for primary producers, and $20 million has been committed to round 3 of this program. In addition, the $55 million round 8 of the Mobile Black Spot Program is under assessment. It is essential that all Australians, regardless of their individual circumstances, are able to access and use telecommunications services. Contemporary consumer safeguards and industry obligations should reflect the role of telecommunications as an essential service, especially as businesses, governments and other organisations increasingly shift to online interaction platforms. This bill strengthens the safeguards that protect consumers and cracks down on telecommunications providers who mistreat customers. It ensures telecommunications providers meet community expectations by acting in good faith, providing reliable services and supporting customers. If they don't do these things, they will be accountable to the regulator. These are important reforms, and I commend this bill to the House. 11:18 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I'm proud to rise to support the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025, and I'm proud to be part of a party that is committed to keeping Australians connected, no matter where they live. This bill will give the telecommunications industry regulator, ACMA, the tools and the powers it needs to be effective. It displays this government's commitment to protecting Australian consumers from poor and harmful practices in the telecommunications industry—and it's high time, too. For nine long years, out-of-metro and regional communities were sorely neglected under successive coalition governments. Australians watched as they delivered the dodgy Mobile Black Spot Program funding only to Liberal and National seats. While they spent their time feathering the nest for the member for New England, who has since deserted them—he's run away—the rest of Australia was left in a lurch. In McEwen, we were constantly ignored. We were punished because we weren't a National or Liberal seat. Places like Gisborne South and Woodend felt the brunt of it. Communities across McEwen were left out of funding rounds for mobile towers. We're one of the most fire-prone areas in the country—74 per cent of our electorate has been burnt out in the last 25 years with fires—but we could not get towers under the program. I saw the damage firsthand. Telecommunications barriers shifted the playing field, making it harder for people to live and work in our towns and suburbs. Over those nine long years, I heard from countless frustrated constituents who faced mobile phone problems. Weekends were worse, particularly with the surge of visitors coming into our beautiful part of the world, and businesses had problems relying on 4G EFTPOS facilities that were often unusable, causing major frustrations for traders and visitors alike. However, the most consistent message I received was this: 'My telecommunications provider has failed me and I can't get them to fix it.' There are countless examples. One constituent had no choice but to have their service with Opticomm, a wholesale provider that operates in many estates in our area. The customer wanted just a simple, stock, standard job: the delivery of fibre to the premises—a pretty basic task, provided daily in homes right across our nation. They were charged $550 for the service. The technician arrived, stayed for 10 minutes and then shot through. He told the customer he couldn't get it working due to a 'blockage' and that he would need a civil engineer first. Opticomm took the money, as if they had completed the job, and left this customer hanging. He couldn't get anyone, and he couldn't get his money back. It's not good enough. Customers deserve better than this. The experience ended with a generic email telling the customer, 'Take the matter up with your builder or your internet service provider'—anyone but the people responsible: Opticomm. Like most people, he didn't have a builder on call; and he couldn't blame the service provider, since he, appropriately, had booked the installation with Opticomm directly. The whole experience left him out of pocket and feeling scammed. In developing communities like Beveridge, problems with wholesalers and providers need to be tackled. With large new estates, growth has underlined the urgent need for customer support. Recent outages—again, with Opticomm—occurred, along with radio silence from the company. Residents had no indication of the status of the outage or when it would end. This lack of communication and support was both disappointing and stressful for members of those communities. It hampered their daily lives. It hindered their ability to work from home and to complete essential tasks and even school assignments. Stories like this are as uniform as they are clear. If anything happens to go wrong on the customer's side then it's an extra charge, but if something goes wrong on the operator's side then it's working to their terms, their timelines, their conditions. What is fair for the customer is often the last thing that comes to mind for some of these companies, which is why these laws are important. So what does this bill do to fix these things? Firstly, it establishes a carriage service provider registration scheme. The message is clear: if you're selling a service to people, you must be able to be seen and contacted by them. We are stopping the operation of dodgy service providers. With the passage of this bill, you can't just disappear into the shadows once you've been paid. Now, visibility requirements will prompt CSPs to deliver messaging to people affected by outages. Secondly, it updates enforcement action. As I said before, ACMA is the regulator for carriage service providers. Currently, it cannot take direct enforcement action for breaches of the industry codes, no matter how egregious. It can direct companies to comply and issue a formal warning. Big deal! Clearly they take no notice of that. And ACMA can only take stronger measures if the provider continues in its noncompliance. This gives carriage service providers the ability to break whatever code they want, as long as they don't break it for too long. They rinse and repeat, to cut corners, while they protect profits and customers suffer. Let's look at another local example. And—surprise, surprise!—again it's with Opticomm. At Lorimer, Opticomm bought connections previously owned by Telstra. Where, beforehand, there had been no connectivity issues, all of a sudden the internet stopped working. Cue the following process. A customer attempts to contact Opticomm and is told: 'Call your internet provider. It's not our issue.' The customer calls the internet service provider, and the ISP says: 'Ask Opticomm to get a technician out.' Finally, Opticomm sends a technician out, who can't fix the problem; apparently, they've got to get the more specialised technician required. This happened to a customer three times—three separate technicians over the course of three weeks. The first two came and left without figuring out the problem. It is just not good enough. After the third visit, the technician finally said the issue might be with the fibre cables in the street and that that might be affecting the neighbours too. Opticomm said, 'Well, it might be a couple of days and it might be a couple of weeks to fix.' This tale is told far too often in communities. Given these providers essentially have a monopoly in particular areas, it is up to the government to step in. We need better enforcement capacity, and that is what we will deliver. Thirdly, we are increasing the penalty for breaches, and modernising the civil penalties framework will make a big difference. It will deter providers from factoring the cost of noncompliance into their profit margins. Under these amendments, we will increase the civil penalties that the Federal Court can issue for breaches of industry codes and industry standards from $250,000 to nearly $10 million. These new laws will also give the court the option to issue fines for regulatory breaches, which can include $10 million, three times the benefit gained for the regulatory breach or 30 per cent of turnover. The government will stop providers from taking advantage of Australians by hitting them where it hurts: their bottom line. I also want to take note of the protection this bill will provide for consumers experiencing various forms of hardship. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has delivered two new industry standards. One is the requirement that the telecommunications company provide adequate support to customers experiencing financial hardship. The second requirement is that the telecommunications company support and assist consumers experiencing domestic, sexual and family violence. This is so important for people. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, recognises that we rely on telecommunications connectivity to support our families, our businesses and our communities. We deserve a telecommunications system that is fair, accountable and built on trust. We're not seeking radical change here. This is fixing a framework so that it is consistent with Australian consumer law. It's also consistent with this government's push for a more connected Australia. Outer metropolitan and regional communities have suffered for too long. We're making the big changes, investing $55 million into round 8 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. This will go a long way to filling the cracks left by the previous pork-barrelling government. We are putting $50 million towards the Regional Roads Australia Mobile Program. Funding here will go towards testing new and innovative solutions for increasing mobile coverage on regional highways and major roads. In round 3 of the Regional Connectivity Program, we have awarded $115 million to 74 projects that will respond to local priorities. These initiatives will deliver economic opportunities and social benefits for regional, rural and remote communities. Through the On Farm Connectivity Program, the government has allocated $43 million across three rounds to enable primary producers in agriculture, forestry and fisheries to extend connectivity in their fields and take advantage of connected machinery and sensor technology. The amendment carries with it principles of connection, assistance and justice. These were the ideals that were written into the original bill back in 1997, and we're bringing things up to date because of the dodgy operators out there. You don't need to take it from us; you can listen to the Australian Telecommunications Alliance, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. All were consulted on this bill before it was introduced. To conclude—I think it's important to recognise the sliding-doors moment that Australia is facing right now. We are seeing great developments in online communication and generative AI technology that improve quality of life. The future is exciting, and it's full of promise. But, as we reach forward for tomorrow, we must also make sure that no-one is stuck with the problems of the past—the problems created under nine years of mismanagement. The Albanese Labor government has listened, and now we are turning what we've been told into action. We are enhancing consumer safeguards and delivering on our promises, and I commend this bill to the House. 11:29 Mr NG 316052 Menzies I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. Telecommunications are essential to the infrastructure of modern Australia. They allow people to stay connected with family and friends. I needed it to keep in touch with my daughter when she was walking to school this morning. We use it to run businesses, access information and seek help in emergencies. For those of us in this place, they are critical to staying connected with our communities, accessing timely information, responding to issues and making sure we know what's going on. I can see members opposite on their phones right now; that's how essential they are to us. Like many Australians, I feel the absence of my phone immediately if I leave it behind. We're all very dependent on our phones. That dependence brings with it a clear expectation: Australians expect telecommunications to be accessible, reliable, high quality and affordable. This legislation responds to that expectation. The Albanese Labor government is placing the rights and needs of consumers at the centre of the telecommunications framework. We support a strong and competitive telecommunications industry, but it must operate within a regulatory system that protects Australians and reflects the essential nature of these services. The urgency of reform is clear. The Optus triple zero outage was a profound failure of corporate responsibility. Australians were unable to contact emergency services—police, ambulance and fire—at moments when they needed them most. The consequences were serious and, in some cases, tragic. In response, the government acted to strengthen accountability and transparency across the sector. We made clear that stronger oversight is required when failure places Australians at risk. We enshrined the Triple Zero Custodian framework in law and empowered the Australian Communications and Media Authority to act swiftly. These reforms improve coordination across the triple zero system and ensure that government can intervene decisively during outages. Those opposite had years to act, and they failed to deliver the safeguards Australians needed. When the risks were evident, they did not respond. When the system required strengthening, they allowed it to remain exposed. This government has taken action. We have reviewed the consumer protection framework and moved to strengthen it where it has fallen short. This bill builds on that work. It strengthens protections for consumers experiencing financial hardship, and it supports recent action directing the Australian Communications and Media Authority to develop stronger rules for people affected by domestic, sexual and family violence. This builds on our work across government to address this social scourge that affects far too many people across our communities. Our position is clear: the telecommunications sector must serve Australians. Strong safeguards must be in place, and there must be meaningful consequences when providers fail to meet their obligations. This bill improves compliance and enforcement by strengthening the tools available to the regulator. It ensures that protections remain effective in a modern and evolving market. Schedule 1 of the bill establishes a carriage service provider registration scheme. At present, there is no comprehensive list of providers operating in the market. This lack of visibility has made it difficult for the regulator to engage with providers, to educate them about their obligations and to respond effectively to emerging risks. Without a clear register, of course enforcement is more difficult. Patterns of consumer harm are harder to identify and providers can operate without sufficient scrutiny. The new registration scheme addresses this gap. Like Santa, we're making a list and we're checking it twice. It creates greater visibility across the sector and allows the regulator to identify providers that pose unacceptable risks. It also supports better education, more efficient complaint handling and stronger overall accountability. This reform contributes to a fairer market. Providers who meet their obligations should not be undercut by those who avoid them. A transparent register supports responsible operators and strengthens confidence in the system. Schedule 2 of the bill makes industry codes directly enforceable. Under the current framework, the regulator cannot take immediate action for breaches of these codes. It must first issue a direction to comply, or a warning, and act further only if that direction is ignored. This two-step process has limited the regulator's ability to respond quickly to harm. It has created delays and reduced the effectiveness of enforcement. The reforms removed this barrier. The regulator will be able to act directly when breaches occur, improving responsiveness and strengthening deterrence. Providers will be held to account in a more timely and effective manner. Schedule 3 of the bill strengthens the penalty framework. The maximum general civil penalty will increase from $250,000 to 30,300 penalty units. That's currently the equivalent of $9.9 million—a significant increase. Existing penalties have not reflected the scale of harm or the size of major providers. In some cases, they've been treated as the cost of doing business. The updated framework allows penalties to be linked to the benefit gained from misconduct or the turnover of the provider. This ensures that penalties are proportionate and effective. It recognises that the sector includes both small operators and large corporations. A single fixed penalty does not achieve fairness or deterrence across such a diverse market. These changes bring telecommunications into line with other regulated sectors, including energy and banking, as well as the Australian Consumer Law. They also give the Federal Court the flexibility to impose penalties that reflect both the nature of the breach and the scale of the entity involved. Schedule 4 strengthens the infringement notice regime by expanding the powers of the Minister for Communications. This allows infringement penalties to be adjusted to remain effective over time and ensures they continue to act as a meaningful deterrent. Taken together, these reforms equip the regulator to act as a strong and effective watchdog. They also create clear incentives for better conduct across the industry. The message is straightforward: poor behaviour will attract consequences and consumer harm will not be tolerated. This bill sits within a broader program of reform. Since coming to office, the government has delivered a range of measures to strengthen consumer protections. These include a new industry standard requiring providers to support consumers experiencing financial hardship and a standard mandating assistance for those affected by domestic, sexual and family violence, which came into effect from 1 July 2025. We have also amended the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to introduce consistent obligations across telecommunications, banking and digital platforms to prevent, detect and disrupt scams. Building on this, the government is progressing broader reforms to ban unfair trading practices across the economy, including hidden transaction fees and subscription traps that distort consumer choice and erode trust. Too often, Australians see only one price and then pay another to find themselves locked into subscriptions that are difficult to exit. These reforms will require clear disclosure of fees, stronger transparency at the point of purchase and straightforward cancellation processes. This work is part of a wider effort to strengthen competition and accountability, including increasing penalties for misconduct, improving enforcement powers and ensuring regulators have the tools needed to act decisively. Taken together, these measures reflect a coordinated approach. Australians should expect fair, transparent markets and consistent protections across the sector, and there must be real consequences when these standards are not met. At the same time, we are investing in telecommunications connectivity. The government has committed $55 million for round 8 of the Mobile Black Spot Program; $50 million for the Regional Roads Australia Mobile Pilot Program, including targeted funding for Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales; and $115 million under round 3 of the Regional Connectivity Program, supporting more than 70 projects. These investments are essential. They improve coverage and connectivity, particularly in outer suburban, regional and growing communities. Reliable telecommunications are critical for access to employment, education, health care and other essential services. This bill complements those investments. As networks expand and improve, it is equally important that consumers are treated fairly and that providers meet clear standards of conduct. Australians should have confidence that the services they rely on are delivered responsibly. They should also have confidence that, when providers fail, there are real and enforceable consequences. This legislation reflects a clear commitment to putting consumers first. It strengthens safeguards, improves accountability and ensures telecommunications services meet the expectations of the people who depend on them every day. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House. 11:40 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It probably comes as a surprise to people that, during a sitting week, this building will house between 4,000 and 5,000 people. It's a phenomenal number. It's the size of a small suburb. Imagine us turning up on the Monday of budget week and finding out that the wi-fi didn't work. We switch and think, 'Well, that's okay because we've got mobile, and we'll go to mobile broadband, such as its performance is in a building like this.' But, when that doesn't work, we figure we'll go to our desktops and connect up through an ethernet connection. But, when that doesn't work, we figure we'll just have to put up with it—these are first world problems, as the kids say—for 15 minutes. But that turns into half an hour, which turns into an hour, which turns into a day. It turns into four days. It turns into five days in budget week. Could you imagine how this place would respond with no phone or internet access for five full days? I relate that experience because that's what the constituents I represent have had to live with not just in one suburb but in a number of suburbs in the electorate of Chifley in Western Sydney. It has brought home to them yet again—and certainly to me, as their representative—how dependent we are on reliable communications. It's not just, as some people might try to dismiss, some sort of luxury. Modern communications are needed by a lot of people to operate businesses, including home based businesses, and for a whole host of other things that they're dependent on, such as accessing government services and doing their shopping, and for whatever else they've become used to. When it's gone, you really feel it. Over the last few months, I've spent a lot of time listening to families, small-business owners and workers in my electorate who've asked for something that many Australians have taken for granted: a connection that works when they need it. As I said, those communication networks underpin almost every aspect of modern life—how people work; study; access health care; run home based businesses; connect with government services; stay in touch with families, friends, communities. Reliable communications today is essential infrastructure. It's on par with electricity and water. When that infrastructure fails, people quite reasonably expect accountability and improved service. That is why the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 matters. It's a bill that strengthens consumer protections in telecommunications by giving the regulator way stronger enforcement powers, making industry standards mandatory, ensuring there are real consequences when providers fail to meet their obligations. Much of what this bill seeks to do collides with the experiences of constituents I'm proud to represent. In December, Colebee experienced a simultaneous fixed line outage and mobile network outage. That combination effectively knocked out almost every single way people connect. Some were left without connectivity for up to four days. Then, just weeks later, residents in Bidwill copped the same thing: outages left households of entire streets without internet or wi-fi for days at a time. Some reported outages that lasted up to five days, and, during those outages, many residents contacted my office to raise their concerns about the reliability of mobile coverage, the limited choice of retail service providers and the overall quality of telecommunications services in my area. So, in January, I held a telco town hall with local residents in Colebee to talk about the quality and access of service in their area. I want my community to feel confident that their experiences are absolutely being taken seriously. Over 40 people came along to the town hall that night. Most of them work from home. Their jobs depend on stable, reliable internet. Here's what I heard. Families were told repeatedly that their service would be restored, only for it to drop out again minutes later. The cycle repeated. Many spent hours on the phone to providers without receiving clear information or reliable timeframes for repair. Residents also told me that, in practice, they're better off relying on updates from neighbours and social media than contacting telcos during service outages. Some told me they'd spend an hour or even more on hold just to get information they should have received in a text message. In our parts of Western Sydney, those outages hit particularly hard because this is one of the fastest growing parts of the country, with new communities filling with young families, first home buyers and small businesses. In this day and age, as I said, getting access to communications isn't just an infrastructure issue; it's also a fairness issue. One resident told me he's lived in four different homes across Australia over the past 15 years, including in regional centres, and that moving to a new estate in Western Sydney—get this—was the first time he'd experienced such consistently poor service. He said, 'I've never experienced service this bad anywhere else in the country,' in a part of Sydney 45 kilometres away from the CBD. That's a sobering reflection when we consider that these suburbs aren't remote or hard to reach; they're in rapidly growing communities in metropolitan Sydney. My constituents wanted to know why they could be contacted instantly when a bill was due yet somehow couldn't be reached when there was an outage affecting the entire street. They wanted clear, timely information and some sense that someone's going to actually be accountable to fix the problem. One story from that night has stayed with me because it captures the absurdity of the system as people experience it. A constituent told me he'd signed up for a one gigabit per second service, but what he was actually getting was around 450 megabits per second. That 450 might sound fine to someone who hasn't had to rely on that connection for work, study, telehealth and running a household, but that's not what he's paying for, and it's not what he was promised. He did what any consumer should be able to do—he called his provider to get it fixed. Instead of being helped, he was told to contact his wholesaler, Opticomm. The member for McEwen said he has had similar problems with Opticomm in his contribution to this debate. The constituent contacted the wholesaler. The wholesaler then sent him straight back to the retail service provider—a run-around, back and forth. This is a story too common. All he was asking for was the service he was already paying for and has every right to receive under a contract. The constituent recounted that he is so tired of the problem that he's almost given up. He doesn't want the full service he's entitled to; he just wants a stable connection. It's unacceptable that he has to resign himself to poor service. He was promised he'd get the service that he'd paid for, but he is not getting it. Another issue raised at my town hall went beyond outages and spoke to the broader question of how these networks are evolving and how providers are treating customers. Over 10 years ago in Colebee, residents were instructed not to purchase or install an external TV antenna, assured that free-to-air signalling would be delivered through the then Telstra Velocity network, which was a fibre-to-the-home connection. Around 2020, Telstra sold the network to Opticomm. Then, late last year, Opticomm told customers it would shut down free-to-air access that used fibre networks in the former Telstra Velocity service areas, and that shutdown occurred in February. As Free TV Australia CEO, Bridget Fair, has said, this was a key feature which households were invited—I just want to emphasise that they were invited—to rely upon. Opticomm simply told customers they should install an external antenna or purchase an interior one. Whilst Opticomm is not obliged to provide television broadcasting services and the government is unable to intervene to stop them, it's the way this situation was handled that bothers me and many in my community. The decision to stop free-to-air signalling unfairly shifts costs for decisions made by both Telstra and Opticomm, in terms of setting up the network and then running it thereafter, to consumers. What the conversations at the town hall made clear to me is that, while technical faults are sometimes unavoidable, the real frustration often lies in the lack of transparency and the absence of meaningful consequences when standards aren't met. Too often, consumers feel they've got absolutely no leverage, no power and nowhere to turn to. Those are entirely reasonable expectations for what is now an essential service. Following the town hall, I've raised these issues directly with Telstra and Opticomm, and I've also raised issues with Optus. I've told Telstra and Opticomm that the companies that made promises and didn't deliver should be the ones who stump up the cost of new antennas. I want to be perfectly clear here. Residents were forced to install new antennas that they previously had been told they never needed. Those residents should be compensated. I've sought updates on the outages, pushed for clearer communication protocols during service disruptions and asked for specific responses on compensation, mobile coverage gaps and infrastructure delays, including the long-awaited activation of a mobile tower in Colebee adjacent to the Stonecutters Ridge golf course. I'm pleased to report the following feedback from the town hall. Optus has told me they're bringing forward the deployment of tower infrastructure at that site. But all of this isn't just happening in my electorate. What's really concerning is that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman continues to report tens of thousands of complaints every single year about faults, outages, poor customer service and billing disputes. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, repeatedly identifies systemic issues from irresponsible sales practices to unfair disconnection policies and poor information about coverage. At present, the penalties available for breaches of industry codes and standards just don't reflect the scale of telecommunications market failures or the harm that poor practices can cause. A maximum civil penalty of $250,000 might sound substantial on paper, but, for a lot of companies with billions of dollars in annual turnover, it's unlikely to drive meaningful behavioural change. This is the gap that the bill is designed to close. It significantly strengthens the compliance and enforcement tools available to the regulators. It increases the maximum civil penalties the Federal Court can impose to equivalent of nearly $10 million today and introduces modernised penalty frameworks, allowing the court to set fines based on the benefit gained from the breach or a percentage of the provider's turnover, which is huge. That approach aligns telecommunications with sectors like banking and energy, where we already recognise that stronger penalties are necessary. And it makes the industry codes mandatory and directly enforceable. I just want to end on this point. We have been operating under a promise with telecommunications that it would continually improve. In fact, since the late nineties and the arrival of the internet, we've been told we will get access to communications in a way that moved us beyond that historical relic known as the landline. We have been told every time a new mobile network rolls out that we'll get better service. It started with 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G; 6G is literally around the corner. Even with those great leaps forward, people still complain. Bizarrely, they cannot get a mobile signal in their home. It doesn't matter if you're in an urban area or a regional one. Frankly, in this chamber, it's too often the case that, regardless of our politics, we will have representatives from different parts of the country talk about why telecommunications isn't working for them. It's certainly understandable. With the way that our people live on the continent that is as great as ours, where it's spread out and where the distances are great between centres, it's understandable that there will be challenges from time to time. But my question is: why does it continue, and why is the promise of modern communications not being fulfilled? We should not still be having those types of complaints. We do have to ask questions about not just the standards but the promises being made by modern telecommunications providers to the people that we represent, from the member for Maranoa's electorate through to mine in metro Sydney, from regional Australia to our town centres. It should not be the case that, in this day and age, these telecommunications companies—regardless of who's in power, mind you—are always having the same complaints. It's notable in this debate how many members of parliament have got up, regardless of the political colour of their background, to complain about the quality of telecommunications. This is sending a massive signal to our telecommunications providers, large and small: clean up your act; do better. The sector should be delivering. They keep extending promises to us, every single time, and yet we've still got constituents saying it's the same old same-old. They absolutely deserve better. 11:55 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Telecommunications is no longer a luxury or a nice-to-have; it's an essential national infrastructure—like electricity, water and banking—that underpins work, education, emergency information and participation in our economy. Because it is essential, the power imbalance matters. When a service is sold unfairly, when a bill is wrong, when a complaint goes nowhere or when people are not connected, people are put at a significant disadvantage. They can lose contact with family, miss work opportunities, fall behind in study or be cut off from essential services they depend on, like triple zero and other emergency services. That is why strong safeguards are not red tape; they are basic rules of a fair market. Australians should be able to trust that what they are sold is what they will receive, that hardship will be met with support and that there will be real consequences when providers breach their obligations. In 2026 the simple act of making a call, paying a bill online, making a GP appointment or checking in on a loved one depends on one thing: reliable telecommunications. When that connection fails and when Australians are misled, overcharged or ignored by the very companies they rely on, the consequences are very real. People can—and unfortunately do—lose their lives. That is why I rise to speak today in strong support of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. The bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to keeping Australians connected, no matter where they live, by strengthening consumer protections and making sure the system Australians rely on every day is fair and accountable and built on trust. We need this legislation because too many Australians have been let down for far too long. In Dunkley, constituents have told me about the run-around when they try to fix billing errors, the stress of being chased over disputed debts and the difficulty of getting timely, fair outcomes when something goes wrong. Dare I mention the black spots that exist in the community? We have seen patterns of misleading sales practices, poor complaints handling, billing mistakes, aggressive debt collection, failures in hardship support and inadequate treatment of vulnerable customers. These are not isolated incidents. They are systemic issues that demand a stronger framework and stronger enforcement. In my electorate of Dunkley, connectivity is not optional; it is essential. Families rely on it to stay in touch with loved ones, small businesses rely on it to trade, students from Monash University and Chisholm TAFE rely on it to learn, and older Australians rely on it to access vital services, including health care and government support. But, too often, people in our community face poor service, unexpected costs, or complaints processes that feel designed to wear them down. These are not minor inconveniences. They can cause serious financial pressure and significant stress. This legislation is about drawing a clear line. Telcos must do better. They must meet their obligations. Consumers must be protected from harm, and the regulator must have the tools to act quickly and effectively so that trust in this essential service is earned, not assumed. The enhancing consumer safeguards bill was introduced in the 47th Parliament, in February 2025. It passed the House without amendment and was considered by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, but it lapsed when the parliament was dissolved. Today we are taking the important step of progressing these reforms once again. At the heart of this legislation is the strengthening of the compliance and enforcement powers of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA. ACMA plays a critical role in overseeing the telecommunications sector, but for too long it has lacked the full suite of tools needed to respond to serious breaches and protect consumers effectively. This bill changes that. One of the most significant reforms in this legislation is the increase in civil penalties that the Federal Court can issue for breaches of industry codes and industry standards. Currently, those penalties are capped at about $250,000. That is simply not commensurate with the scale of harm that can be caused, nor is it sufficient to deter large telecommunications providers from engaging in non-compliant behaviour. This bill increases those penalties by 40 times, bringing the maximum to nearly $10 million, or 30,000 penalty units at the time of drafting. Importantly, it also modernises the civil penalties framework. Under these reforms, the federal government will have the option to impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the breach, including a fixed penalty of up to $10 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained from the misconduct, or 30 per cent of the company's turnover. This ensures that penalties are not just symbolic; they are meaningful, proportionate and capable of driving real behavioural change across the industry. It also brings the telecommunications sector into alignment with penalty frameworks in other sectors such as energy and banking, as well as under Australian Consumer Law. Another critical reform in this bill is the establishment of a carriage service provider, or CSP, registration scheme. A CSP is, in simple terms, an entity that uses a carrier's network to provide telecommunications services such as a phone or internet service to the public. At present, there is no comprehensive register of CSPs operating in Australia. This lack of visibility means it's difficult for ACMA to effectively monitor the market, educate providers about their obligations and target compliance and enforcement activities. The establishment of a CSP register will address this gap. It will provide ACMA and other government agencies with greater insight into who is operating in the market, it will allow for more proactive engagement with providers and it will streamline complaint-handling and compliance processes. Most importantly, it will give ACMA the power to stop CSPs from operating where they pose an unacceptable risk to consumers or cause significant harm. This is a strong but necessary measure. It will act as a deterrent against serious noncompliance and help restore confidence among consumers that providers operating in the market meet appropriate standards. It is important to note that this power is expected to be used as a measure of last resort, with appropriate safeguards in place, including review mechanisms, avenues for reregistration and arrangements to ensure that consumers are not left without connectivity. The bill also addresses a longstanding issue in the regulatory framework: the enforceability of telecommunications industry codes. Currently, compliance with industry codes is technically voluntary. In the first instance, if a breach occurs, ACMA can issue a direction to comply or a formal warning. Stronger enforcement action can only be taken if the provider fails to comply with that direction. This creates unnecessary delays and can allow harm to continue. This bill fixes that by making telecommunications industry codes directly enforceable by ACMA. This means that from the moment a breach occurs, ACMA will have the authority to take enforcement action without first having to issue a direction and wait for further noncompliance. This is a critical reform. It will incentivise industry compliance and enable the regulator to act swiftly to address consumer harm. In addition, the bill expands and clarifies the authority of the Minister for Communications to increase the infringement notice penalties that ACMA can issue for breaches of industry codes, industry standards and service provider determinations. This ensures that infringement notices remain an effective and flexible enforcement tool capable of responding to evolving risks in the telecommunications sector. These reforms are part of a broader commitment by the Albanese government to strengthen consumer protections and improve outcomes across the telecommunications sector. Since coming to office, the government has already delivered significant reforms. We have introduced a new industry standard requiring telecommunication companies to provide adequate support to consumers experiencing financial hardship, recognising that access to connectivity is critical, particularly during difficult times. We have also introduced a new industry standard requiring telecommunications companies to support and assist consumers experiencing domestic, sexual and family violence—a very important initiative for women in my community. This standard came into force on 1 July 2025 and represents an important step in ensuring that the vulnerable Australians are treated with dignity and respect when they need it. Earlier this year, amendments were made to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to introduce consistent obligations across the telecommunications, banking and digital platform sectors to prevent, detect and disrupt scams. These reforms reflect the government's recognition of the growing threat posed by scams and the need for a coordinated, cross-sector response. The government is also investing in a more connected Australia, particularly in regional, rural and remote communities. This includes the $55 million round 8 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, which is currently under assessment. It includes a further $50 million for the Regional Roads Australia Mobile Program's coverage pilot programs, which will test innovative solutions to improve mobile coverage along regional highways and major roads. It also includes more than $115 million awarded under round 3 of the Regional Connectivity Program to support 74 projects that respond to local priorities and deliver economic and social benefits to communities. While Dunkley is a metropolitan electorate, these investments matter to our community as well. Many of our local businesses rely on regional supply chains, and many families maintain strong connections with regional Australia. A stronger, more connected Australia benefits all of us. At its core, this bill is about ensuring that the telecommunications system Australians rely on is fit for purpose. It is about ensuring that the rules are clear, that they are enforceable and that there are real consequences when those rules are broken. It's about ensuring that consumers, whether they are in Dunkley or anywhere else in the community, can have confidence that they will be treated fairly and that their rights will be protected. And it's also about ensuring that our regulator, ACMA, is empowered to do its job effectively. For the people of Dunkley, this means stronger protections, faster action when things go wrong and greater accountability from telecommunications providers. It means a system that works better for consumers, not just companies. Australians deserve a telecommunications system that reflects the essential role it plays in our daily lives. They deserve services they can rely on, providers they can trust and a regulator that can act when needed. This bill delivers on these expectations. I am proud to support the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025, and I commend it to the House. 12:09 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025, an important bill, because these are reforms that are designed to ensure that the Australian Communications and Media Authority is not just a regulator in name or a toothless tiger. This is about empowering it so that it's an effective protector of consumers, and that's why this is a good bill. When you look at telecommunications in this country, no longer is telecommunications about wires and connecting a landline to a house or to a business. There's far more that goes into it nowadays. Our connectivity is reliant on a whole range of things, from the internet to the providers ensuring that we have connections so we can stay in touch with our families. It's how families stay in touch and how businesses are connected to the business world and operate. And, of course, particularly for regional and remote communities and communities that are isolated in other ways, it's their only connectivity that connects them to modern Australia. So you can see how important it is to ensure that everyone in Australia has connectivity, is connected to their telecommunications provider and has the services that they pay for. As with every other service, you pay for a particular service and you require that service to give you the goods that you've paid for. In this case, it's telecommunications. Every Australian, as I said, relies on it, and, because of that, every Australian deserves a system that's fair, accountable and built on trust. But when that trust is broken—and many of us, in our electorate offices, see it on a regular basis, where people have paid for a particular provider to offer a particular service and, for whatever reason, it's a dead area where the internet drops out and their phones drop out—we see it, and we see the frustration that goes with that. Well, there is now a responsibility, and we give that responsibility to the authorities to be able to investigate and to ensure that the providers are doing the right things by the consumer, because, as I said, when that trust is broken, when consumers are misled, overcharged or exposed, it's everyday Australians who pay that price. That's why this bill is providing the strong action that is required. The bill recognises the truth that a modern economy demands a modern regulator with real powers to act. It ensures that the Australian Communications and Media Authority, better known as ACMA, our telecommunications regulator, has those tools at its fingertips, has the authority at its fingertips and has the strength that it needs to protect consumers and hold the industry to account, because, without real consequences, standards mean very little. We've seen it in the past. That's why this legislation is significant reform. It increases the penalties for breaches of industry codes and standards, not by a small margin—not just by a token margin, as we've seen in the past—but dramatically, from $250,000 to $10 million. That is a message to providers that perhaps have been doing the wrong thing or are not quite up to scratch with the services they provide for the money that's being given to them by the consumer, to actually have a really hard think about it. It really sends a message. It modernises the penalty framework so the Federal Court can impose fines that reflect the scale of wrongdoing, including up to $10 million, three times the benefit gained or up to 30 per cent of a company turnover. The bill goes further. It strengthens enforcement by allowing ACMA to act quickly and decisively, including issuing infringement notices and ensuring industry codes are not just guidelines but enforceable standards. It also increases transparency by establishing a registration system for carriage service providers, ensuring bad actors and bad providers in the system cannot operate unchecked, because too often, as I said earlier, we've seen that Australians have been exposed to unreliable providers, misleading practices or services that fail when they are needed most. I'll give you a small example of a provider that was trying to gain business in a particular area in my electorate—it was in the western suburbs of Adelaide, where my son and his wife reside. I went over to visit the grandchildren that day, there was a knock on the door, and my daughter-in-law went to the door. She came running back to me and said, 'It's someone from the government—the NDIS.' I thought, 'That's strange,' because I knew at the time there was a scam going around, or providers were trying to get extra business by claiming that the NDIS was coming to your area and, if you signed up, they would become your provider. I quickly went out and said to this chap: 'With absolute confidence, I know that the NDIS is not doorknocking. Where are you from?' We dug a bit deeper and found he was just a door-to-door salesman. The provider was using salespeople to increase their sales in, I think, an unethical way by not actually explaining who they were and where they were from. There was a stop put to that very quickly. This goes back a number of years, and I know that practice has been wiped out, but this is the type of stuff that we're trying to wipe out of this industry. It's about that and, obviously, about what people pay to ensure that they receive those services. It's about trust, it's about fairness, and it's about protecting Australians in a world that's increasingly connected. This bill matters because behind every industry code and every regulatory power is a real person that's affected. Sometimes, whole communities can be affected, as they depend on a service that simply has to work. In another story, I was contacted about some serious concerns at the Ridleyton Greek Home for the Aged, which is in the western suburbs of my electorate. In correspondence, the general manager wrote to me—I asked him to put it in writing—and described ongoing issues with the facility's phone and nurse call system. This was a system that a particular provider had connected. Systems are not optional in an aged-care home. They're fundamental to safety, communication and care. The facility paid a substantial amount to this provider for the system to work. Originally scheduled to be completed in a short timeframe, there were problems. Though the aged-care home kept on paying, it was still not functioning to an acceptable level. Despite that, the provider began charging fees, and, during a particularly concerning period, families reported that they couldn't reach or struggled to reach the facility by phone, causing distress and complaints. Imagine if you had a parent or grandparents in an aged-care facility and you just couldn't get through. Staff were also reported to experience frequent call dropouts and disconnections, including when transferring calls. For an aged-care home, this is not an inconvenience; it's a risk. This is the sort of stuff that we're giving powers to ACMA to be able to investigate. I know it's currently being looked at, and we're hoping for a resolution very soon. When families can't reach their loved ones in an aged-care facility, anxiety rises. When staff can't rely on the phones to coordinate their carers for shifts et cetera, that brings difficulties. When nurse call systems are unreliable, the stakes are not financial—they are human. We will be able to stamp this out through this new regulation and through this bill. We require these reforms, because under stronger powers and stronger penalties, the regulator is better positioned to respond quickly when issues do arise—when telecommunications services cause harm. When industry code becomes directly enforceable, providers have a stronger incentive to comply, and consumers have a clearer pathway for protection. When infringement notices can be issued more effectively, poor practices will get addressed faster. There's proof in the pudding for that. When there's a registration scheme for carriage service providers, it becomes harder for dodgy operators to sit in the shadows of the market and sell their wares to unsuspecting consumers. Ultimately, it will be easier to identify who they are through this bill. This is what good regulation should do. It should protect families, protect consumers and not frustrate them; support essential services such as our telecommunications industry and not undermine them; and ensure that no organisation providing critical communications infrastructure can treat reliability and safety as optional. I'd like to congratulate the minister, who's in the room with us, for this good bill. I commend this bill to the House. 12:20 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the members who contributed to consideration of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. This bill is about one simple thing: keeping Australians connected and keeping Australians protected. Telecommunications are critical to our everyday lives, but we must ensure the system delivering these services to paying customers is fair and accountable. The reforms in this bill will significantly strengthen the safeguards to protect consumers, improve enforcement tools and incentivise better behaviour through tougher penalties. They give the industry regulator—the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA—the tools it needs to ensure telecommunications companies do the right thing by their customers and act quickly in relation to misconduct. That is what we expect from the regulator. Consumers must be front and centre in the work that ACMA does, and I expect them to be proactive in executing their regulatory functions. The Albanese government is committed to supporting reliable, high-quality and affordable telecommunications services, supported by a strong regulatory and consumer safeguards framework. Already we are undertaking some significant improvements to the telecommunications industry. We have mandated that telcos must notify customers, emergency services and regulators of outages immediately, while also tightening oversight of triple zero. Telcos have a responsibility to prioritise their customers, and we are ensuring the industry meets these expectations. We will continue to do this work to improve the sector. We are ensuring that the industry meets these expectations, and this bill will help. Specifically, the bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to increase the civil penalties the Federal Court can issue for breaches of industry codes and industry standards from $250,000 to nearly $10 million or more in some circumstances. The bill clarifies the minister's powers to increase infringement notice penalties; makes telecommunications industry codes directly enforceable by ACMA, enabling the regulator to take swift action; establishes a carriage service provider, CSP, registration scheme to increase visibility of CSPs operating in the market; and stops the operation of those who pose an unacceptable risk to consumers. Our government has listened to the feedback of industry, regulators, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and consumer advocates. We all want to ensure the telecommunications industry meets and delivers a higher standard for customers. This is what these reforms will deliver. I note the opposition support this bill. We welcome them joining us to protect consumers. I note the member for Lindsay introduced an amendment. We will not be supporting this amendment, which, in practice, has functioned as an opportunity for the opposition to talk about anything other than the substance of this bill. For example, the member for Goldstein used his time to talk about how the government seeks to control Australians. Despite the member's ongoing and lively contributions to the House, the Albanese government is focused on delivering consumer protections for all Australians. This bill is, first and foremost, about looking after consumers as well as driving fairness and building trust in the vital telecommunications industry. I call on members to support the bill. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lindsay be agreed to.  

The House divided. [12:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 42 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 96 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Boele, N. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 33 12:33 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 33

Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026

Second Reading 33 12:34 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash We are debating the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill today because Australia is no longer dealing with a simple tobacco policy. We are dealing with a national crime crisis—a crisis that is making Australians feel unsafe in their own homes, unsafe in their communities and unsafe in their workplaces. The tragedy is this: these are not the consequences of some unforeseeable external shocks. This crisis has grown rapidly under the Albanese government because of a tobacco control policy that has created one of the most lucrative black markets in this country, a black market controlled by organised crime, a black market that is no longer hidden in the shadows. It is exploding in suburban shopping strips; it is spilling into family neighbourhoods, and innocent Australians are paying the price. Today, the victims are mums; young workers; small-business owners; immigrants, who moved here for a better and safer life; and children and ordinary families, who had absolutely nothing to do with organised crime. A 27-year-old woman, Katie Tangey, lost her life after a house linked to the tobacco wars exploded into flames. Think about that for one moment. A young woman is dead. Her family is shattered. Their lives have been destroyed. All because the offenders targeted the wrong house. Yet this government is still pretending this is just a regulatory issue. In Bega, a 19-year-old girl working a night shift at a rural service station allegedly had a handgun pointed at her while cigarettes and cash were stolen. A teenager just doing her job. Somebody's daughter, who was trying to earn a living, is now impacted for the rest of her life. Australians expect their kids to go to work and return home safely. They don't expect their life to be threatened over a pack of 20s. In Altona, residents living just doors away from a targeted tobacco store had to flee for safety as fire tore through the building. Neighbouring businesses lost power, which meant the adjoining small-business owners lost income and were not able to recoup that back. These are not isolated incidents anymore. This is violence becoming normalised. That's what I find so horrifying about the illicit tobacco crisis. Our communities deserve better. They deserve to feel safe. They deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Two hundred and eighty-five fire bombings linked to the illicit tobacco trade have now occurred across Australia. Let that sink in. That's 285 fire bombings in Australian suburbs and in local shopping strips, near homes, schools, cafes and small businesses. And every single one of those attacks has victims. The proceeds of these crimes are funding bikie gangs, criminals and terrorists. They've never had it better under this illicit tobacco crisis and this high excise regime. My own interest in this issue began around six months ago after the ramraiding of a small family owned grocery store in Longwarry, a great little town in my electorate of Monash. The owners had done nothing wrong. They refused to be threatened by a criminal gang. They paid a price for that. This is wrong. The Albanese government continues to speak about public health while communities are being terrorised by the criminal empire their policy settings have helped create. The reality is this: when you create a market worth billions of dollars, criminals will fight for control of it. Under this government, illicit tobacco has exploded from an already serious issue into a full-scale criminal economy. The government's own figures show that the illicit tobacco market has surged to 55 per cent of total consumption, worth $6.9 billion. The only thing that is worse is the approximately 97 per cent illicit vape market in this country in terms of the black market economy. Smoking rates are not going down. For the first time in around 30 years, there's been an uptick in smoking rates in Western Australia. The recent criminal intelligence wastewater report shows an annual uptick of four per cent in nicotine in wastewater nationally. That's an increase in metro areas. It's an increase across regional Australia. This is not good for better health outcomes. Between 2022 and 2025, the proportion of tobacco sold outside of Australia's legal system has increased by 285 per cent, and that's money not going to schools, not going to hospitals and not going into communities like mine. More importantly, it's not going to the increased insurance bill that so many shop owners and, in some cases, residential owners have faced as a result of being deemed a risk due to fire bombings and ram raids that are associated with local illicit tobacconists. It is flowing directly into the hands of organised crime. For the past few years this government has ignored repeated warnings. Treasury warned that excessive increases in tobacco excise would strengthen incentives for the illicit trade. Law enforcement warned organised crime was moving aggressively into the market. Retailers warned violence was escalating. But the government doubled down anyway, because they prefer to put policy pride ahead of the safety of ordinary Australians and the people who elected them to lead. When legal cigarettes cost more than $40 a packet and illegal products are available for a fraction of the price, criminal networks have moved and will move in. This is not ideology; this is economic reality. It is a crisis affecting migrant families who work 16-hour days to build a small business, only to watch organised crime take over their stores and bully them into selling illicit products. It is a crisis affecting young women and young people working in retail, at petrol stations or in convenience stores. It is a crisis affecting children who now see boarded up shops, burnt out buildings and police tape near their homes—and they're being sold illegal products too. Australia is becoming less safe because this government has refused to confront the consequences of its own failed policy settings. What is the government's response? More of the same—more denial, more spin. The Australian Border Force has said we can't seize this problem away, because enforcement is chasing a black market that government policy keeps recreating. I draw attention to the ABF's submission to the current Senate inquiry. It's quite illuminating. It quietly notes that the tobacco excise is responsible for the explosion in black market warfare. The submission notes: The ABF assesses that the most effective responses to illicit tobacco are those that integrate criminal, regulatory and administrative levers across jurisdictions. The ABF submission continues, quite remarkably: While enforcement action remains essential, the scale, resilience and adaptability of the market demonstrate that enforcement alone will not deliver sustained reductions in illicit tobacco activity. Even the New South Wales Labor health minister, Ryan Park, warned over the last couple of days that enforcement alone is futile, arguing that states are stuck playing a game of whack-a-mole as long as the federal government's high tobacco excise continues to fuel the illicit market. The New South Wales Labor premier, Chris Minns, has shown moral and economic leadership that his federal counterpart lacks. While Chris Minns has spoken unequivocally, the federal government has been all over the shop. One senior federal minister told a Senate estimates hearing late last year that there was no link between the high excise tax and the illicit tobacco market. Another minister in this place said you'd have to be 'deluded or lying' not to acknowledge it. I agree with him. Now do something about it. Every time this government refuses to rethink its failed excise strategy, organised crime gets richer. They were the biggest winners on budget night. The $14 million in state and territory funding announced on budget night is a drop in the ocean compared with the $6.9 billion in profits the illicit market is making. Every time they ignore the explosion of the illicit trade, another suburban community is placed at risk. This government—this health minister, this home affairs minister, this Treasurer and this Prime Minister—cannot keep pretending; this is not working. The consequences are real. The consequences are unsafe communities, unsafe workplaces and an unsafe Australia. This is the real legacy of the government's failed tobacco tax experiment. Unless Australia fundamentally changes course, we risk entrenching a permanent criminal economy that undermines public safety, prioritises the coffers of organised crime and leaves everyone across our community—everyday Australians—paying the price. The government's failure is revealed by this budget's figures as well. The extraordinary revenue downgrades have laid bare how Tuesday's budget is exposed and the government's failed approach to tobacco control policy is not working. No-one believes the revenue has disappeared because people have stopped smoking. It's because consumers have opted out of paying tax on the government's sky-high tobacco excise, switching to cheap smokes supplied by organised crime. It's a decision they've made not because they want to but because they are compelled to in an extreme cost-of-living environment. The revenue forecasts over the forward estimates also show that Treasury itself does not believe the government's enforcement-only approach will be successful in regaining control over the tobacco market, with continued downgrades as far as the eye can see. That is the reality confronting this parliament today. I want to commend the intervention by people who are prepared to show leadership on this. Yesterday the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, again called on his national counterpart to cut the tobacco excise tax. I want to mention some medical professionals as well. Dr Nick Coatsworth, the former Commonwealth deputy chief medical officer, has said: Australian smokers are being forced by tax policy into funding organised crime. And all the while cheap cigarettes are available to a now growing group of smokers. Coatsworth calls this 'disastrous public health policy'. I should also note that Dr Coatsworth is a respiratory specialist. Dr Ed Jegasothy, who is a senior researcher in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, says: The Commonwealth can maintain its position only by denying basic market economics. Tax reduction might not work perfectly. But neither will the status quo. So, too, says Dr Colin Mendelsohn, a general practitioner who has worked for 40 years helping smokers quit. Another GP, Dr Joe Kosterich, says the higher excise is counterproductive to reducing smoking rates and is simply fuelling the black market. I have spoken to many GPs over the last six months. Their interest in the issue of illegal tobacco has been motivated by their patients—patients who want to quit smoking, patients who are wearing the consequences, through asthma, emphysema and cancers. They believe harm reduction is a far better option than, effectively, prohibition—taxing people who, often, are in a low socioeconomic category and who are already staring at an electricity bill stuck to their fridge, wondering how they're going to pay it at the same time as buying groceries. Why are we punishing them and their children? We should be helping them through harm reduction, like education and—dare I say—a regulated framework for legal vapes. The overtaxing of poor working people in this country through an exorbitantly high tobacco excise is a great moral injustice set upon them by a party that is supposed to exist in this place to stand with them. There's a moral piety from the government on this issue. It should be confident enough to argue the merits of this case alone. My motivation is to stand up for the retail staff and small-business owners in my electorate, who have been physically attacked or ramraided, or live in fear. And it goes back further than that as well. All of us have known someone or loved someone who has died through cancer. I've lost someone through smoking induced lung cancer, and I'd want to spare anyone from that. To the government: get on with your job and show some real leadership. The coalition will support this bill, but it is too little too late and does not deal with the real issues at hand. 12:49 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel Today I rise to speak in strong support of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. This is a vital piece of legislation that forms the central pillar of the Albanese Labor government's relentless crackdown on a trade that has for too long operated in the shadows of our economy while casting a very long and dangerous shadow over our communities. For many years, public perception of illicit tobacco was somewhat benign. It was perhaps viewed as a victimless tax dodge or a niche issue for health advocates. But today the reality on the ground and in our suburbs tells a far more sinister story. What we are witnessing now is no longer just a revenue problem or a regulatory hurdle; it is a serious organised-crime crisis, and it is a crisis that threatens the safety of our streets, the viability of small businesses and the health of the next generation. To understand the necessity of this bill, we must first understand the staggering scale of the problem. The first Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner was appointed by our government and produced the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner report 2024-25. This report estimates that the value of the illicit tobacco market in 2024-25 was between $4.1 billion and nearly $7 billion. Let's be clear about what that money represents. These are not funds being tucked away by mums and dads. These billions of dollars represent a massive war chest for organised crime syndicates. This is the black economy in its most destructive form. Organised crime groups are reaping profits, and that capital doesn't stay in the tobacco trade; it acts as seed funding for a broader spectrum of misery. This money is the lifeblood of criminal syndicates, directly funding the importation and distribution of drugs, high-level cyberscams that target our seniors, and sophisticated money-laundering operations that undermine the integrity of our financial institutions and systems. This trade fuels a cycle of violence that has moved from the underworld into everyday lives. In recent times, we have seen firebombings of shopfronts, brazen acts of intimidation, and public violence. This isn't just about cheap cigarettes; it is a direct assault on public safety and the rule of law. As the member for Bullwinkel, I see the local ripple effects of this global criminal enterprise. Our electorate, spanning from the Perth Hills to the rapidly growing suburbs in the valleys, is home to hundreds of small businesses—newsagencies, convenience store operators and service station franchisees. These are the people who are doing the right thing. They're paying taxes and adhering to strict age-verification protocols, and they contribute to our local economy. When an illicit tobacco pop-up shop opens down the road, selling unregulated, untaxed products at a fraction of the legal price, it isn't competition; it is economic sabotage. We're not acting in a vacuum here. The Australian public is of course demanding this reform. A major national survey by the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, ACOSH, and its partners, released in March 2026, revealed a clear mandate for change, and we are acting. Their survey of over 5,000 Australian adults revealed: Overall, the Australian public's perception that there are too many shops selling tobacco was widespread (64%) and most respondents (75%) believed it is very easy or easy for Australians who smoke to buy illegal tobacco products right now. This sentiment is backed by a startling reality. ACOSH CEO Laura Hunter recently pointed out: … around 70% of Australians rely on petrol, yet we have only about 7,000 petrol stations across the country. …   …   …    But tobacco—a product that is deadly when used as intended … is sold in over 40,000 outlets. …   …   … Forty thousand outlets is an open invitation for illegal operators to exploit the system. She went on: When tobacco is sold on every corner, it makes enforcement harder and it normalises a deadly product … We must also address the risk this poses to decades of national tobacco control policy. Australia has been the world leader in lowering smoking rates, through plain packaging, education and sensible taxation. As a nurse, I am of course totally supportive of these measures, having seen the devastating effects of smoking. I remember when every second person on buses, in workplaces and even on aeroplanes smoked, and we've come a long way since those times to protect our future generations. However, when the availability of cheap, unregulated, illicit tobacco, often sold without health warnings and in attractive non-compliant packaging, threatens to undo that progress, this is particularly concerning in regard to our youth. The explosion of illicit chop-chop and unregulated e-cigarettes is designed to hook a new generation on the devastating product of nicotine. By removing the price signals and health warnings that we know work, these criminal actors are directly attacking the health of our children. We cannot allow the progress of the last 30 years to be torched by criminals looking for a quick profit. This bill addresses the crisis by fundamentally changing the business model of illicit tobacco through two key objectives. First, we are rebalancing the risk-to-reward calculation. For too long, the penalties for dealing in illicit tobacco were seen by criminals as a mere cost of doing business—quite affordable. If the fine is $50,000 but the profit is $500,000, the criminal will pay the fine with a smile. This bill ends that. We are raising offence penalties to match the actual severity of the harm caused, ensuring that the punishment is a genuine deterrent and not a line item in a ledger. Second, we are attacking the profit motive. By making the proceeds-of-crime regime more effective, we are going after the one thing that criminals care about: their money. We are expanding law enforcement powers to investigate and ensure that the consequences for criminal actors are swift, severe and financially ruinous. The Albanese Labor government is not just talking about this issue; we are delivering the resources that we need to win this fight. Since 2023-24, we have provided $346 million in funding to the Australian Border Force, a significant investment in our front line, and we also appointed the first ever Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner and backed back this with an additional $21.3 million in the 2025-26 budget. This commissioner is the general in this fight, coordinating our national response across every agency. Our strategy is built on three clear, actionable pillars: disruption at the border, where we're stopping the flow of it before it reaches our shores; enhanced detection and destruction using state-of-the-art technology to find and seize products within our communities; and national coordination, breaking down the silos between the Commonwealth and state authorities to ensure there are no blind spots for criminals to exploit. The results speak for themselves. Since January 2024, in a country of nearly 30 million people, more than 14 million vaping products have been seized by the Australian Border Force. In just the final six months of last year, we took over a billion illicit cigarettes off the streets. That is a billion cigarettes that do not fund a crime syndicate and do not end up in the lungs of Australians. The only way to truly shut down this trade is if the Commonwealth, states and territories work seamlessly together. The criminals, of course, don't care about state borders, but neither should our enforcement efforts. On that note of cooperation, I want to take a moment and give a significant shout-out to my colleagues in the Western Australian parliament, the Cook Labor government—no relation. In March of this year, the WA parliament passed some of the toughest, most comprehensive tobacco and vaping laws in this country. By introducing massive financial penalties—up to $21 million for companies—and potential 15-year prison sentences, Premier Roger Cook and health minister Meredith Hammat have sent a clear message: WA will not be a playground for organised crime. These laws, which include the power to shut down illegal shops for up to a year, provide the perfect state-level complement to the federal bill that we are debating today, and this is what Labor in power looks like—federal and state governments working as one to protect our communities and put criminals behind bars. I briefly want to touch on the e-cigarettes aspect of this bill. We have seen an explosion in disposable vapes, often sold in bright colours with flavours like watermelon or bubblegum, and these are not smoking-cessation tools. They are a delivery system for high-concentration nicotine, designed to appeal to teenagers. The 14 million seizures that I mentioned earlier—this bill will give us the legislative teeth that we need to go further. We are closing the loopholes that allow these products to flood our convenience stores, and we're making it clear that, if you sell vapes to kids in our community, we are coming for your profits and your liberty. There is much more to do around tobacco, and this bill is about much more than just tobacco itself. It's about the kind of society that we want to live in. We want to protect small businesses, prioritise the health of our children and ensure that crime does not pay. As a nurse, I have seen the consequences of tobacco use up close. I've held the hands of patients struggling for breath. I've sat with families as they have navigated the heartbreak of preventable illness. In the clinical setting, we fight to save lives one person at a time, and I'm very proud to be in a House where we have the power to protect millions. As Laura Hunter from ACOSS rightly said, a product that kills two of three long-term users should not be readily accessible in our communities. I commend this bill to the House. 13:01 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) illicit tobacco has become a multi-billion dollar black market in Australia, increasingly linked to substantial organised crime activity, violent criminal networks and serious community harm; (b) the Government's own Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner has estimated the illicit tobacco market to be worth between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in   .2024-25; (c) the Government's repeated increases in tobacco excise have significantly widened the price gap between legal and illegal tobacco products, driving consumers toward the black market and dramatically increasing the profitability of organised criminal supply; (d) in stark contrast to the Government's 2023 forecasts of a $3.3 billion revenue increase, the Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated that the Government's excise policies will reduce Budget revenue by more than $20 billion between 2024-25 and 2028-29; (e) policy responses to illicit tobacco under the Government have been hopelessly weak and inadequate; and (f) this Bill represents no more than a partial response to the serious escalation of illicit tobacco activity across Australia; and (2) calls on the Government to finally develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy, and to deliver the range of accompanying practical actions that are now urgently needed, to decisively combat the spread of illicit tobacco and the associated proliferation of organised criminal activity". The coalition will support the passage of the Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026, and we will do so on the basis that it might assist law enforcement agencies and courts in dealing with the very serious problem of illicit tobacco. However, let's also be very clear: this bill is a minor and belated response to a crisis that has exploded under the Albanese government. Across Australia, illicit tobacco is at the core of what has become a multibillion-dollar black market. It is directly tied to organised crime, violence, intimidation and highly dangerous criminal activity. Its distribution has become a major criminal enterprise throughout the nation. Illegal tobacco stores are growing across Australia. Firebombings and violent attacks linked to organised criminal syndicates have become alarmingly common, and legitimate retailers are being undercut. Communities are being increasingly exposed to shocking criminal activity in this field, and, in short, the response of the Albanese government, after creating this very crisis in the first place, has been hopelessly insufficient. This bill is aimed at increasing penalties, expanding investigative powers and amending proceeds-of-crime arrangements, and, on the face of it, those measures are better than nothing, and we therefore support them. However, it is astounding that the government wants Australians to believe that making these changes alone somehow constitutes some sort of comprehensive strategy, because it does not. The reality is that this legislation does almost nothing to address the underlying structural drivers behind the explosion of illicit tobacco. The government's own illicit tobacco and e-cigarette commissioner has estimated the illegal tobacco market to now be worth between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion annually, and that's a phenomenal figure. It's the direct result of the Albanese government's pursuit of tobacco excise increases and its inability to have thought about the consequences of those actions. Instead of properly analysing the relationship between excise settings and the expansion of the black market, the Treasurer and the health minister somehow forecast that their 2023 budget decision on this matter would return a $3.3 billion windfall to the Commonwealth over the forward estimates. Their central change—made in the May 2023 budget—was to impose a five per cent increase in tobacco excise each year for three years. These rises, respectively, came into effect on 1 September 2023, 1 September 2024 and 1 September 2025. They were additional to the existing twice-yearly indexation. There will instead be an eye-watering revenue loss. The Parliamentary Budget Office have recently estimated that the excise policy settings will reduce budget revenue by more than $20 billion over the forward estimates, and their forecast is actually conservative. Other experts say that the loss will be between $5 billion and $11.8 billion annually. So, three years on from the 2023 budget, we are now seeing senior Labor figures disagreeing among themselves about the impact of their own excise policies. On the one hand, the Treasurer is insisting that there is little to no connection between tobacco taxes and the growth of the illicit market. On the other hand, the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs says that the high rates of tobacco excise have been one of the key drivers of growth in the black market and that it would be nonsensical to deny that connection. Australians are left with a government that cannot even speak with a unified voice about the causes of this illegal crisis, let alone drive the solutions that are needed. The price gap between legal and illegal tobacco that Labor has created has resulted in one of the most lucrative criminal opportunities in our country's history. This is not speculation. This is the economic and social reality. Organised criminal syndicates are now deeply involved in illegal tobacco importation, distribution and retailing. There are highly sophisticated supply chains. There is intimidation and extortion. There are criminal turf wars, and many shops are openly selling illegal products with little fear of meaningful consequences. Meanwhile, legitimate small businesses are left trying to compete against criminals, who pay no excise and pay no tax. This bill does not adequately address or tackle any of those realities. Instead, it leans largely on increasing maximum penalties, but increasing penalties on paper doesn't always mean stronger enforcement outcomes in practice. Courts rarely impose penalties anywhere near current maximums. Financial penalties are often difficult to recover, and many organised criminal networks treat fines as simply a cost of doing business. Ultimately, it's not the legislated maximum sentence that matters here. What's far more important is whether criminals believe there is a genuine likelihood of detection, disruption, prosecution and/or asset seizure. Those outcomes require resourcing, operational capability and effective coordination across jurisdictions and for Labor to rectify its complete and utter mess. One of the biggest weaknesses in Labor's response has been the lack of coordination between Commonwealth and state and territory authorities. The coalition believes there must be a far more aggressive and coordinated enforcement response, one that includes stronger cooperation with state and territory governments to close illegal tobacco outlets, terminate leases where appropriate and disrupt retail networks that sustain this black market. At the moment, far too often, illegal tobacco shops simply reopen days after any enforcement activity occurs. There must also be improvements to law enforcement, border protection and information sharing capabilities that apply to this issue. At the moment, agencies are being expected to combat organised crime without leadership, direction and support from the government. Labor cannot continue to be weak on this issue. They need to implement a genuine national strategy. That could start with setting basic objectives and deadlines for action, which their illicit tobacco commissioner revealed have never been established. Of course, none of this is to say that smoking should be encouraged. Most Australians understand the clear health risks associated with tobacco use, but public health objectives cannot be pursued in isolation from enforcement realities and criminal market dynamics. The reality is that the current settings have created an enormous illegal market that is fuelling organised crime. In short, Australians are now experiencing the worst of both worlds. Organised crime is booming, illegal tobacco is becoming more widespread, communities are facing increased criminal activity, and the budget is losing billions in revenue. While the coalition will support this bill, we will also continue our calls for a far more serious and comprehensive national response, one that focuses on practical enforcement outcomes. Labor must admit they have got things wrong and own up to the role that their policy settings have played in driving black market growth. They need to direct and resource law enforcement agencies to help end this market. They need to help and empower the states and territories, and they need to immediately disrupt the organised criminal networks profiting from illicit tobacco across Australia. The Australian public expects far better than the hapless approach we've seen from the Albanese government to date. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 295588 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 13:11 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore There is a particular kind of shopfront that people in my electorate know well. The windows are blacked out, the signage is usually doing a lot of the work, the product range is not exactly subtle and the whole operation has the unmistakeable feel of a business that would prefer nobody asked too many questions. People in Moore see these shops. They see the cheap cigarettes. They see the vapes. They see the young people going in and out. They see legitimate businesses trying to do the right thing, while other operators appear to be making their own rules, and they ask, 'How is this still happening?' That is the practical question behind this bill. The Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 is not a lecture about smoking. It is not about making life harder for small businesses that comply with the law. It is not about chasing someone for a minor mistake at the counter. It is about a growing illegal market in tobacco and nicotine products and the need for Commonwealth law to respond properly to the scale of that market. Australians are not naive. They know illegal markets exist, but what concerns them is when the whole thing starts to look open, normalised and almost casual. That is why this bill is necessary. Before I came into this place, I was an electrician and then a lawyer. Neither trade leaves you with much patience for people who think the rules are optional. On a worksite, rules exist because people get hurt when they are ignored. In employment law, rules exist because power gets abused when they are ignored. In public health, rules exist because harm does not fall evenly; it falls hardest on the people with fewer choices and fewer resources. The illicit tobacco market is not just a bit of tax avoidance. It is not just a few cartons being moved under the counter. It is a large, profitable and increasingly visible illegal market. The basic point is this: illicit tobacco is now estimated to make up at least half of the tobacco market in Australia. The profits are counted in the billions. The revenue lost to the Australian community is counted in the billions. Almost every vape sold in this country is estimated to be illegal. It is happening in suburban shopping strips, near schools, near legitimate retailers, near families and in communities like mine. While the public-facing end might look like a small shop with blacked out windows, behind it sits something much more serious: illegal supply chains, unlawful importation, storage facilities, cash movements, money laundering, intimidation and significant criminal profit. There is also a public health issue here. Australia has spent decades reducing smoking rates. Plain packaging, advertising restrictions, public health campaigns and tobacco excise have all played a role. Those reforms are not perfect, but they worked. Fewer people smoke. Fewer people start smoking. Fewer people die from tobacco related illness. But, when illegal cigarettes are being sold for a fraction of the lawful price, that work is undermined. When illegal vapes are cheap, colourful, easy to get and plainly attractive to young people, we are dealing with what is already in front of us. A young person who might never have smoked a cigarette can be drawn into nicotine addiction through a vape that should never have been sold to them in the first place, and I do not accept the argument that the answer is to surrender the field to the illicit market and cut the tobacco excise because illegal operators have found a profitable gap. That is actually a very strange argument. It's basically saying that, because the system has been exploited, the sensible policy is to weaken the system. I do not think that is the lesson we should be drawing. The lesson is that, where an illegal market becomes too profitable and too low risk, the law has to change the calculation. That is what this bill does. The bill has three main parts. First, it increases penalties for illicit tobacco offences. Second, it improves the investigative tools available to law enforcement. Third, it strengthens the proceeds of crime regime so agencies can better pursue money and assets connected to this trade. The first part of the bill increases criminal penalties offences for the importation, possession, buying, selling, supply, production and manufacture of illegal tobacco. That includes increasing the maximum penalty for intentional importation of tobacco to defraud the revenue from 10 years to 15 years imprisonment. It also significantly increases the financial penalties attached to this offending. That is necessary because the current risk profile is simply not enough. The profits are substantial, and the consequences are manageable. Penalties risk becoming part of the cost of doing business. Illegal markets respond to incentives like any other market. This is not about imposing heavy penalties for the sake of looking tough; it's about matching the law to the scale of the conduct. When an illegal market is generating billions of dollars, penalties have to be more than an inconvenience. The second part of this bill gives law enforcement better investigative tools. Under the Surveillance Devices Act, some powers are only available where the relevant offence carries a sufficient maximum penalty. By increasing penalties for illicit tobacco offences, the bill allows law enforcement to use tools such as surveillance device warrants, computer access warrants and tracking capabilities across a broader range of offending. That is important because this trade does not operate through one person at one counter. These are networks. They use phones, encrypted messages, bank accounts, corporate arrangements, storage sites, drivers, shopfronts and people whose role may be to keep others at a distance from the day-to-day offending. If we want law enforcement to deal with that properly, they need the tools to match the conduct. The bill also amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act so that specified illicit tobacco offences are treated as serious offences. That means agencies will be able to seek telecommunications interception warrants when investigating these networks. That is a significant power, and it should be treated as such. No parliament should casually expand enforcement powers and then hope for the best. There should be warrants, there should be thresholds, there should be accountability, and there should be scrutiny. But, if illegal networks are using sophisticated communications to import, distribute and profit from illicit tobacco and nicotine products, then lawful enforcement must be able to investigate that conduct lawfully and effectively. The third part of this bill strengthens the proceeds of crime regime. There is limited value in only catching the person at the counter if the proceeds continue to move through the broader network. There is limited value in seizing a few boxes of illegal tobacco if the people organising, financing or benefiting from the trade are left untouched. If we are serious about disrupting this market, we have to make it less profitable. The bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act to make it easier to pursue the proceeds, instruments and benefits of crime. It expands search warrant powers, including person-search warrants. It updates provisions dealing with electronic devices, account based data and cloud based material. It expands examination orders. It improves information-sharing with Commonwealth regulators. Put more plainly, it helps law enforcement follow the money—not just public statements, not just seizures and not just activity at the shopfront. The financial structures behind the trade also have to be addressed. The proceeds of crime changes are also about keeping pace with how criminal wealth is held and moved. Once upon a time, evidence might have been in a filing cabinet, a ledger or a shoebox full of cash. Sometimes, I suspect, it still is, but criminal innovation is not always as glamorous as television makes it look. Increasingly, relevant information is on a phone, in an app, behind a login, in cloud storage, in account based data or connected to digital assets. The law cannot pretend that all evidence lives in a drawer. Financial arrangements linked to serious offending are often deliberately difficult to untangle. They may involve layers, nominees, businesses, relatives, cash, property or other arrangements designed to separate the person directing the conduct from the money being made. The bill also allows information obtained under proceeds of crime powers to be shared with other Commonwealth authorities for specified regulatory purposes, including such regulators as AUSTRAC, ASIC and APRA. That is sensible. Illicit tobacco is not just moved through the ports and shopfronts; it is moved through accounts, businesses, financial services and professional structures. If a regulator has a role in protecting public revenue, monitoring obligations, licensing or enforcing regulatory standards, relevant information should not sit uselessly in a silo. Government agencies are very good at creating silos. Sometimes we even give them acronyms so they look more official. But illegal markets do not respect administrative boundaries. The bill also removes the requirement for a preliminary unexplained wealth order before a court can consider the main unexplained wealth application. That might sound technical, but technical steps matter. Anyone who has spent time around litigation knows that process can be used properly, and process can be used as a fog machine. If a procedural step adds work without adding fairness, then it is not protecting justice; it is protecting the person with the better lawyer and the longer runway. This bill sensibly removes that duplicated step. The bill also deals with protective orders, closed court orders, equitable sharing arrangements and service of documents including electronic surveillance. These amendments are designed to make the system work more effectively. I also want to say something about legitimate businesses. There are businesses in our community that follow the law. They pay tax. They meet their obligations. They deal with the inspections, compliance costs, licensing requirements, employment obligations, insurance, rent, wages and all the other realities of running a business. They should not be expected to compete with operators selling illegal products at unlawful prices. That is not competition. It is cheating. The same principle applies in workplaces, procurement, taxation and small business. Rules only work if they are enforced with enough seriousness that compliance is not treated as a mug's game. This bill is part of restoring that seriousness. I also acknowledge that scrutiny committees have raised issues about increased penalties, privacy impacts and search warrant powers. Those questions should be taken seriously. A parliament should not expand coercive powers without asking hard questions. Enforcement powers must be justified. Safeguards must be real. Warrants must not become rubberstamps. Privacy should not be treated as a decorative extra, nor should we pretend the current position is acceptable. It is not acceptable for legitimate businesses trying to compete with illegal operators. It is not acceptable for communities dealing with intimidation and criminal activity. It is not acceptable for parents to worry about illegal vapes being sold to kids. And it is not acceptable to the public health system that it bears the cost of tobacco related illness. Doing nothing has consequences, too, and those consequences are already visible. In Moore, I often speak about the basic expectation that government should deal with the problems people can see in front of them, and this is one of those problems. People do not need a 40-page explainer to know something is wrong when the illegal tobacco shops are operating openly in our streets. They do not need a lecture about customs law to know that the law should already apply in practice, not just on paper. They want the law enforced. They want the illegal profits pursued through proper legal processes. They want young people to be protected. They want legitimate businesses treated fairly. And they want the rules to apply consistently. This bill will not solve the whole problem by itself, and no serious person would claim that. We still need the cooperation of the states and territories. We still need broader enforcement. We still need local policing. We still need public health work. We still need action on illegal vapes. We still need to keep the pressure on financial networks to allow illicit profits to move around the economy. But this bill is a necessary step. It increases the penalties, improves investigative powers, strengthens the proceeds-of-crime laws, supports a more joined-up Commonwealth response and sends a clear message that the Commonwealth is not only concerned with packets being sold at the counter but is also concerned with the networks, the money and the structures behind the illicit trade, and that is the right approach. People in Moore are entitled to expect better, and I commend the bill to the House. 13:25 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I go back to my time—many, many years ago—at the organised crime squad in Victoria Police. Back in 2000, you'll find, organised crime realised there was money to be made in tobacco. At the time we didn't have very strong Commonwealth laws or state laws, and they were pretty much evading tax. There was a huge investigation by the tactical investigation unit. Subsequently, the power of legislation wasn't there, and they lost the court case. I entered parliament in 2004 and was on the committee for law enforcement. We went down with the customs officers—they were showing us how much tobacco was being seized—and my question was: how do you go with prosecutions? They said: 'We don't. It's too dangerous for the customs officers.' This shows, going back in time, how bad the problem was. Over the years, it has just got worse. I took over the role of assistant minister in the Morrison government. One of the responsibilities I had was to look at tobacco, and a request came through from the Australian Border Force. They needed certificates to have a magistrate basically declare that an item seized was tobacco. For, initially, three months they had to store the tobacco there. We changed that so it could be immediately destroyed. Once I went down there and visited the customs office where there was a mail house for items coming in from around the world. It was incredible to see how many cigarettes were being seized at that time. And then you look at shipments. In Australia, organised crime just need one shipment out of 70 to get through—it could be a bathtub full of cigarettes—and they've made their profits. I've been exceptionally disappointed with Victorian Labor governments. We had a police ministers conference where I actually raised it with the Attorney-General and the chief commissioner at the time, to say we really needed to do something about tobacco and organised crime. Sadly, the response at the time was, 'It's not an issue, so we don't need to worry about it.' Obviously, we've now seen all the firebombings and everything since. When it comes to law enforcement, the easiest way to do this—this is something I've been pushing for; I made speeches on it when in government—is for the states to have a penalty notice regime. The Commonwealth powers—the legislation changes and the stronger penalties—are fantastic, but the state and territory police are not going to use them. Even the surveillance powers and search warrants—again, the Australian Border Force can't use these powers. I say to the government: you need to give the Australian Border Force the surveillance powers, the telephone intercept powers, because they have to call on the Australian Federal Police when they're with these operations, with the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce. If members are seconded there and the ones who aren't have another operation—it could be a paedophile ring or major drug trafficking—that's always going to get priority. We need the Australian Border Force to get that priority. To come back to the point I was making before, the state police need to be given something similar to a penalty notice, where they can issue fines. It could be, initially, $10,000 or $100,000—and it goes to a million dollars. At the moment in Victoria, under state Labor, there are only 14 of these so-called tobacco licensing inspectors for 10,000 venues. It's absolutely ridiculous—only 14! They've seized a half a tonne or something of cigarettes. It is a complete failure. I'm especially blaming the state Labor government of Victoria. If they had got on this years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation. When it comes to tariffs, I do agree with colleagues. Reducing them does make a difference. When it comes to the excise— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Victoria Pass 42 13:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Our local businesses are going broke because of the indefinite closure of the Great Western Highway at Victoria Pass. There was not one dollar of support for them in the budget. This is as appalling and heartless as it is disgraceful. Successive governments always knew that this 200-year-old bridge built by convicts was going to fail, but they did nothing about it except watch it crumble and continually kick the can down the road to save money. It seems that, for some people in power, this is just a political game that's out of sight and out of mind. But the livelihoods of our business owners and their families is not a game. What's it going to take? How many businesses need to bleed out and die before governments take action? How many lives need to be destroyed? How many people need to be out of work? How many families need to be unable to put food on the table? Tell us how many it will take. What is so wrong with political parties and governments today that you can't even help the very people whose lives and livelihoods you're wrecking through your negligence? If this debacle were unfolding in one of your precious city seats, the state and federal governments would have support in place in a heartbeat. Your cruel indifference and inaction damns you, and we have had enough. Sri Lankan Tamils 42 13:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Yesterday, I attended a photographic exhibition here in Parliament House displaying the oppression, persecution and systematic acts of violence against Eelam Tamils in Sri Lanka. The photos on display, which are only a sample of the many more held by the Australian Tamil Refugee Council, showed horrific examples of the killings, brutality, suffering and misery of Tamil people. The Eelam Tamils claim that the ongoing enforced disappearances, land dispossession, militarisation and cultural destruction of the people and their lands is the continuation of a genocidal process that commenced decades ago and that did not end in 2009 when the civil war ended. The Sri Lankan government and military deny those claims. However, the photos are real and so is the human suffering. Furthermore, several international inquiries have validated claims of killings, rape, torture, brutality and other human rights violations. I have also met with Tamils in my local community who are fearful for the wellbeing of family members and associates they have left behind in Sri Lanka. I urge the Australian government, in conjunction with like-minded countries, to use whatever influence it has to bring peace, security and justice to all Sri Lankan people. Veterans 43 13:33 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert For all of Labor's out-of-control spending, they somehow manage to find a way to cut services to veterans, and they think that's okay. A $5,000 cap on allied health services is what this government is bringing in. I've heard from veterans, but I've also heard from staff at the Department of Veterans' Affairs who have told me they're deeply concerned about the recent budget decision to cap allied health support to $5,000. From what I see on the ground, this change will have serious and unintended consequences for many veterans. For veterans with complex and chronic service related conditions, allied health is not optional or short term. With the government's view of cutting services and saying that this is all that veterans can get—if you need psychosocial support, if you need physio or if you need OT, what happens? What happens when you run out of your $5,000 cap? This government is failing our veteran community, and we've seen that again with the defunding of Invictus Australia. Invictus Australia has more than 10,000 participants. They travel. They use sport as a method of recovery. They bring veterans together. And this government has decided: 'No. That's no good. We're going to scrap it.' The Invictus Games have saved lives—saved lives. This is shameful. If you want to pick a fight, we will have it. Wattle Park Amateurs Football Club, Breast Cancer 43 13:35 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I want to recognise the extraordinary efforts of the Wattle Park football club and the community behind this year's Wattle Park 'pink day' in support of breast cancer research. Breast cancer is a far-reaching disease that does not discriminate, and it has touched many of us in one way or another. From May 2016, following the passing of Cathy Davis in 2015 after her courageous battle with breast cancer, for the past 11 years the club has hosted its annual ladies luncheon and fundraising day, an event built on compassion, resilience and community spirit. Cathy was the much-loved wife of former club president Glen Davis, and the mother of Harry, Sam and Michael Davis—all deeply connected to the club. What began as a tribute to Cathy has become a powerful community movement supporting families facing breast cancer. Through countless fundraising efforts, the club has now raised more than $240,000. Two weeks ago alone, an outstanding $30,000 was raised. And no Wattle Park pink day would be complete without Fairlie's famous yo-yo biscuits. This year, Fairlie made 1,075 bags—more than 19,000 biscuits—all sold to help support this important cause. The day reflected the very best of our community, and I congratulate everybody involved for a terrific day. Budget 43 13:36 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Every budget, there are winners and losers. This year, gas companies are the big winners. Instead of ensuring Australians receive a fair return on our oil and gas, revenue from our oil and gas will actually fall. Imagine the nice things we could have if our government had the courage to make oil and gas corporations pay their fair share of tax. We could expand the PBS to fund more life-saving medications. We could eliminate out-of-pocket costs for seeing GPs. We could make it easier to see medical specialists in public hospitals. And we could make dental more affordable. We could provide universal child care. We could improve aged-care services, without cutting private insurance rebates. We could fully fund foundational supports and Thriving Kids, so that the 160,000 Australians who are about to get kicked off the NDIS would have somewhere to go. We could dismantle Job-ready Graduates. We could expand paid prac placements. And we could support our universities better. We could fix HECS, so that Australians aren't paying more in HECS indexation than we are receiving from the PRRT. The choices that governments make reflect their priorities. In this budget, the Albanese government has prioritised oil and gas multinationals over Australians. And they're not going to forget it. Budget 44 13:38 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong On Tuesday night, the Treasurer handed down a budget aimed squarely at tackling intergenerational inequality. We have listened to the young people, and to people right across my electorate, and heard how they felt the system was rigged against them and the status quo was just not working. Unlike those opposite, who'd rather punch down on migrant communities and lay the blame at their feet, this government is getting on with the job of getting people into their own home. Already, our Labor government has built more than a thousand homes in my electorate alone, which is three times the number that the coalition built across the entire country in the decade that they were in power. So I think it's a bit rich for those opposite to purposely mislead and play cheap politics around our ambitious housing agenda. Not only are we changing the tax system to level the playing field, to get more people into their own home; we're investing in the infrastructure needed to help deliver more than 65,000 new homes. So I ask: how are Australians meant to take those opposite seriously on housing supply, when they couldn't even build more than 400 homes in a decade? The message to my community is clear: this government is committed to tackling our housing crisis. We are following the path of reform, rather than the path of least resistance. Budget 44 13:39 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Tonight, the Leader of the Opposition will use his budget reply to lay out a plan to restore Australia's standard of living and protect our way of life. It'll be a direct contrast to Labor's budget of broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes for Australians. A number of my constituents have raised concerns about Labor's budget, including Somya from Beecroft, who has concerns about the capital gains tax changes. She wrote: What troubles me most is the impact on my parents. My parents are first-generation migrants who came to Australia with very little and built their lives entirely through hard work. They raised two children while working full-time jobs, sacrificed continuously, and slowly built a modest investment portfolio over many years as a foundation for their retirement. They are not wealthy by any measure. They're people who did exactly what this country asked them: work hard, save, invest, plan ahead. Now, as they approach retirement and are putting my younger sibling through medical school, these reforms threaten to fundamentally disrupt their financial plans. The reality of these reforms are that they penalise long-term investors, many of whom are ordinary families and working people. Somya's parents have tried to do the right thing, and we should back them. But this story is a reminder that Labor stands for high tax, more debt and fewer houses. We want Australians to not just work hard for their money but make their money work hard for them. Tonight, you will hear that we stand for something different than Labor's class-war budget. Menzies Electorate: Sport 44 13:41 Mr NG 316052 Menzies April was a busy month of community sport in my community of Menzies, as many local clubs settled into the routine of the winter season. In the rain, hail and shine, I was pleased to get to visit so many teams who are making a strong start to the season. Thanks to Bulleen Templestowe Football Club Bullants for having me at your first home game of the season and putting in an impressive win against Croydon North. A special shout-out to the volunteers who are the driving force of this very successful club, especially Greg, Andrew, Chris and Dave. It was special to be part of the launch of the Melbourne Loong Football Club's Auskick centre and 2026 season. The club's Auskick program is focused on improving multicultural and Chinese participation in our great national game and ensuring young kids across Whitehorse and Manningham get a chance to try their hand at AFL. Congratulations to Annisa, Aaron and Kiara on another successful season launch. I was lucky enough to get down to the training with the under-eights at Warrandyte Junior Football Club last month, who are taking on season 2026 with so much energy and enthusiasm. I particularly want to wish the under-eights red team—who I'm sponsoring this year—well for the coming season. I can't wait to get to a game later in the season and see how your skills have improved. Thanks to Duncan and the team at Warrandyte Junior Football Club for having us. Budget 44 13:42 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell It's a strange day when the government has a budget that has losers and losers, not winners and losers. Given that they marketed that there would be an intergenerational win for one generation and a loss for another, even stranger are the outcomes that the government has managed to produce with this high-taxing budget. Not only does this government claw $70 billion more, it forecasts that housing will go down. The number of houses will go down. It forecasts that rents will go up. These are the government's own forecasts. Not only is it a war on the older generations who have accumulated wealth and put their capital aside to look after their retirements and look after themselves, and people who are earning their way in Australia; but they've also simultaneously made it harder for a young person to get ahead. They have lifted up the ladder of opportunities. Negative gearing is scaled back. Capital gains tax now applies even to the savings account of young people for first homes—the money that they are trying to make work for them to save a deposit to buy a house. This is a war on aspiration. This is a war on all generations and on the movement of capital to generate some wealth for individuals. Why is this so? Because this is a Labor government, and a Labor government has one founding principle: your money is their money; what belongs to you belongs to them. When the government collects $70 billion more dollars, this is not a time to cheer. And, when they give you 250 bucks back, you should realise the government is taking more of your money. Royal Flying Doctor Service 45 13:44 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt Between 14 and 17 May each year, Royal Flying Doctor Service Day is celebrated around Australia in the different states and territories. This Saturday night is the RFDS annual black tie gala dinner in Adelaide, which aims to raise funds and increase awareness of this vital service. The RFDS was founded by John Flynn, and this Sunday marks 98 years since the first flying doctor flight took off from Cloncurry, flying 85 miles to Julia Creek in Central Queensland. The aircraft was a de Havilland DH.50 called Victory which was supplied by Qantas. In its first year of operation, the Flying Doctor flew 20,000 miles across 50 flights, becoming the first comprehensive air ambulance service in the entire world. The organisation now uses expertly fitted out Pilatus PC-12 and PC-24 aircraft, as well as the Beechcraft King Air 200 series and Cessna Caravan. Each day, these aircraft travel thousands of kilometres by air across this great country, performing hundreds of landings, facilitating hundreds of patient contacts and hundreds of aeromedical retrievals. For almost 100 years, the RFDS has been there, time and time again, for regional, rural and remote communities of Australia, providing emergency retrievals and primary health care. Let's keep the Royal Flying Doctor Service flying. Budget 45 13:45 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I want to talk about this week's budget. I want to talk about a couple of measures in it that I think are going to be really damaging to our prosperity as a nation. But I really want to remind those opposite that this budget was built on misleading the Australian public. We know that just a year ago the Prime Minister was asked over 50 times—it's well documented—whether he would change the policies of his government in relation to capital gains tax, in relation to negative gearing and in relation to trusts, and over 50 times he said no, he wouldn't. It's exactly that type of behaviour and that type of language and then immediately doing in his first budget exactly the opposite to what he said he would that brings great shame upon himself and great shame upon the government that everyone over there represents, because it is a real mistrust you now have with the Australian public. The first one I want to talk about is the capital gains tax. We now have one of the highest capital gains taxes in the world. We won't notice it this week. We won't notice it necessarily this year. But this is going to change the behaviour of Australians in the sense of taking a risk. As someone said to me yesterday, Labor wants you to take the risk, and they'll take the reward. That is how this is going to filter through. People will not, because of the taxes, be prepared to take the risk that they once would when they're building businesses, they're building asset values et cetera. I have so much more to say, but anyway I'll sit down. Budget 45 13:47 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner This budget delivers for Queensland and for my community of Bonner. It delivers cost-of-living relief, stronger health care, more housing and a more resilient economy for the future. Queensland will receive $42.3 billion in Commonwealth funding. This budget is taking real pressure off Queenslanders with tax cuts for working Australians, including a new $1,000 instant tax deduction and a $250 working Australians tax offset. That means more money back in people's pockets when they need it most. This budget is also focused on boosting housing supply—$2 billion through the new Local Infrastructure Fund to help deliver the roads, water and essential infrastructure needed to unlock more homes. For Queensland, that means access to more than $395 million in funding. When it comes to health care, we are investing $1.8 billion to make Medicare urgent care clinics permanent, providing certainty for Queensland's network of 25 clinics, including the two clinics that service my community in Bonner, with over 8,000 people already seen. Bulk-billing is increasing, with 663 fully bulk-billed practices in Queensland, and the number in Bonner has doubled. This is a budget focused on helping Queenslanders now while building a stronger future for our state. Budget 46 13:48 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook This budget declares the intergenerational war over. It was a massacre, and the boomers won. This is the highest-taxing budget in Australia's history. The next generation will be the poorest ever in Australian history. Why? Because of the bracket creep tax. Young people now pay a higher share of income than I did. Because of Labor, young people pay a higher capital tax than I ever did. And, because of Labor, young people will be subsidising me negatively gearing my properties. That is what this Labor government has done. They have ripped the ladders of opportunity away from young people and entrenched it in the older generation, and they have had the temerity to gaslight younger people and say, 'This is going to solve intergenerational inequity.' If this is such a good idea, Australians should ask themselves this question: Why, just 12 months ago, did the Labor government need to lie about it? Why did they stand up in front of an election, look the Australian people in the eye and lie about changing capital or negative gearing? It will rip hope and opportunity away from young people and entrench it in older generations. We are for providing those ladders of opportunity to young people, the same ladders their parents had. Budget 46 13:49 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt At a time when household budgets are stretched and families are feeling the pressure, this Labor budget is focused on what matters the most: easing cost-of-living pressures now while building a fairer future for the next generation. For the people of Holt, that matters. This budget delivers more tax relief for workers, including a new $1,000 instant tax deduction and a $250 working Australians tax offset, helping people keep more of what they earn. It delivers $2.9 billion in immediate petrol price relief, while also strengthening Australia's fuel security and supply chains. It supports housing reform by levelling the playing field and giving first home buyers a fairer chance at achieving the great Australian dream of homeownership. It backs small businesses with permanent tax relief, including the $20,000 instant asset write-off and a permanent two-year-loss carry back. And it strengthens Medicare, making urgent care clinics permanent, making medicines cheaper and delivering record investment in public hospitals. This is the budget that understands the pressure people are under. It backs workers and small businesses. It supports families. It strengthens Medicare. It helps first home buyers, and, most importantly, it delivers practical— (Time expired) Budget 46 13:51 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden The members opposite have got more spin than a carousel at the Ekka, quite frankly. What this budget actually did was crystallise Labor lies, higher taxes, lower living standards and fewer homes. This budget cements this Labor government as the highest taxing government this nation has ever seen, and the big play was apparently housing. But guess what? Labor's own budget papers reveal, on page 158, that actually their new taxes will lead to—you guessed it!—fewer homes being built. The one thing they didn't mention in the budget speech on Tuesday night was migration. Out-of-control migration has absolutely contributed to this housing crisis. In fact, under this Labor government, we've seen 1.4 million people come into this country. Quite frankly, housing supply just can't keep up. You cannot fix the housing crisis without addressing the population pressures that have been imposed by this Labor government. They ruled out changing capital gains tax. They ruled out changing negative gearing. And they broke those promises, those solemn promises, to the Australian people. This mob's got form now. They've never seen a tax that they don't like, so we ask: what tax is coming next from this Albanese Labor government? Budget 46 13:53 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith More than 20 years ago I bought my first home: a run down flat in Cannon Hill. I was 21. I was living out of home, working multiple jobs and saving half my pay cheque. Within two years, I had a small deposit, and with it I bought a home of my own. For young people today, including my niece. who's up in the gallery, that same pathway is out of reach, and that is not fair. I hear it from young people trying to get a foothold, from parents worried about their children's future and from grandparents who want the next generation to have the same chances that they had. That's why our budget invests a further $2 billion in infrastructure and continues our five per cent deposit scheme, which has already helped more than 1,215 people in my community of Griffith buy their first home. And we're building an additional 100,000 homes reserved just for first home buyers. We will limit negative gearing to new builds, reform capital gains tax arrangements and extend the ban on foreign investors buying existing homes. This budget delivers a historic package of reforms that will help rebalance the system. Young people today deserve the chance to buy their own place. It is clear the status quo on housing isn't working. Australians are facing a housing system that is stacked against them, so we are changing it. This is what real action on housing looks like, not like what we've seen from those opposite, who want to blame it on our migrant communities and God knows what else. Housing 47 13:54 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Tuesday night was Labor's fifth budget, and they aren't getting any better. It was a budget that treated the Australian people like mugs. They came in and said, 'We want to change negative gearing, and we want to change capital gains tax, because young people can't get into housing.' Well, where were they three years ago? Where were they 12 months ago—before the election—in being honest with the Australian people? Have they only just realised that young people can't get into the housing market? They've only just realised that in the last couple of months? I think the Australian people see them as the mugs and as trying to pull one over them. The reality is you do not need to tax housing. If you tax housing, you get less of it. In fact, their own budget papers say they're going to reduce housing by 35,000 homes because of this measure alone. What you need to do is use some common sense. What this crowd is going to do is bring in two million people over the two terms of their government. What they could do is reduce migration to reduce demand. That would actually help the supply and buy time for states and local governments to actually build some homes. That wouldn't cost a cent. That just shows that this budget was all about ideology. It's all about having this class warfare—about the haves and have-nots. It wasn't about common sense, and their own budget papers show that every Australian is going to be worse off. The standard of living of every Australian is going to continue to diminish. It's going to diminish to a standard below 2011. This is a treasurer that has looked over this for the last four years and brought Australia to its knees. Women's Budget Statement 47 13:56 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton I stand here today on the backs of Aussie women who have worked hard for the rights and opportunities that I and all Australian women are afforded today. I stand here alongside a majority female caucus—the largest female representation in any government in Australian history—led by Australia's first gender-equal cabinet. We are a government who wants to give women choice and opportunity, safety and security and financial independence. It's not something we just talk about. It's something we act on, and our federal budget is testament to that. I represent a young community in Melbourne's western suburbs, with more than 50,000 working families that have chosen our community to build their futures in the outer west. Making real change for working families in the outer suburbs means investing in Aussie women, with cheaper child care, expanded paid parental leave, more contraceptives and menopause treatment on the PBS and an instant $1,000 tax deduction, where women are expected to make up 54 per cent of the beneficiaries. But that's not all we're doing, with the opening of endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, including the one in Werribee and the opening of urgent care clinics, including in Melton and Sunshine, and making these permanent. These are initiatives Aussie women get when you elect a Labor government who understands the needs of an Australian community. Budget 47 13:57 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Tuesday's Labor budget is a failure and a breach of trust on so many levels. There are two questions about the big changes—negative gearing and capital gains tax. Question 1: is it the right policy change? Question 2: is this the right way to make such significant changes? Question 2 first—John Howard decided Australia needed a goods and services tax. He had the courage and decency to take this policy to the election. In 2019, Bill Shorten wanted to make changes to CGT and negative gearing. He had the courage and decency to take it to an election. Courage and decency are in short supply in this Albanese government. In many interviews, they say, 'We are being upfront,' but the time to be upfront is before people cast their ballot. They say, 'Our thinking has evolved, so we changed.' I call nonsense on that. They always wanted it. They just didn't have the courage and decency to put it to the Australian people. Was it the right policy change? No, it's higher taxes dressed up as intergenerational fairness. It won't make it easier for young people to buy their first home. Their own documents say fewer homes will be built. Labor's spending spree threatens to keep inflation high and interest rates rising, and young people's deposit savings are now being taxed more. That is the real barrier to young people getting into the housing market. Member for Goldstein 48 13:59 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara ():  Senator Hanson from the other place thought that she had found a goldmine from Goldstein when she heard his interview on the ABC. When asked whether or not he would form a coalition with One Nation, the member for Goldstein said: We traditionally form a coalition with the Nationals— traditionally? A bit of cold feet!— but it's up to the Australian people—who they want to vote for. Sounds like they're really interested. Sounds like dipping the toes in the water! But, sadly, the goldmine from Goldstein for Pauline Hanson got told, 'Change your tune,' and had to walk that back. It's not the first time the member for Goldstein has changed his tune. Tonight we're going to hear the dog whistle from those opposite. We're going to see the finger pointing. We're going to hear the 'blame the migrants' story. But, if you go back far enough, the member for Goldstein said something very different. In 2017, the member for Goldstein said, 'Australia's postwar immigration program has been a phenomenal success.' Well, the member for Goldstein, just as with his interview on Insiders, has had to walk that back. The member for Goldstein also said: … the tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead, it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead … In short: if you work hard to get ahead, you get hit hard; if you live off assets, you don't. He's changed his tune. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the House to come to order. We'll be dealing with a condolence. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 48 CONDOLENCES Morris, Hon. Peter Frederick, OAM 48 Report from Federation Chamber 48 14:01 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 48 14:01 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor lied to Australians about its plans for new taxes. Will the Prime Minister rule out changing his mind about taxing the family home? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! We have asked the question. The Prime Minister hasn't begun answering. There'll be no interjections. 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question about tax policy. The truth is that, if the coalition had won the last election and the Leader of the Opposition had been the one delivering the budget on Tuesday night, we know that it would have contained a tax increase for every single Australian taxpayer—all 14 million of them. What I can say is that we are the party that went to an election with lower taxes—lower taxes for all 14 million Australians. On top of that, of course, they went to an election saying that they'd have higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sectors by getting rid of production tax credits. They said there'd be higher taxes on motorists by abolishing the EV concession. They said there'd be higher student debts for more than three million Australians, because they opposed the 20 per cent cut that we put in place, and higher power bills, because they said they'd abolish the home batteries program. They said there'd be more expensive training courses because they'd abolish free TAFE, because they believe, if it wasn't free, it wasn't worth having. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition on the point of order? Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance, Mr Speaker: it's not surprising he doesn't want to talk about his own policies and promises, but he should talk about those. The question did not mention alternative approaches. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! If everyone can just cease interjecting, I'll be able to—the Leader of the Opposition went further than the point of order. That's what I was dealing with with the Manager of Opposition Business yesterday—simply raising the point of order and then adding things in. That makes the chair's job a very difficult point. But—out of respect for the leader—he did that. So that went further than the point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about his position on tax, and he's giving information to the House, but I will make sure the Prime Minister is being directly relevant. He wasn't asked about alternative approaches, but he can do some compare and contrast. That can't be the majority of his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about tax policy, and I'm also asked about what we can rule out. I'm ruling out all of the things that this bloke, when shadow treasurer, went to an election on. They also said, of course, when it comes to housing policy, they'd abolish build to rent, they said they'd abolish Help to Buy, and they said they'd abolish the Housing Australia Future Fund. Despite all of this, what they managed to do was have a higher deficit that and add to government debt. The truth is they have no credibility on tax, on the cost of living, on the budget or on the economy, and tonight— The SPEAKER 53517 The manager, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 The Prime Minister is now defying your ruling, because you said he needed to compare and contrast. There is no compare or contrast. He can't— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for McEwen is warned. The Prime Minister has got 24 seconds remaining. He'll be directly relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I wasn't actually asked about anything that's in our budget—nothing at all. That's the point. This is the Thursday after our budget. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Casey has had a good go. He's now warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 They asked about something that isn't in our budget rather than anything that is. Budget 49 14:06 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget give more Australians a fair crack at buying their first home? Why are those measures important? 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Dunkley for her question. Indeed, there are some $2 billion in the budget to speed up approvals and to build connecting infrastructure like roads and sewerage. In addition to that, we have half a billion dollars, which is about speeding up approvals, something that those opposite oppose. That takes the total investment in our Homes for Australia Plan to $47 billion. In the last four years—when we came to office, those opposite having not had a housing minister for most of their time in office, we wanted to throw everything at supply because we know that's the key. So we have free TAFE and $10,000 payments for construction apprenticeships. We have 100,000 new homes being set aside for first home buyers. We have new social and affordable homes through our Housing Australia Future Fund, which was blocked for a number of years by those opposite and their partners in the Senate. We have new incentives for states and territories to unlock land for development. The truth is that we are making progress. We have now had more than 240,000 people buy their first home with just a five per cent deposit, and thousands more are participating through Help to Buy. Yet there are still too many Australians who are missing out because the tax system is working against them and has been for a long period of time. Aspiring first home buyers are being locked out of the market because it favours property investors. After years of inaction, those distortions have become entrenched. What we know is that since 1999, since these changes were made, house prices have increased by 400 per cent, more than two times as fast as average incomes. What that means is that younger generations are being locked out. So, after months and years throwing everything at this, we have a situation where young people—so many of them—are close to giving up altogether. We can listen to those stories, take it all in and say, 'I wish I could help you, but I'm only the Prime Minister'—we're not going to do that—or we can take action and take responsibility, which is what we're doing. We're making real change that makes a real difference, even if that does carry a political risk. That is the choice we made in our budget. It's the right choice, the right decision, made for the right reasons in the interests of this younger generation and the generations to come. Taxation 50 14:10 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor lied to Australians about plans— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to deal with this issue. I'm not comfortable with that term. I refer to a Speaker's ruling on 18 February 2002 with the reference of parties lying. I raised this yesterday. If we're going to have this term being used—Deputy Speaker Causley informed the member he cannot refer to either political parties or individuals as being liars. I just want you to be careful with that language. The manager? Mr Tehan 210911 Speaker, this is what you said yesterday: Order! I just want to deal with the word 'lie'. We just want to make sure that it is not directed to a person. Former speakers have directed it to parties and governments. I'm just going to be careful with that word today to make sure it's not directed to an individual. That wasn't directed to an individual; that was directed to the collective. The SPEAKER 53517 Now I've done further research because you raised it with me. Mr Tehan 210911 Speaker, just to your— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That word is being yelled out continuously during the debates, and I haven't called it out yet. I'm just saying I don't want that term used. Following on from the research that I've done regarding referring to political parties, I'm just going to ask for that to be tempered. If there's another way that you can rephrase your question, it would assist the House. It is not helpful for that term to be used. I'm sure the member for Goldstein is understanding what I'm saying. I'm just not happy with that term being used at all in the chamber. Members on my left have been yelling that term out non-stop. It's not everyone, but they have been doing it during the debate, and I'm not happy with it. It is about context and it is about the circumstance. I'm just asking everyone in the House to not use that term. The manager? Mr Tehan 210911 Can I ask you to have a look at Practice on this. A government member interjecting— Mr Tehan 210911 Can I make my point without being interrupted. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 He's entitled to make the point. Mr Tehan 210911 I'd just like to make two points on this please, Speaker. The first is that you referred to Deputy Speaker Causley. If you look at Speakers, you'll see Speakers have allowed this collective approach. I think it's really important that, in this parliament, we don't get pressure from certain people which then causes changes. I think this is really important. The second thing is it's actually true. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 We'll handle this. We'll deal with it. I want the member for Goldstein to ask his question. The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Just to the point of order that's been raised—there are two different ways words can be ruled out. They can be ruled out on the basis that they're personal reflections. I think that was the ruling you gave on Tuesday as to whether or not that turn of phrase would be a personal reflection. It would not be. There's a second concept of unparliamentary terms. The Causley ruling says that that is what this is. The SPEAKER 53517 On page 178, Practice does give discretionary powers regarding question time. I'm exercising those powers. I'm just going to ask the House not to use that term. I think it's in the best interest for both sides not to be referring to any individuals, people or parties using that term. I think it's a dangerous precedent and I think it's a dangerous area. The member for Goldstein is going to ask his question and not use that word. That will assist the House. Mr TIM WILSON IMW My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor misled, deceived and 'untruthed' Australians about plans to tax them more. Will the Prime Minister rule out changing his mind about introducing a death tax? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The member for Aston will leave the chamber under 94a! It's highly disorderly to interject in that manner. The member for Aston then left the chamber. 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is rather extraordinary that, just 48 hours after the budget was handed down, you have a coalition and opposition, on the day of the budget reply—the previous opposition leader didn't get to give a budget reply, but the member for Hume will— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland is now warned. Order! Honestly, can members just reset and show some respect. Mr ALBANESE R36 We on this side of the House have confirmed this week that we are the party of homeownership. What we want is for more Australians to have the opportunity to have their own roof—their own first home. That is what we want. But what we've had in here are two questions. The first is about the family home; we want more family homes. They want to lock young people out of homeownership. They have said it themselves, today. 'It's time to be honest,' is what this bloke said. 'The tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead—people who can predominantly live off income from their assets can pay very little tax and get discounts on capital gains from increases in asset values.' That's what the shadow Treasurer had to say, which would have been, I assume, with the full knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition when he chose to appoint him as shadow Treasurer. And yet they come in here having run an election campaign on a platform of higher taxes. When we changed stage 3, they said we should have an election on it. When we introduced tax cuts in our budget last year, they said they would oppose them and repeal them. And now they say they oppose these changes, as well, to assist young people into homeownership, and they pretend that they care about the family home. I'll tell you who will protect the family home for more families, including the families not just of today but of tomorrow: it's the Australian Labor Party, which is why which our caucus is growing and theirs is shrinking. Budget 51 14:18 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Treasurer. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget help people now and strengthen our economy for the future? How does that compare to other approaches? 14:19 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin A big thank you to the member for Chisholm for the question but also for the very substantial contribution that she makes to our team and made to the budget that we handed down on Tuesday night as well. And in the absence of any questions from the opposition about what was actually in the budget on Tuesday night, I'm especially grateful to the member for Chisholm, because this is a responsible budget which is all about resilience and reform. It delivers immediate help, to get people through this global oil shock, and some urgent reform to build an economy that works for more people. In the budget, we're doing five main things. We're responding to the global oil shock: more than halving the fuel excise; reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge; and securing more fuel internationally, through the new facility. We're taking pressure off Australians, with permanent tax cuts, and a thousand-dollar instant deduction; we've got the legislated tax cuts already. We're building more homes. There are higher wages. We're increasing the Medicare levy low-income threshold. We're making our economy more productive: getting compliance costs down by more than $10 billion a year, and lifting the investment of firms, particularly young firms, in R&D. We've got the tax reform for workers and businesses and future generations. It is all about making it easier for more Australians, and particularly younger Australians, to find a toehold in the housing market and in the economy more broadly. Also, we've got sensible and responsible and substantial savings in the budget: $64 billion worth of savings; a budget which is $44.9 billion stronger than in the mid-year update—paying down the debt that we inherited from those opposite. Now, if you look right across our budget, the budget that we handed down on Tuesday night, it's a very substantial plan. It's about getting through a difficult period in the global economy, at the same time as we reform our economy for the future. We've seen enough to know about the sorts of things that the Leader of the Opposition will talk about tonight. And so we already know this: ours is a plan to strengthen the economy; his is a ploy to stave off One Nation. That is the difference between the substantial budget that we handed down on Tuesday night, worked through in a considered and methodical way, and the latest effort from those opposite—this unseemly brawl amongst the three-ring circus of the right-wing parties in this country. We have delivered a serious, substantial plan to strengthen the economy; his will be a ploy to stave off One Nation. I saw that the shadow finance minister was out this morning, and this is what the shadow finance minister said about the budget reply tonight: 'I'm sure you will find out that everything is costed and offset in the usual way.' That's the commitment that the shadow finance minister has made this morning. Let's see if the Leader of the Opposition follows through. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation: Gas Industry 52 14:22 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, you've spoken about how the petroleum resource rent tax is designed to ramp up over time, but it seems like the government revenue the gas industry promises is always around the corner. Since 2000, prices of goods and services have doubled, Australia's nominal GDP has quadrupled, gas industry revenue is over five times higher, and yet the PRRT raises less money than in 2000. Prime Minister, why won't the government accept that this ramp-up is never coming and simply tax our gas exports? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. Can I say, the first point—and the most important one—is that the government at the moment is focused very much on getting fuel here. That is the priority that happens when you have a conflict in the Middle East and where, around the world, there is a massive economic impact on inflation, on access to resources and on access to fuel. And indeed, in many countries in our own region, they're having compulsory public holidays once a week in order just to get by. That is what is occurring in Sri Lanka, in the Philippines and in other countries. When it comes to tax, the gas companies are taxed through a range of ways: through company tax, through the royalties that they pay, as well as through the PRRT. Indeed, in the budget on Tuesday night, contrary to the suggestion in the member's question, PRRT revenue was revised up by $1.6 billion in this budget. That's because the very design of the PRRT, which we reformed in our first term, is designed to ramp up over time, because, when you have tens of billions of dollars of investment made, in order to secure resources that are available to Australians, as well as for export, then, over a period of time, that makes sense. Otherwise, you won't get the investment. What we also have done, of course, is announce the details of our gas reservation plan of 20 per cent of exports in the east coast. That follows on from the Western Australian domestic reservation plan as well. But I make this point about WA domestic reservation: there wouldn't be any gas to reserve were it not for the foreign investment that's occurred. It's as simple as that. That is just a fact. Populism can occur with the far right or the far left. Our government's job is to make sure that appropriate policies are put in place. In this crisis, we are absolutely focused on getting more fuel here, we're engaging with our partners in the region, and we honour, of course, our existing export contracts because that is the way that you engage in international trade. If you don't do that, then it comes back, certainly, to bite you. One of the things that has been very positive is that we have benefited from the relationships that we have built in the region, whether they be with Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, South Korea or Japan—we have benefited from the consistency in which we operate, and that, I think, is absolutely important. We will introduce the domestic gas reservation scheme so more Australian gas stays in Australian homes and businesses. And I note, as well, that gas prices are down, not up, at the moment. (Time expired) Budget 52 14:26 Mr NG 316052 Menzies My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government helping first home buyers get into a home of their own? Why is this so important, and is the minister aware of any alternate approaches? 14:26 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Menzies for his question, and I want to acknowledge the massive leadership he is showing our whole parliament on housing. He's doing a great job in leading our thinking. Australians see a housing system that is stacked against them. Labor wants them to get ahead, and we especially want to see Australians get the chance to own their own home. That's why we've built the most ambitious housing agenda that the Commonwealth has had in 70 years, and it's why we built on that agenda on Tuesday night in our housing budget. This budget, for housing, is about two important things. It's about levelling the playing field for first homebuyers, and it's about building more homes for our country. I was in Tasmania recently with Minister Julie Collins, and I got the chance to meet with a young woman named Jessica. Jessica has a really familiar story. She was renting and she was being pushed out of her home and she was despairing just wondering if she was ever going to get a chance to buy one of her own. She found out about Labor's five per cent deposit scheme and she finally got her chance. She told me that, when she walked into her own home for the first time, she almost cried. Jessica is one of 240,000 Australians that our government has helped into a home of their own, and we want more Australians like Jessica to have this opportunity. The five per cent deposit is all about getting you to auction sooner, and the budget from Tuesday night is making sure that, once you get there, you're fighting on a level playing field. Our reforms will help redirect investment towards new housing supply, and they'll support another 75,000 renting households into their first home. I'm asked about alternatives. It really struck me in the last couple of days of this debate that the only people in this country who think the status quo is working for Australians are those opposite. Every single other person in this country can see that we have got a housing system that is busted for the Australian people. Our government is standing up and doing something about it. Those opposite have previously talked about their love for aspiration. But they also say that they are going to tear down these new supports for Australia's first home buyers. They say they're going to dismantle the five per cent deposit program, and they're going to unwind the reforms that we announced on Tuesday night. I say very clearly to those opposite: if you oppose helping first home buyers, don't pretend to stand for aspiration—you're standing in the path of it. Labor are the party of tax cuts. We are the party of homeownership and we are the party that is delivering on the aspiration of the Australian people. The 93 people behind me—we are damn proud to be doing it. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There was far too much noise from everybody during that conclusion. Taxation 53 14:30 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. To get ahead, the Prime Minister bought a property in his 20s. He claimed the CGT discount. He negatively geared his way to a $4.3 million property in Copacabana. Now, today the Australian reports 20 out of 23 of the Labor cabinet own more than two properties they can continue to negatively gear. Why are younger Australians being denied the very same opportunities the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues continue to benefit from? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! It's a pretty broad question to be asking in that responsibility, but it follows on from yesterday. 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Now, I wonder why the member for Cook, rather than my opposite, asked that question? I wonder why a question about properties or wealth or inheritance or trusts wasn't asked by this bloke? But they get the new kid, the member for Cook, to ask the question. I wonder why that's the case! Yesterday, when a similar question was asked, I said to the Leader of the Opposition—we have had discussions as well about people's families being raised in this place. I had that discussion, as I've had it with other leaders, and he said, 'Oh, well, it wasn't me. He wanted to ask the question.' Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 I'd like the Prime Minister to come to the dispatch box and withdraw what he said about the member just before. The SPEAKER 53517 If the Prime Minister— Mr Pasin 240756 Withdraw it! Withdraw it! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will have to leave the chamber, after that outburst. The member for Barker then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 We will deal with this matter. The manager has raised a point of order. If the Prime Minister has said an unparliamentary term, I'll ask him to assist the House and withdraw. Mr ALBANESE R36 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Prime Minister. Mr Tehan 210911 Speaker, this is really important— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Your question was to the member. You didn't specify who it was. The SPEAKER 53517 Okay, well, I didn't hear what the Prime Minister said, because of the noise. Can I ask everyone—I don't know who everyone's pointing to. Listen, we are going to settle this House. Everybody is going to lift their standards. The Prime Minister was asked to withdraw—he has done so—just as I have done to members on my left and my right. I didn't hear the remark. I don't want the remark repeated. But I remind all members to keep their language— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order!—to make sure that we follow the standing orders. The Prime Minister, in continuation. Mr ALBANESE R36 The premise of the question was completely wrong as well, because what I did was buy a house— A government member: And lived in it. Mr ALBANESE R36 in Marrickville, and lived in it. And what I've done now is: because, as I have publicly declared, I got married last November, Jodie and I—I note that she is removed from the equation—have chosen to buy a home for ourselves, for down the track. That is what has happened—all declared. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! Mr ALBANESE R36 And, for those opposite— Mr Chester IPZ You're taking that chance away from them. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Gippsland is now warned. If he interjects one more time, he won't be here. Mr ALBANESE R36 The house I bought first was in Beauchamp Street, Marrickville—the same house that, it ended up, my former wife and I raised our son in, in Beauchamp Street, Marrickville. I bought that house, and we lived in it and then we sold it. It was our family home. The family home is sacrosanct to me and to everyone else. And that's why we want more people to own a family home—that is what we want people to do. And it is absolutely extraordinary, and it shows their failure to actually have any legitimate criticism of our policy, that they chose to go down this road. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 When the House comes to order, we'll hear from the honourable member for Calwell. Energy 54 14:36 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How does this week's budget strengthen Australia's fuel security and protect families from global energy shocks? What policies would leave Australians more exposed? 14:37 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question, and for the work he does in representing the people of suburban Melbourne in this House and doing it so well. Of course, this budget builds Australia's sovereignty, when it comes to energy, by building a sovereign fuel stock, held by the Australian government on behalf of the people, but also by giving Australians support for the choices they want to make to diversify their choice of energy and to make sure they are secured and protected from energy shocks in the future, because Australian households are doing that in great numbers. They know that, if they change their choices, they can protect themselves against shocks in the future. That's why so many Australians are buying electric vehicles. When we came to office, an Australian bought an electric vehicle once every 50 minutes; now it's once every three minutes. Australians are also doing that in their homes when they're taking up batteries. And I'm very pleased that the budget delivered by the Treasurer on Tuesday night continued and locked in that support for Australian households to make the choices they want. I'm pleased to give the House a little update and tell the House that, as of today, 398,123 households have installed a cheaper home battery. I confess I was hoping to hit 400,000 today, but that'll be tomorrow—just a little forward sizzle: 400,000 houses, tomorrow, will have installed a battery. Now, we know there's another thing which all these policies have in common. A sovereign domestic stockholding, owned by the people; support for electric vehicles; support for cheaper home batteries—all were opposed by those opposite. And we'll hear some of that tonight. I hope the Leader of the Opposition has the courage to tell Australians what he'll do with the cheaper home batteries policy, for example. He has said it should be paused. His shadow minister has said it should be frozen. And Senator Hume has said it should be means-tested. So let's see what they actually do. The member for Mallee said, recently, it should be reined in, and said: 'There has been a very low take-up of the home battery scheme in Mallee, while wealthy households in leafy suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne enjoy lower power bills thanks to Albanese Labor government subsidies.' In fact, Mallee has seen take-up of 1,466 home batteries, which is six times Melbourne, because this is take-up in the outer suburbs and regions of Australia. With the member for Mallee being so in command of maths, I reckon she's a real hot candidate for shadow treasurer, because that sort of maths is what this shadow treasurer brings to the table. But this lack of understanding of regional Australia is what all of those opposite share. They don't understand that people in regional Australia want to embrace these opportunities, like the people of Mallee with the cheaper home battery policy. Well, this government will back the people of Mallee and the people of Riverina and all the people who want to take cheaper home batteries while those opposite betray regional Australia and don't stand up for their rights to make the choices they want to make. Negative Gearing 55 14:40 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Prime Minister. The latest data shows around 40,000 nurses, 38,000 teachers and almost 10,000 police officers have negatively geared properties. Why is the Prime Minister— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! I can't hear the question. If people persist, they won't be here to hear the answer either. The member for Mallee will begin her question again. Dr WEBSTER 281688 My question is to the Prime Minister. The latest data shows around 40,000 nurses, 38,000 teachers and almost 10,000 police officers have negatively geared properties. Why is the Prime Minister now pulling up the ladder on our nurses, teachers and police when he's been happy to climb it himself? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bendigo is warned. 14:41 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question, the premise of which, of course, is completely wrong. There are two facts. The first fact is that every one of those police, teachers or fire brigade people, whoever they are, can keep their existing arrangements in place. That's the first. The second is that they can go and buy more and negatively gear it and choose either to have indexation or a 50 per cent discount on capital gains as long as they're new homes. What is the difference between the two? People go out there and invest in investment properties in order to increase their assets and their wealth during their lifetime. Good on them. That contributes to an increase in their wealth and their assets. But, when they invest in a new home rather than an existing home, they are also increasing the assets and the wealth of the country. That is why we are doing it—so that they help not only themselves but the nation and the country, not by having investments hidden behind trusts, not by having investments through the Cayman Islands, but by investing here in properties here. We encourage that and we celebrate that, just like we also celebrate those police officers and nurses being able to own their own home. At the moment, if you are a young nurse or a young police officer, you are going along to an auction before last Tuesday night and competing with an investor who has the bank of taxpayers assisting them in it. So it's not an even system. What we're about is recognising that and doing something about it, as the shadow treasurer said repeatedly we should. Biosecurity: Hantavirus 55 14:44 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Can the minister provide an update on what steps the Albanese government is taking to protect Australians and support passengers affected by the hantavirus outbreak? 14:44 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to the member for Lalor for the question and the opportunity to provide the House with an update on the hantavirus that's connected with the cruise ship MV Hondius. This morning, I received a further briefing from the Australian Centre for Disease Control and the Chief Medical Officer about any developments in relation to this outbreak. Also this morning, the National Coordination Mechanism between our department, the CDC, NEMA and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade met to finalise the repatriation arrangements for the six passengers being repatriated to Australia. That's four Australian citizens, an Australian permanent resident and a New Zealand citizen. The latest World Health Organization advice is that there are 11 people who have contracted the hantavirus, three of whom, tragically, have died. All 11 patients are either passengers or crew from the ship. There is no report of any virus being contracted by anyone who was not on that ship. The advice remains that human-to-human transmission, although it has obviously occurred, is still very rare and requires very close contact with an infected person, but obviously our agencies, including the CDC, are monitoring that advice as it develops from this outbreak. I can advise that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has secured a flight and a crew to repatriate those six passengers, and has also secured all of the necessary approvals and clearances for that flight. That flight will be landing in the Netherlands in a little less than 90 minutes. It will take off from the Netherlands about 90 minutes after that. It will be landing at RAAF Bass Pearce, north-east of Perth, some time tomorrow. As I said, all six passengers are being monitored very closely. They all remain symptom free. They have all just been tested and that test proved negative for hantavirus. There will be very strict conditions for the entire flight, for the landing and for the time they spend in quarantine. Those conditions have been developed by the CDC and have been endorsed recently by the chief health officers of the Australian Health Protection Committee, which is the committee of all of the jurisdictions and chaired by our Chief Medical Officer. All of the passengers and all crew will be in full PPE for the entire duration of the flight, including when they land at Pearce. They will then be transported immediately to the Centre for National Resilience, the quarantine centre at Bullsbrook, which is effectively next door to the RAAF base. Staff from the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre have already been deployed to that centre, ready to receive those passengers. They will be quarantined there for three weeks at least. That is the strongest quarantine response to this outbreak in the world that I can find, because we are determined to do everything to keep Australians safe and healthy. Housing 56 14:47 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne My question is to the Prime Minister. The Labor government have fallen 77,000 homes behind their own housing target. Labor have allowed 1.4 million new migrants to come to our country since they were elected. How many houses have been built for all the new migrants? 14:48 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Indeed, we do have a housing target of 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade, which is why we're absolutely throwing everything at it. It's why we have public housing, that those opposite opposed, through the Housing Australia Future Fund. It's why we have a shared equity scheme, that those opposite opposed, that has helped thousands of people into homes. It's why we also have the five per cent deposit scheme, which has benefited more than 200,000 people get into homes. It's why we have our Build to Rent scheme, which is an incentive for the private sector to build more homes for people, particularly affordable housing for essential workers, that those opposite opposed as well. All of these supply measures have been important, and that is what we want to do. In addition to that we have also built on our previous support for local infrastructure by putting an additional $2 billion into that fund to make sure that more homes can be built through that. And one of the policies that we've had for education is to ensure that if universities wanted additional places for foreign students, they would have to provide housing for them. That was opposed by those opposite. They opposed that legislation, which goes to the very heart of the question that was asked. This side of the House is the party of aspiration. We want people to be able to get into a new home, and that was emphasised by the existing system dampening down aspiration, when the current shadow treasurer said that the current system—to quote him—'favours well-off established interests against those trying to get ahead'. Well, we want people to get ahead. We want people to be able to live with the security of their own roof over their head. That's why, as well, we have changed our position on capital gains and negative gearing to ensure not only that people can invest in housing to get themselves ahead and to increase their assets and their future wealth but that they also help to build supply, because if you have a limited amount of funds— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Bowman is now warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 and you have to invest either in new builds or in existing homes—competing against young people trying to get into a home that they actually want to live in—then you need to level the playing field. That's what we've done. This will also increase supply, which is the key to dealing with housing issues but also having housing opportunities. (Time expired) Migration 57 14:51 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What were the key updates to migration in the Albanese Labor government's budget? Are there any alternatives? 14:51 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for the question and for the extraordinary work she does representing people in South-West Sydney. Tuesday night's budget confirmed that net overseas migration is now 45 per cent lower than it was at its peak, and what's important to remember is that every single migration setting when it hit its peak was one of the migration settings left by the former government—every single one of those. The 45 per cent reduction that has occurred has occurred under changes that have been made by this government. Three key changes are represented in the budget that that was brought down on Tuesday night. First of all, in our permanent intake, 70 per cent of the permanent intake will now be taken by people who are already onshore, dealing with the fact of the increased numbers of people who have been on one temporary visa after another, who employers want but for whom we have not been able to find a permanent place. We're now shifting the permanent program to more of those places being taken by people who are already onshore, rather than offshore, than ever before. The second is to have a ballot system to start to put some limits around the working holiday-maker visa and to put some limits around the backpacker visa—a visa which, I might add, those opposite ruled out making any changes to before the last election. The third thing that we've done that's represented in the reduction of the numbers is to bring down the numbers on international students. Now, international education functions differently to any other industry in Australia. International education is the only industry where you have to be able to find a home for every single customer, and, when we got to those peak levels, under their settings, of net overseas migration, half of that peak was international students. Those opposite might have forgotten that we brought in legislation for government to be able to put limits on international students. Those opposite might have forgotten that, when we did that, we said it was so that we could limit numbers of overseas students to take into account student housing. And what did they do when there was something to limit what was putting the upward pressure on net overseas migration? What did those opposite do for the one piece of legislation that said, 'On the biggest part of net overseas migration, we're going to link it directly to housing'? Those opposite voted no. Those opposite declared they were opposed to it. If they're opposed to doing anything on backpackers and opposed to do anything on students—for family visas, it's already the case that for a parent visa, which you can't apply for until you're 67, it's a 33-year wait—the only thing left that they will attack will be the skills that we need. (Time expired) Private Health Insurance 57 14:54 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Three million older Australians with private health insurance, including over 400,000 age pensioners, feel betrayed by the government for ending the rebate that will see premiums soar by up to $1,600 for a couple. Many older Mayo residents have emailed me and said that they can't cut anything else from their budget—they're left with the choice of cutting food or health insurance. Why is the government treating older Australians so badly? What happened to leaving no-one left behind? 14:55 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for the question. I'm happy to explain the government's rationale for the decisions we put into the budget on Tuesday night and I announced a few weeks ago. I don't accept the figure that the member has used in her question. I've seen the industry put out a figure like that. I can't find any way in which that is going to be real. We've been very clear in the modelling that we have prepared, based on different health insurance products out there, that the average impact of the change that we've announced would be somewhere between $230 and $250 per year, not the figures that are bandied about by the industry. Nonetheless, we have taken this difficult decision in a challenging budget environment for these reasons. We don't think there is a strong policy rationale to pay different Australians different levels of support for their private health insurance membership, when they are on the same income, simply because of age. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher is now warned. Mr BUTLER HWK   If there are two households next to each other on the same income and one household is working age, raising kids and taking out private health insurance, we don't see any rationale for paying them a lower level of support than a household next door that happens to be on the same income but of an older age. This is a difficult decision. But at a time when this government needs to lean heavily into rising demand for aged care—and the member has raised that more than most in this House—we have to find every dollar we can to invest in those aged-care services. Of the $3 billion the member has mentioned from these saves—saves that we think are well supported by policy and well supported by equity—every single dollar will be invested in the minister for aged care's package of more beds, more packages and better care for older Australians. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Forde, the members for Fisher, Casey, Bowman, Gippsland and Bendigo are all on warnings. Defence Industry 58 14:57 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government's record investment in the Australian Defence Force improve defence capability? How does this compare to other approaches? 14:57 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. He is such a fantastic advocate for defence industry within his region. Ghost Bat is the world's leading collaborative combat aircraft, which is being developed by the Air Force and Boeing Australia. Last year, in testing at Woomera, a Ghost Bat successfully fired an air-to-air missile, hitting its target. That gained global attention because it is literally years ahead of any comparable platform which is being developed by our friends and allies. Ghost Shark, which is being developed by the Navy and Anduril, is the world's longest-range large underwater-capable autonomous platform, and there are Ghost Sharks which are in the hands of the Navy right now. Ghost Bat is a $1.4 billion program, and Ghost Shark is a $1.7 billion program. Together, they are part of the $12 billion to $15 billion which we provided to autonomous systems and drones for the Defence Force in the budget on Tuesday night. A decade ago, it was really clear that drones would become increasingly important, yet when the Liberals were in government the most significant step that they took in respect of autonomous platforms was to cut the $1.3 billion SkyGuardian program. They took us backwards, not forwards, because, when they were in government, they definitely did not have their hands on the defence wheel. But how could they have when they cycled six—really seven—different defence ministers through the portfolio in just nine years? And, in the last four years, they've cycled another three. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Herbert is now warned. Mr MARLES HWQ When you churn defence ministers like the Liberals do, you cannot provide strategic direction. We have been able to provide increased spending on drones because, since coming to office, the Albanese government has significantly increased defence spending on four separate occasions, including on Tuesday night, such that there is now $117 billion extra in the defence budget over the next 10 years relative to what we inherited. When the Liberals were in government, they increased defence spending just once. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 Standing order 75, tedious repetition. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager is testing my patience. He's now warned. There's nothing to be funny about. Mr MARLES HWQ They're going to hear it a lot more, because they effectively increased defence spending by just $10 billion. So, in nine years, they did $10 billion; and, in just four years, we've done $117 billion. That's the comparison, which is why it is the Albanese Labor government which is keeping Australians safe. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Lindsay, the member for Herbert was warned during the question. He continued to interject. I didn't want to interrupt the minister. He will now leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Herbert then left the chamber. Budget 58 15:01 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year the Prime Minister said changes to negative gearing would 'push up rents'. Budget papers confirm rents will rise as a result of the government's new housing tax. Why is Labor pushing up rents for all Australians when it promised not to? 15:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. You need to look at the whole housing package that we've put together. Our budget helps with the cost of living. It builds resilience, and it backs aspiration. We're going to help more Australians achieve the dream of owning their own home. We do that, as the person next to the member for Lindsay knew when he wrote his book, by giving young people a crack and by fixing the system. We want people to be able to aspire to a better life for themselves and their families. Importantly, negative gearing will still be available for new builds, so people can invest in themselves and invest in the nation. That's the big difference with the change that we brought in on Tuesday. The change that we brought in will allow negative gearing to still exist, but, because people will invest, if they are looking to invest and use negative gearing in new builds rather than old properties, competing with first home buyers, what it will do is also boost supply, and that is the position that we have. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is now warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 The package makes it very clear in the budget papers that there will be more houses, not less, as a result of the things that are in the budget. That's on top of the measures that we have spent four years implementing, that are now rolling out in spite of those opposite doing everything they could to block the Housing Australia Future Fund, everything they could to block build-to-rent, everything they could to block Help to Buy—everything they could to block all of the measures that we have put in place to help build supply. One of the things that we have done is not just housing, but, of course, when it comes to helping people, which goes to the question, we have the reforms that are in the budget about Medicare and about making sure that cheaper medicines are available and that there's more bulk-billing and record funding for hospitals. Our budget helps people under pressure right now. We've had five separate tranches now of tax reform, of tax relief. We're cutting people's taxes because we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those opposite have never ever in their history put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission saying there should be an increase in real wages. They opposed our tax cuts, and I assume they'll oppose— (Time expired) Budget 59 15:05 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's budget help more Australians into homes and make our tax system fairer? How does this compare to other approaches? 15:05 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The member for Moore is an absolute champion for the working people of the west, and that's what this budget is about; it's a budget for workers. The tax reform package in the budget is all about levelling the playing field and better aligning the tax treatment of workers compared with people who receive their income from other legitimate sources. It's about helping more Australians recognise the dream of homeownership by getting a toehold in the property market. That's what makes it a very aspirational tax reform package. We understand, on this side of the House, there's nothing aspirational about stacking the deck against younger Australians. And that's what the tax system does now in the way that it interacts with the housing market. Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 We understand, even if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't—he's been interjecting about ladders—that not everybody's born at the top of the income ladder. Not everybody inherits their opportunity in this country. We have to make sure that more people who work hard can get ahead in our economy and in our society. There's not much point having a ladder if the first couple of rungs are missing, and that's the situation that those opposite want to defend when they talk about the ladder. Our changes to tax policy have been broadly supported by a lot of people who know what they're talking about. Richard Holden said, 'I think the negative gearing changes are a step in the right direction to level the playing field between owner-occupiers and investors.' Westpac said: 'Measures to boost housing supply and level the playing field are meaningful, particularly on tax settings. This does so in a way that still encourages new construction.' Bob Breunig from the ANU said, 'Australia's most ambitious budget in decades deserves support.' The Grattan Institute said: 'The budget does actually take major strides towards dealing with something that's been in the too-hard basket. It's a budget we've been waiting for for some time.' But perhaps my favourite supporter of the steps that we've taken in the budget is the shadow treasurer. We've heard what he's had to say in his book and in the parliament, and I've got another instalment. This is what he said to the parliament: We need to make sure … that we don't create a system that entrenches privilege and vested interests and a system where people are able to earn more from the income from and the growth of their assets than from their labour. That is one of the most fundamental principles of a truly liberal society. … when you actually entrench interests through law, particularly through a rigged tax system that favours the few at the expense of the many, what you do is turn around to the next generation of Australians and say: 'We will, at your expense, protect those who came before you …' He'd want to be careful. If he keeps this up, he might find himself on the front of the Daily Telegraph with a little hammer and sickle near his face. He's saying a lot of things which we have been saying when it comes to the reform of the tax system. (Time expired) Budget 60 15:09 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Treasurer. Your budget is framed around intergenerational equity, and I congratulate you for seeking to tilt the balance back towards young home buyers. A tax system that overburdens young workers is not only unfair; it is also unsustainable in an ageing population. But to help young Australians build their wealth, we also need to reduce their income tax rates. This budget raises more than $77 billion in extra revenue over the medium term. When will you legislate to return that extra revenue to taxpayers by reducing income tax rates? 15:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I acknowledge the very substantial amount of work and thinking that the member for Wentworth has done when it comes to tax reform, with her participation in the reform roundtable and in other meaningful ways, as well as the very serious input and contributions being made by people on this side of the House. A lot of the tax reforms that we announced on Tuesday night come from people working through these issues in a considered and methodical way, and I acknowledge that that's how the member for Wentworth comes at some of these questions. Her question really goes to, I think, the core of the tax reform package that we announced on Tuesday night, because it is—as she rightly identifies in her question—about better aligning the tax treatment of people who work for a living with the people who get their income from other legitimate sources. That really is one of the main motivations for the tax reforms that we handed down. The member for Wentworth is right to point out that that has two elements. One element is making things easier for people who work for a living. Another is making sure that the tax arrangements for people who earn their income from assets is more sustainable. That those two things are in closer alignment—that's what we've tried to do with this tax reform package. So the CGT changes and the negative gearing changes are part of the story but not the whole story. This is a government which, only being here for four years, has now cut income taxes five times in three different ways. Three income tax cuts have come from higher thresholds and lower rates, and one from instant deduction, which provides a bit more tax relief. The last piece is the working Australians tax offset. What that does is it creates some new architecture to provide tax relief only to working people. It means that, in the future, a government of either political persuasion—to be fair—has a broader range of options when it comes to returning bracket creep, as this government has been doing enthusiastically and regularly. Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 I can hear the ill-informed guffaws from over there. They seem to have forgotten that they went to an election with a policy to increase taxes on every working Australian. They might want to think about that before they interject. On the serious issues that the member for Wentworth raises, of course this is a government that looks to give bracket creep back when it's affordable and responsible to do that. We've done it five different times already in the four years that we've been in office. We'd like to get the opportunity to do that again into the future. I'll come to the medium-term outlook, which was also cited in the honourable member's question. With the big improvement over the medium term in the budget position, by the end of the 10-year period, three times more of a contribution is made by our savings effort than the changes in taxes. But, if and when there's more room to return more bracket creep, of course we'll look to do that. (Time expired) Budget 60 15:12 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget supporting local governments to deliver the roads and community infrastructure Australians rely on? 15:13 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Boothby for her question. As a South Australian, she knows and is aware of the road funding anomaly that has meant that South Australian councils, in particular, have not gotten their fair share of roads funding through the financial assistance grants. For 20 years, there has been a temporary top-up in budgets, and each and every time they've had to come to the Commonwealth to ask for more money. This government is now fixing that permanently, thanks to the advocacy of the member for Boothby. Not only have we delivered an ongoing road funding base for South Australian councils—we've also increased it through indexation. Now councils in South Australia have funding certainty to deliver safer roads and freight routes that their communities need. The budget has, of course, also delivered for councils right the way across the country. We're delivering $3.6 billion in untied funding to local governments through the financial assistance grants, bringing forward $2.9 billion this financial year to help councils with the cost pressures caused by the ongoing Middle East conflict. Through our $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund in Minister O'Neil's portfolio, which is an extension of the existing Housing Support Program, we're supporting councils to unlock much-needed housing development through infrastructure. This fund will be open to local government and state utility companies to build that critical last-mile infrastructure—like water, power and sewerage—needed to support new housing development, building on our previous $1.5 billion program that they copied. Half a billion dollars over the next 10 years will also fund new shared paths, cycleways and other pieces of infrastructure that make it safer and easier for people to walk and cycle. Delivered through the Active Transport Fund, that's $50 million each and every single year, primarily going to local councils. We're delivering an additional $750 million for the Growing Regions and Thriving Suburbs programs: more funding for our local councils and not-for-profits to build the spaces our communities rely on. It's building on the two rounds of Growing Regions and the one round of Thriving Suburbs that we previously had that are building 180 parks, town centres, theatres and sporting facilities right the way across the country—$1.7 billion worth of them overall. And we're continuing our increased investment in local governments, Roads to Recovery, committing $4.4 billion nationally over the current five-year funding period. That's $1.8 billion more going to every local council than over the previous five years. We are, of course, delivering increased funding for our Black Spot Program and also the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program. And let me assure the House that not a single one of those programs that I have announced today and that are in our budget look at the colour of any of the electorates. Unlike what those opposite did with their regional rorts programs, we're funding every single local council fairly. (Time expired) Prime Minister 61 15:16 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor promised not to change housing taxes, yet it misled. Labor promised not to change investment taxes, yet it deceived. Labor promised not to change taxes on farmers and small businesses, yet it bent the truth. The Prime Minister promised his word was his bond. When did the Prime Minister decide that the truth doesn't matter? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. Members on my right! Order! The member for Bendigo is on a warning. 15:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his very broad question. Of course, the member for Hume promised that they'd be better off if they made him leader. He promised that if they made him leader then they would have this wave of success going forward. What happened, of course, was that the member for Farrer, who wasn't even allowed to have a budget reply, was undermined from day one as the first female leader of the Liberal Party. Then he got together with the member for Canning, on the day of the funeral of one of their former colleagues, to plot removing the first female leader of the Liberal Party—and then they wondered why they had a problem with women Of course, what we know is that the member for Hume has said himself that the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Well, this is one of the architects, along with the deputy leader— Mr Taylor 231027 You're going to keep lying. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw. Mr Taylor 231027 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure is now warned as well. When I'm dealing with the matter and asking someone to withdraw, that is highly disrespectful, just as we dealt with the matter before. I thank the Leader of the Opposition. Mr ALBANESE R36 This, together with their new deputy leader, was one of the policy architects of the debacle that was the last election campaign. And that's why you can look at past performance, because they managed to go to an election saying they would oppose and reverse tax cuts, but they still had a higher deficit—higher taxes and higher deficits is what they came up with. Then, with regard to the budget the other night, they've said that this will create fights around the family dinner table. That's where they get aspiration and Australians all wrong, because not only do Australians want to get ahead but they want their children and their future generations to get ahead. An honourable member interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 And this guy interjects! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The manager. Mr Tehan 210911 Standing order 64—would you please show the leader the respect that he deserves. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Tehan 210911 This bloke—that has to stop. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. Unfortunately, we're well down that path of not showing respect today. We just witnessed the leader having to withdraw, so I'm going to ask the Prime Minister to uphold the same standards, to direct his remarks through the Chair and to not reflect on members. Mr ALBANESE R36 I expect the member for Canning will give him what he deserves very soon! It's coming, because they have no policy going forward and they have the hide to interject about division. They are the party that seeks to divide Australians. (Time expired) Housing 62 15:21 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne My question is for the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government building homes for Australians, and how will this week's budget further support housing supply? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I can't hear the member for Melbourne's question. As we've done for both sides, she's going to be given the respect that she deserves. I'd like to hear from the member for Melbourne. She'll begin her question again. Ms WITTY 316660 Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the minister for housing. How is the Albanese Labor government building more homes for Australians, and how will this week's budget further support housing supply? How does this compare to alternative approaches to housing supply? 15:21 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham That is a great question, and I thank the member for Melbourne for asking it. Australia has a housing challenge because for decades our country has not been building enough homes. That is why our Labor government has the boldest and most ambitious agenda on housing that a Commonwealth has had for 70 years: $47 billion, the majority of which is focused on building more homes. We're making real progress. When we came to office, new commencements for housing were falling by 6.7 per cent. Get this: in the last year alone, new housing commencements have gone up 26 per cent. These are really important improvements, though we've got a long way to go. We recognise that there's more work to do here, and that's why we just delivered a housing budget with $2 billion set aside for enabling infrastructure. This is going to unlock 65,000 homes for the country by delivering the pipes, paths and power that communities need to support more homes. This brings our government's total investment in housing infrastructure up to a record $6.3 billion. I want Australians to remember that number: $6.3 billion. It's been dropped to the paper by those opposite that they're coming forward with an overwhelming reform tonight to announce a lesser amount of funding: $5 billion for funding. We're already doing $6.3 billion, and not only that but we will add to that number as I continue to announce state based deals for our 100,000 homes policy. We started this work in our first term and we're building it in our second. With regard to tonight's announcement, whenever I hear a commitment from these sneaky little Liberals and Nationals, I like to look at the record. I like to look at the record of their past behaviour and see whether it stacks up. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're not having those sorts of comments. I ask the minister to withdraw that. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I withdraw, Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask all members to temper their language. Ms O'NEIL 140590 When I'm looking to see the authenticity of those opposite, I like to check on what they did when they were in government. I've talked about a record $6.3 billion in infrastructure investment. I want to see if the parliament can guess how many multiples that is of the money that was spent by those opposite on housing infrastructure in their time in office. Was it twice as much? That would be a lot for us to be spending. Was it three times? Was it 10 times? You're not going to believe this—we are investing 50 times as much money as those opposite did in housing infrastructure. I'm not making that up. It really is quite extraordinary. That's what happens when you can't even be bothered having a housing minister. Labor has a $47 billion plan for the country, and, by God, were we proud to build on that on Tuesday night's housing budget. Renewable Energy 62 15:25 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield My question is to the Treasurer. The budget confirms retrospective changes to the capital gains tax for international investors in clean energy. This may give rise to sovereign risk, given three-quarters of all clean energy investment is international. Offering a discount on sales in the next four years will cause a fire sale of renewable assets and then a chilling of investment after 2030. Why is the government rushing to increase taxes on renewables instead of gas on exports, and what modelling has Treasury done on expected impacts to clean energy investment? 15:25 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin We're not rushing. This is a measure that's actually been in various budgets and updates for a little while now. The purpose of it is to make sure that we are not providing additional tax breaks that are not enjoyed by Australians. When it comes to the transitional arrangements referred to by the honourable member, it's all about recognising that the transitional arrangements are necessary to make sure that we protect some of these investments in clean energy. I know that that's in the interest of the honourable member, as it is in the interests of a lot of people here. The budget that we handed down took further steps to transform our energy system, making it easier to build and easier to invest. We've got the generational reforms to the National Electricity Market. I pay tribute to the energy minister for the work he does with the state colleagues on some of those transformational recommendations in the NEM. We're investing another $500 million to accelerate environmental approvals. That's important too, when it comes to building more clean energy. And we're strengthening the super performance test to make sure that there aren't any unintended barriers to investments in areas, like renewable energy, that can still deliver strong returns for members. When it comes to these tax arrangements for foreign investors, we've been consulting on legislation which is all about ensuring foreign residents pay a fair share of tax in Australia. Our land and natural resources belong to all Australians, and what this recognises is that there's an area of longstanding uncertainty. Some of these court cases which have been playing out, costing the Commonwealth money, are because there is an ambiguity between the intersection of the state arrangements and the Commonwealth arrangements. The ATO has made it clear they're not going to go back a long period and revisit all of these decisions, but, where there have been court cases, we have to responsibly step in and clarify the law and make sure that it's working as it's intended to. That's what that element of that is. We've heard a lot about the significance of these reforms for investments which are already in train. That's why we've got this proposed time limited targeted concession for clean energy investments, which will support the sorts of developments that the honourable member wants to see in our economy, as I do. So I welcome her question. We are currently completing a second round of consultation on the draft legislation. I've been doing some of that myself, and also Treasury has, and we're considering all of those submissions. Overall, I assure the honourable member that we are focused on making Australians big beneficiaries of this energy transformation, and unlocking investment in Australia's energy system is a really important part of that work. Workplace Relations 63 15:28 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australian workers and easing cost-of-living pressures? 15:28 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for McEwen for the question and for his advocacy for working people in his electorate. Of course, it is only a Labor government that is on the side of working Australians. In this budget that this Labor government delivered and that this Treasurer delivered, we delivered tax cuts for working Australians, and this is built on tax cuts we'd already delivered—ones that those opposite wanted to deny working Australians. It's not just through tax cuts that we are supporting working Australians. We are doing it through the laws that we pass in this parliament. Some of those very important laws were our same job, same pay laws, because they were driven by a very, very simple principle: that working people and their wages should not be undercut by labour hire. In good news for working people, these laws are delivering pay increases to more than 8,000 workers and improving job security right across Australia, because these laws are about giving workers a fair go. I want to point out that we are so committed to these laws that we made sure that the Fair Work Commission understood this principle earlier this year when it came to coalmine workers in Central Queensland. Yes, it was this government that was on the side of coalminers in Central Queensland, and just last week the Fair Work Commission upheld the principle, which has delivered higher rates of pay for hundreds of coalmine workers across Central Queensland—workers like Loretta. Loretta is a haul truck driver at a Central Queensland coalmine who has been doing this work for the past three years as a labour hire employee. Loretta was working the same job as direct employees and went above and beyond, clocking in for Easter, Mother's Day and Christmas Day, but she was still paid less than the people she was working alongside. Loretta fought to be paid equally, not just for herself but for the hundreds of other labour hire workers she worked alongside, and she told me that, with this decision, she finally feels properly valued for the work and is now recognised for the experience she brings. It's our laws that are delivering for workers like Loretta—close to $7,000 more per year—because Labor is the only party in this House that will back coal workers in Queensland and back workers right around the country. Minister for Communications 64 15:31 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash My question is to the Minister for Communications. In which room at the live music venue The Jade did the minister hold her 'sideline meeting' while at the 40th birthday party of her close personal friend—the bar, the garden kiosk or the room with the pinball machine? 15:32 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for her question. As I have said to her on her two previous occasions, I've given a full account of that to IPEA. There is a full report available, published online, and you can refer there for the full account of the trip, which was considered completely within the rules. Budget 64 15:32 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question goes to the Prime Minister. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget build and deliver on the aspiration of Australians? What have been the responses, and what alternatives are there? 15:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the fantastic member for Robertson for his question. Our budget helps with the cost of living. It builds resilience, including during the crisis that's occurred globally as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, through our $14½ billion fuel security plan. But, importantly as well, it backs aspiration, and it's received substantial support for the decisions that have been taken. Homelessness Australia said this: 'This is a hard-won win for young people who've been failed by a system that catches them in crisis but never houses them.' Westpac's chief economist, Luci Ellis, said: 'I think the tax changes on negative gearing and capital gains are really significant. These are changes that everybody thought were politically impossible. Suddenly a government has dealt with that. It's an intergenerational issue that they are addressing.' St Vincent de Paul said: For too long, tax settings have disproportionately favoured property investors over first homebuyers and low-income renters. At the Property Council of Australia, Mike Zorbas said: … the budget contains strong pro-supply and planning reform measures to bring new homes and communities to life … The Real Estate Institute say these were 'positive and necessary steps toward addressing Australia's housing shortage'. The Civil Contractors Federation said, 'This funding recognises that housing affordability and infrastructure delivery go hand in hand.' Urban Task Force Australia said, 'The housing budget represents long-needed support for housing supply.' The Urban Development Institute of Australia said, 'This is exactly what we need to deliver more housing supply.' Indeed, it's not just commentators that have backed this in. Of course, the member for Canning had already said: 'I just think we need to overhaul the whole system. We either fix the system or it's torn down by people like Pauline Hanson. No-one's going to reward us for a final last stand for neo-Liberal politics.' I'm asked about alternatives. Well, Senator Ruston has said, in the other place, 'Australians don't know what we stand for'. Indeed, Australians don't. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when the former leader was being campaigned against, said this: We've announced that we're against Labor's energy policy. We've announced that we're against Labor's housing policy, we've announced that we're against Labor's tax policy, and we've announced that we're against Labor's immigration policy. But what is it that we stand for? I look forward to seeing the fully costed policies that they have committed to tonight. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister's time has expired. Mr Albanese R36 On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 64 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Budget 64 15:36 The SPEAKER 53517 Before members leave the House, I want to give a short reminder about arrangements for this evening with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech. As I outlined on Tuesday, the usual courtesies apply to the Leader of the Opposition's speech as they did to the Treasurer's. As I also noted, if I'm required to make use of standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by written note. Finally, I ask all members to ensure that their guests comply with the standards of behaviour applying to the galleries. I remind members that they are responsible for their invited guests. I thank the House. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 65 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 31 of 2025-26 65 15:36 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 31 of 2025-26, entitled Effectiveness of the Commonwealth Home Support Program: Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. Document was made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Presentation 65 15:36 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 65 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Regional Australia 65 15:37 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mayo proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to urgently resolve regional inequity and address poorer outcomes for Australians living in the regions. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:37 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo We're hearing a lot in this budget about intergenerational inequity, but we never hear about regional inequity from the government. Australians who live in the regions are worse off under virtually every metric, whether that be health, housing, education, pension assets tests, capital gains tax or even road trauma. Regional Australians represent around 30 per cent of the nation's population and make an even greater contribution, but, whether it is health or whether it's road spending, we are short-changed, and it affects our lives. The question is: has the budget let down regional Australia? Well, I would say yes. The government will be ending the halving of the fuel tax excise in June—because there's no indication the government is going to continue it after June even if we still have conflict in Iran. When this temporary relief ends, it is the people of my electorate, it is the people of regional Australia, who have no choice but to rely on cars, who will suffer the most. We just don't have public transport in the regions. That's something that's only ever funded for metropolitan areas. When we look at the health gap, regional Australians experience higher costs of health care and worse health outcomes than our metro counterparts. Twice I've asked in question time about what the government's doing to address that expenditure gap, and the answer really is nothing. This budget does very little to correct it. In fact, the National Rural Health Alliance in 2021 saw that there was an $848 spend gap between a person who lives in regional Australia and a person who lives in metro Australia. For the 2023-24 year, that blew out to over $1,000 per person. What that means is that we die younger. We feed you all, but we die younger. We get less spend when it comes to health. It's a postcode lottery. Despite serious criticism, the distribution priority area changes that were made by the government still stand. The government has taken away doctors from the regions and put them in areas like Elizabeth in South Australia or leafy Mitcham and taken them away from where they're desperately needed, where that person was perhaps the only doctor. When we look at education, a regional student is more likely to work in a regional community, but regional students need support, and there are so many barriers that it's insurmountable. For young people on Kangaroo Island in my electorate, unless they are incredibly wealthy, it is near impossible to fund a life and go to university after high school. They just don't do it. They get through high school and they stay on the property. They stay on Kangaroo Island. We have some incredibly bright young people. We need the doctors and lawyers, and we need them in regional communities as well. That means we need to ensure that those young people get supported to go to university. This is one that hasn't been picked up by any journalists. The capital gains tax rules on rural residential properties in this budget is going to make it even more expensive for people who live as their primary place of residence on anything over two hectares, because, under the rules, if you live on more than two hectares and you sell your property—perhaps you're living on 50 hectares and you run some cattle or run some sheep, but you never actually made any real income on your property—you will pay capital gains tax on anything outside of those two hectares. With the current changes that the government's proposing in the budget, that tax is going to be even more expensive if you sell after next June. Of course, you could have a Sydney harbourside mansion worth $20 million, and if that's your principal place of residence you don't pay any capital gains tax. But, if you're on 50 acres or 50 hectares, you will. That is the kind of inequity that exists whether you live in the regions or whether you live in metropolitan Australia. That is just plainly unfair. That also impacts you if you're an older person and you are seeking to go on the pension. The pension assets test looks at the two hectares around your home, and then outside of that is on the asset side. You could be on a 10-acre block, and the balance outside of that two hectares goes on the asset side. We find so many older Australians that are living in poverty on a 10-acre block because they only maybe get a part pension simply because of the fact that they're on that 10-acre block. Again, if they are in that $15 million harbourside mansion and that was their only asset, no problem. Here's the full pension for you. We in regional Australia feed you three times a day. They say that you should thank a farmer three times a day. But we in this place do not do enough to support regional Australians, whether they be farmers or whether they be workers out there in the regions. I would urge this government, when you are next putting together a budget, to sit down with some farmers, sit down with some people from regional Australia and make a budget that is far more equitable for all of Australia, not just the metro people of Australia. 15:44 Ms WHITE 224102 Lyons I'm very pleased to be able to speak to the matter of public importance brought on today by the honourable member, as somebody who lives in and represents a regional electorate in my home state of Tasmania. I grew up on a farm, milking cows and feeding pigs and feeding cattle. My family still have that farm. I'm very proud to come from a community called Nugent, where our primary source of income is agriculture. I understand how important it is to stand up for regional parts of our country, because that is the whole reason I put my hand up for politics in the first place. It's the reason that I'm here trying to make a difference, and it's the reason why so many of my colleagues are here, too. We represent more regional seats in this place than any other political party, and we are proud to be able to make that contribution on behalf of our communities. This budget does deliver for them. We have seen significant investments that improve the lives of people right across our country, including in regional parts of our country. Whether it is looking at what we're doing in health—I'm very proud, in my own home state of Tasmania, to see the increase in bulk-billing rates. That is changing the lives of people who are living in our regions as well as in our cities. In my own electorate of Lyons, prior to the changes that came into effect last year, there were just six bulk-billing practices. We now have 18, and all of those 18 bulk-billing practices are in regional parts of Tasmania. That means that people in my own town, in my own home community, are finally able to go and see a bulk-billing GP and have their healthcare needs met without any out-of-pocket expenses. We have invested in Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country. There will soon be 137 of these delivering urgent and free health care for people, no matter where they live. These are making a profound difference to the lives of people living in regional parts of the country. One of the challenges I note the member raised is about workforce. There's no doubt there can be challenges in supplying the workforce that we need to support the delivery of health care and other essential services right across the country, particularly in regional parts of our country. Our government has made a concerted effort to invest in additional supports, particularly in health, to ensure we can build that workforce, but it does take time. There's a number of investments that we've made to attract healthcare professionals to our regions. We are also investing in GP training. In my own home state of Tasmania, we now have end-to-end training of medical professionals in Launceston, Burnie and Hobart. This has also seen an increase in the number of places. What this means—and you would know this as well as I—is that, when you can train young people in their own communities, they are more likely to stay there and work there. These are going to be the doctors of tomorrow, working in our regional communities, and that will help more Australians access the health care that they need. We have a goal of training 2,000 GPs each year by 2028. This year, the government funded 1,600 places, and we expect more than 1,750 places to be filled, which is the largest cohort ever. This includes more GP and rural generalist training through the Remote Vocational Training Scheme, which supports training in rural, remote and hard-to-fill locations. We've also waived HECS debts for doctors and nurses that work in our regions for five years, to attract them to the areas outside our big cities. We are using incentives to try to address the workforce challenges that do exist across some of our tougher-to-staff places, including in our regions. We've provided more than $600 million to grow our health workforce, supporting hundreds more GP and rural generalist training places, as well as 100 Commonwealth supported places for medical students a year from this year and hundreds of scholarships for nurses and midwives. There are more incentives now than ever before for doctors and nurses to work in our regions, building on the hundreds of places that we've already delivered. The other pathway for young people in particular is through vocational education and training. Our government has invested in free TAFE, and we have made that permanent. That provides opportunities for young people living in regional parts of your electorate, my electorate and electorates right around the country to be able to pursue their dreams and get a qualification that helps them remain in their local community, contributing to their families and to our economy. We are investing in study hubs in regional parts of Australia to support young people who want to pursue a university qualification. In my electorate of Lyons, in St Helens and in Sorell—which are in the northern and southern parts of my electorate—our government has funded study hubs. I've met with the young people who are studying in these locations, and they've told me that, because they can do this in their local community and not travel two hours or more to go into the university, it's actually given them an opportunity to pursue a tertiary qualification. We are doing what we can to invest in our regional communities for our young people to provide them the education and training pathways to build our regional workforce, so we can deliver those services that support Australians who live outside the cities. We have been investing in housing. I'm sure your community is just like mine. When you go and have conversations with people about some of the challenges—about young people being able to enter the housing market but also the challenges attracting workers to our regional communities—housing is often a key barrier. We are investing in increasing supply. The minister just spoke in question time about some of the new investments that are contained within this budget. Across the course of our government, there's been a $47 billion commitment to housing for Australians. We are making the tax system fairer, and that will help 75,000 young people put a key in the door of their own home. That is going to transform the lives of Australians not only in our cities but in our regional and rural communities too. The honourable member spoke about some of the challenges that we see not only in her electorate but also in other parts of regional and rural Australia and mentioned, of course, the fuel supply challenges we're seeing because of the global insecurity caused by the war in the Middle East. Our government has responded swiftly. We've obviously halved the excise, and that is delivering some relief at the bowser for people who rely on a car to get around, which is very true for people who live outside the cities, where public transport may not be reliable or may not be available at all. That's also why we're doing what we can to bolster our fuel security for the future. We delivered a $10 billion Australian fuel security and resilience package to safeguard our nation's energy sovereignty because we can't just have a response for the here and the now; we have to be thinking about the medium-to-long term as well. This is a package will secure the fuel and the fertiliser supplies that Australia needs. I understand as well as anybody else who grew up in the country how vital it is to have those critical inputs available when you need them. If we don't have fertiliser, we can't grow the food that every person here and across the country eats every single day. That's why the honourable member for Franklin, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has worked so hard to secure those fertiliser supplies to continue to come into our country. It's also why our government has invested in these initiatives as part of this budget—because we understand how vital our farmers are for our country's prosperity, for the strength and the fabric of our community and for the health of our nation. It's not lost on me that we have a responsibility when we come to this place, as representatives of regional electorates, to make the case on their behalf, which is what we've been doing. In addition to the initiatives across those areas I've just described I do want to touch on some other the points. I know the honourable member has an interest in aged care. This is a budget that has continued to add to the investment our government made in the last budget and that we saw through the changes to the Aged Care Act. This budget adds an additional $3.7 billion to strengthen Australia's aged care system. This will mean that more than 500,000 older Australians in regional, rural and remote areas who can currently access aged care services are supported by more than $2 billion in annual government investment. This is so important, because I know that, in my own community, there are lots of people who want to remain in their home community. They don't want to move to the city to access these services. They need to stay close to their families, and, for their own health and wellbeing, they want to stay in their local communities as they age. This budget includes measures to support the construction of up to 5,000 new aged care beds each year. This will also help more older Australians stay in their local communities, including regional communities. These reforms are designed to support regional providers, who face higher operating costs and care for some of our country's most financially vulnerable older Australians. This budget has kept regional Australia in mind as we have worked to deliver a fair outcome for all Australians, no matter where they live. I want to assure the House that, on this side of the parliament, every day when we're having conversations with ministers and in our community, our ambition is to make sure we deliver equity and opportunity for Australians, no matter where they live. 15:54 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I spent 20 years of my life in a government that believed it was our duty to make work for our people, to grow the economic cake. So, every year, we built a giant irrigation scheme; every year we opened a giant mine of some description; and we had to provide towns, and all that infrastructure, and railway lines, to make those things happen. But here, we argue that this group of people should get more money or that that group of people shouldn't have got more money. It is not about how you cut up the cake. Surely you should emphasise making the cake bigger. Now, we can't even borrow money to build a house in regional Australia. The banks have redlined all of regional Australia—they will not lend money to build a home. There still happen to be about 20 electorates based in regional Australia. Yes, sure, we've lost about two or three every 10 or 12 years, but there's still a bloody lot of people—excuse my language—living there at the present moment. And we can't get the money to build a house. The honourable member for Mayo talked about having no specialists in country areas. Well, alright, that might be something we have to live with, but give us some money to be able to go down and see specialists. No, that doesn't happen. You know that, if you drive into any city in Australia, there are high-rise cranes all over the place. Well, you won't even see a contractor in regional Australia. There's nothing being built there. You pass laws putting a tax upon people who own land, and all you could think of was the cities. In country Australia—which is like 20 per cent of the population still—we all have a bit of acreage. We're not rich people; we're ordinary people. But if you want to live in the Moranbahs, or the Charters Towers, or the Mount Isas, or the Yarakas, or wherever you want to live, you like a little bit of space around you. It's the one thing you can have that people in cities can't have. Well, now you're going to tax it. There's no tax on people owning $4 million houses in Brisbane or Sydney or Melbourne. But the ordinary poor people that live in rural Australia—you're taxing them. You just don't even realise that we exist. And you, members of parliament that represent country electorates, should stand in shame. But don't do it on the basis that the Liberal Party are the good guys. No way! No way, Jose. All I can say is: you could give the green light to coalmining—and both sides of this parliament have continuously opposed coalmining, though they're making a few sounds now and changing a little bit; it's just a little bit late in the game to be talking about it now—and open up the Galilee coal basin. You could build the Bradfield Scheme. He was exactly a fool; he built the Sydney Harbour Bridge; he built the water supply for Sydney; he built the underground railways, which won the world prize for engineering; and he built the University of Queensland—not exactly a fool, this bloke. Build the Bradfield Scheme. It could bring in $40,000 million or $50,000 million a year and could provide a wonderful living for some five million people in Australia that will move onto a rich farm which will give them everything that no-one else on earth can enjoy—an income of $1½ million a year, for starters. So these things are available to us. But in this place we are so petty and so small-minded that all we talk about is whether that mob of people are getting more money than that mob of people. It's the same budget that I've heard in this place now for the last 20 years. That was not what happened in this place previously. Whether it was the ALP or the other mob, they talked about development. That's not a word we use anymore in Australia. Our national anthem says, 'Advance Australia fair'. 'Advance'? We've been in retreat! The biggest income earner for this country for 200 years was the wool industry. And Paul Keating—a loud-mouthed know-all, dictatorial and arrogant—abolished the wool scheme and completely destroyed the biggest source of income— (Time expired) 15:59 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm very pleased to be speaking to the member for Mayo's matter of public importance. The member for Mayo and I joined this place nearly 10 years ago in the same intake, and our communities, while in different states, have remarkable similarities. We have mixes of peri-urban, semi-rural, rural and remote areas—broadly called regional. I'm stunned in a way that she is so keen to put down what this government is doing when both of us have been here in a parliament with the Liberals in charge, seeing media release after media release about, 'Wow, you beaut, this is going to happen,' and then nothing. What I have seen and what we focus on on this side is the delivery of the commitments we make to every part of Australia. The announcement made today about the 90,000 tonnes of agricultural-grade urea will be as welcome in my community amongst my farmers, my turf growers, my vegetable growers and my agricultural producers as it will be for all of those in our semi-rural, rural and regional areas, where we are the food producers for our communities. Of course, the Hawkesbury was always the food bowl and continues to be a major producer for many parts of the agricultural sector. That's the sort of delivery that the Albanese Labor government is doing. The announcement today is giving certainty to producers around their fertiliser needs. I have to say that I never imagined I would be up here talking about fertiliser, but it is such a privilege to represent an area that we are responding to and recognising its needs. The difference I see is that it's not about saying, 'Here's a piece of road,' and the job is done. It's not just about infrastructure; it is about infrastructure and a whole lot of things. The assistant health minister has gone into detail about the delivery we have on improving Medicare and making Medicare stronger for every part of our country, including our regions. The key thing I have seen in my more remote areas is the benefits of the increased workforce, but that has been a benefit across the entire electorate. It means that our additional training of GPs and the ability for more people to say, 'Yes, I want to do this,' is starting to flow through to what we see on the ground. We have a goal to train 2,000 GPs each year by 2028. Bit by bit, that is improving the access that my community has. We've done it simply by waiving HECS for doctors and nurses who work outside the regions for five years, where there's $600 million to grow the health workforce, particularly in those areas. We've also recognised that it's not quick enough and that we need an extra service. That's where 1800MEDICARE comes in—a free nationwide 24-hour health advice line that provides an after-hours GP telehealth service backed by Medicare. All of that makes our lives much easier to live further from the cities. I know my community benefits from that. I also want to touch on an area that I know the member for Mayo also cares about, and that's the arts. The Albanese government has delivered in this area for regional and rural communities through extra funding and extra programs. There's 35 per cent more funding for the Regional Arts Fund. It's gone up from $4 million to $6 million a year. That means more great arts projects in regional Australia are being supported. There's the Sharing the National Collection program from the National Gallery of Australia. Places like the Wanneroo Regional Gallery, the Texas Regional Art Gallery in Queensland, the Tamworth Regional Gallery, the Ipswich Art Gallery and the Shepparton Art Museum are all receiving access not just for a couple of weeks but for years to incredible artworks. The National Gallery of Australia's program is getting those works away from Canberra and out into our communities. I have also visited places like the Burnie cultural centre. That is a great example of $13 million boosting local infrastructure for the arts. I commend the member for Braddon for her work there. This is delivery. 16:04 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi If governments want support from regional Australia, then they must deliver tangible outcomes for regional Australians. For too long, regional communities have endured worse outcomes in health, education, connectivity and aged care. We're poorer, we suffer chronic diseases at higher rates and we die younger. Dying earlier shouldn't be a tax for rural Australia. We're too often the last to receive services and too often the first to lose them. Look at the banks. Look at the post offices. We are the wide brown land, but we need more houses on it. We need better roads. Our connectivity lags well behind the cities, and we lack sufficient investment in our hospitals. In Euroa, in my electorate of Indi, persistent energy insecurity means people don't know whether the power will stay on from one day to the next. It's a small-business killer and a huge frustration, and it is basic infrastructure. Would people in Melbourne or Sydney accept endless power outages? The answer is clearly no. The lack of such basics should not ever be accepted as an inevitable part of country life, because they are not inevitable. Regional inequity is, in fact, a policy choice. I want choices that value our regions, partner in our ambition and invest in our future. Regional Australia is not just a place of need; it's a core contributor to our nation and a source of enormous opportunity. Our regions grow the food and fibre that sustain Australia and our export markets. Agriculture, forestry and fishing leads Australia's multifactor growth, but we also have thriving manufacturing, tourism and small-business innovation. Regional Australia accounts for around 40 per cent of national economic output and employs around one-third of Australia's workforce. Regional Australia's productivity already exceeds our population per capita. So I put this to you: at a time when Australia is trying to boost stagnant productivity, investing in the regions is the smartest measure that any government could do and will deliver even greater benefit to the whole nation. Beyond the economic contributions, regional Australia has strong, connected, networked natural beauty, enduring resilience and local leadership. It's clear the potential of regional Australia is immense, but this potential can only be realised with the fundamental infrastructure and services to support it. In my electorate of Indi, we focus on solutions. We roll up our sleeves, we do the work, we engage with communities, we develop ideas and we push for practical change. In this pursuit, I've introduced bills, amendments, petitions and policy proposals and have made some progress, like the cheaper home batteries, the mobile phone towers, the sustainable agriculture facilitators and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Lasting and durable change is rarely immediate. It takes steady and persistent work to make a difference. Unfortunately, this week's federal budget does not do enough to shift the dial on the key drivers of regional inequity, but there are welcome elements. I'm pleased to see further funding for the Growing Regions Program, but its sister program, the rPPP, has been axed and replaced with nothing else. The housing crisis impacts regional Australia too, and a major handbrake on that supply is the pipes, the power, the poles and the roads that make new homes possible. The enabling infrastructure gap has been my focus and why I've been pushing for a regional housing infrastructure fund, and I congratulate the government for taking my policy initiative forward and committing 25 per cent of funding to regional Australia. Now, I recognise this as a restrained budget and that the fiscal environment is difficult, but every line in the budget is a choice, and the budget does not deliver enough to address the pain and frustration regional people are feeling. Just one example is that we need an open, competitive grants program for regional health infrastructure. The case is clear for Albury Wodonga Health in my electorate. That's why we need a building rural and regional hospitals fund to provide a solution that's good for our health. These needs can only be met by pursuing bolder reforms. The member for Kennedy is quite right. We need to grow the revenue cake. We should be taxing gas exports. It was a missed opportunity to boost our revenue and use that revenue to do the things that we are seeking to: invest in the regions in the way that we need to grow the productivity of the nation, because regional Australia needs and deserves equity. It's why rural and regional Australians get mad. It's why they get angry. It's why we've seen that play out across the nation. We have the same ambition. We need the investments, and we need to deliver to our regions. 16:09 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I'm glad to be able to speak on our government's delivery in regional Australia. As someone who lives in one of the most remote parts of the country, I know exactly how important it is that our regional communities get the same opportunities and services as Australians living in our big cities. Under the last government, regional development was all about announcements, never about delivery. The coalition, which claim to represent the bush, failed, time after time, to bring results when they were in government. But I'm glad to say that our government has been delivering, particularly for those in remote Australia, where employment markers are thin. We are delivering 6,000 jobs—1,700 remote jobs have already been rolled out, and 4,000 more jobs are on the way. This $299 million investment is having a real impact, especially in my electorate. Remote jobs with good wages and conditions are so much more than just jobs. They bring security, confidence and stability for people who are, in some cases, working for the first time. This is exactly what addressing regional inequity looks like—making sure that anyone, no matter where they live, is able to access stable employment. Our government hasn't just been focusing on jobs. Anyone who lives in the regions knows that road infrastructure is not an optional extra; it is an essential of everyday life. We have doubled Roads to Recovery funding. This is a game changer for our regional roads, with 85 per cent of the $4.4 billion going to regional areas. There are so many areas in my electorate that were cut off for many weeks and months at a time. People living there do not need to be told just how important good roads are. They feel it every day. With recent fuel issues, we know that our regions are being hit the hardest. We've halved the fuel excise and reduced the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months to make sure that people who rely on our roads are given support from the Commonwealth. In my electorate, it's small businesses that keep our rural and remote areas moving, whether they're remote stores and roadhouses or hospitality businesses, which bring jobs and opportunities out bush. The new instant asset write-off and the broader reforms to regulatory burdens will save time and money for small businesses across our regional communities. It is the regions that face the brunt of food security issues, especially in my electorate, which includes more than 70 remote communities. Fresh, healthy food is often too hard to find or too expensive to buy. Small storage facilities and massive distances make food security a big challenge. Our food security strategy will boost the resilience of our food system, which is so important for health and life expectancy outcomes in remote communities. When it comes to regional health, it hasn't been easy to clean up the mess, but we are now making big strides. The Northern Territory has the highest proportion of bulk-billing practices of any state or territory. Two years ago, it was one of the lowest. I hope that those opposite take note of what it looks like to deliver in regional health. The Albanese Labor government knows that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue absolutely everywhere, and that includes in regional Australia. Our tax cuts are being rolled out, and the new Working Australians Tax Offset will save every working person another $250 each year. This is just one part of our cost-of-living relief agenda, which the Liberals have opposed every step of the way. Regional inequity is something that this government takes very seriously. I know that, on this side of the House, we have a government that makes sure that regional Australians get their fair share. After the coalition took our regions for granted and neglected their concerns for decades, it's no wonder people are turning away from them in droves. Those opposite can continue to carry on about who they say they represent, but, when you look at the record, you can see exactly who is building the future for our regions. 16:14 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Almost a third of Australians live in regional, rural and remote areas. On average, they die younger, have fewer GPs, earn less and watch their children leave for the city to study and rarely return. People in the most disadvantaged areas of Australia have a life expectancy seven years shorter than those in the most advantaged, and that gap is widening not closing. Regional Australians face higher rates of hospitalisation, higher rates of domestic violence, lower year-12 completion rates and food that costs more simply because of where they live. These are the results of decades of underinvestment. In my state of WA, our regions have powered this country for generations—the Pilbara, the Kimberley, the Mid West, the goldfields, iron ore, gas and gold. The wealth extracted from those communities has built cities that Australians in the regions often cannot afford to live in. But something's shifting. The global economy needs what regional WA has. This time, if we get the policy right, the regions can capture more of the value themselves. There are three key policy opportunities. First, green energy exports—Australia has among the best solar and wind resources in the world, and countries across Asia are looking for reliable partners to supply clean hydrogen and ammonia to replace coal and gas in their industrial supply chains. Second, green iron—rather than exporting raw Pilbara ore for steel made overseas using coking coal, we have the chance to process that iron domestically using renewable energy, decarbonising one of the most emissions-intensive supply chains on the planet and capturing the value added step that has historically gone elsewhere. Third, critical minerals—the batteries, motors and turbines that underpin the global energy transition require lithium, rare earths and other minerals that regional WA holds in extraordinary abundance and that the world urgently needs. The scale of what's already planned is remarkable. In the Pilbara, the Australian Renewable Energy Hub is a 26-gigawatt wind and solar project near Port Hedland, targeting green hydrogen and green iron production. In the Kimberley, the East Kimberley Clean Energy Project near Kununurra is a $3 billion First Nations led solar and green hydrogen venture. In the Mid West, the Murchison Green Hydrogen project north of Kalbarri has secured $814 million in federal production support. Near Kalgoorlie, the Western Green Energy Hub is progressing through approvals on Mirning traditional lands. Near Geraldton, the Oakajee Energy project is developing up to five gigawatts of renewable hydrogen capacity for Asian markets. Technology will also play a role in this transformation. AI is already being used by mining companies to improve exploration and resource extraction and may, in time, open up broader opportunities for technology enabled industries in the region. Whether that potential is fully realised remains to be seen, but it's worth planning for rather than assuming. This is exciting, but excitement is not a plan. If we look at where transition projects have come unstuck, the same lessons keep appearing. The first is community consultation. The East Kimberley model works because traditional owners are shareholders making decisions, not bystanders being consulted. That has to become a design principle, not a risk to be managed. Genuine co-ownership and genuine benefit sharing from the beginning—that's what social licence actually looks like. Across regional Australia, community consultation must be core to all developments, not an afterthought and a box-ticking exercise. The second is housing. In Karratha, the median weekly house rent has reached more than double the Perth median after rising 27 per cent in a single year. More than 70 per cent of businesses in the Kimberley and Pilbara say housing availability is their biggest barrier to attracting and keeping staff. BHP has committed $50 million towards worker accommodation in Port Hedland, and that contribution is welcome, but it's hardly enough. Without housing, the transition workforce cannot be housed and the opportunity collapses. The third is digital equity. Regional WA already has mobile blackspots and unreliable internet. Virtual services cannot substitute for in-person services without that foundation. Once the internet is available, it has to be used to open up opportunities for people in the regions to access the same services as people in the cities. My private member's bill protecting doctors from criminal prosecution for using telehealth for voluntary assisted dying would contribute to this to ensure that everyone has the same access to health services, no matter where they live. The Pilbara, the Kimberley, the Mid West and the goldfields have fuelled this country. We need to get this opportunity right. 16:19 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt Let me begin by saying this: no-one in this place disputes that outcomes in regional Australian communities matter deeply. They do, and they should. It is something I care about personally. I hold a metro seat, like many people, but we are all Australians, and metro seat holders—just like the Albanese Labor government—care about regional Australia. I also grew up in the Riverland, on the Murray River, and I understand firsthand both the opportunities and the challenges that come with living outside our capital cities. When I was a kid, catching a Greyhound bus down to Adelaide and stopping off for chips and a strawberry milkshake at the Blanchetown Roadhouse was an exciting adventure, because the city was big and it felt so far away. I also know those challenges are being felt more acutely in the current climate. But where we disagree with this motion is its suggestion that the regions are being ignored. That is simply not the case. This government is responding to changing conditions and the real impact that they are having on regional Australians. The Regional Investment Framework continues to ensure investment works better for the regions, guided by local voices, grounded in evidence and coordinated across all levels of government. Our regions are central to planning and building a stronger, more resilient future, and we see that clearly in the recent budget. In the member for Mayo's own electorate, this government has announced $45 million for upgrades to the South Eastern Freeway, a significant infrastructure investment that will improve safety for communities across the Adelaide Hills and beyond. The budget also provides an additional $20.6 million each year, ongoing and indexed, to support priority local road projects across regional South Australia. That funding will deliver vital upgrades to improve safety, strengthen freight routes and enhance connectivity for regional communities. I've also long been a strong supporter of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is not just a healthcare provider but a lifeline. Whether it's delivering emergency care, bridging vast distances or ensuring people in remote communities can access specialist services that those in the cities take for granted, the RFDS shows what real support for the regions looks like. The federal government partners with the RFDS through multi-year contracts, and the recent federal budget included a $25 billion boost to public hospitals, directly complementing regional and remote retrieval services. This is targeted practical investment. Just as importantly, the government is delivering broad based reforms that benefit regional Australians, because when you strengthen the fundamentals, regional communities gain the most. That being said, this government's approach is not to divide Australians into 'regional' and 'metro' but to deliver universal policies that lift outcomes for all Australians—including those in the regions—while also making the targeted investments to meet regional needs. Take tax cuts. They are permanent structural changes that put more money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians, including families, small businesses and workers in regional communities, where cost-of-living pressures can be even more acute. The newly announced $1,000 instant tax write-off and the $250 Working Australians Tax Offset apply equally to regional Australia. Then take the universal outdoor mobile obligation. This is a landmark reform that will extend mobile coverage across Australia not just where it is commercially viable but where it is needed. For regional Australians that means safer travel, better connectivity and improved access to emergency services. Future investment in low-Earth-orbit satellite technology for direct-to-device connection will also improve this, facilitating mobile connectivity anywhere in this country. These are not niche programs. They are designed to deliver real and lasting benefits to regional Australia. We should also consider how the government responds in times of crisis. During the recent fuel supply disruptions, it was regional communities that felt the impacts first and most severely. The government recognised this and established a fuel taskforce, working with states and territories to prioritise supply to the regions. Regional communities were not an afterthought; they were a priority. The reality is this: improving outcomes in regional Australia is achieved through investing in infrastructure where it matters, delivering cost-of-living relief and strengthening essential services. The government is doing that. Regional Australians don't need to be told they are being left behind; they need governments like the Albanese Labor government to deliver for them. 16:24 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I'd like to go back a little bit. I'm going to go all the way back to the Peloponnesian War, 431 to 404 BCE. During the Peloponnesian War, there was an Athenian general of the Delian League, Thucydides. Thucydides was up against the Peloponnesian League. Athens was on the rise and Sparta was on the fall. Why would I quote that? Now I want to go to today. Today there is a meeting between President Xi and President Trump. The person who quoted Thucydides and the Thucydides Trap was President Xi. Why? It's because he sees that China is on the rise and the United States is on the fall. The concern is that the falling power pushes back and there's a war. Why is that important to us? We have to become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. I've been saying that now in this place for well over a decade. To become powerful, we must strengthen the natural assets on our balance sheet. These are the assets that actually underpin wealth and underpin growth, and they are in regional Australia. If you want to understand where our wealth is, then consider our terms of trade. Everything about you—your shirt, your watch, your car, your fuel, your underpants, your television set—is coming on a boat from overseas. Somebody somewhere must be sending something in the other direction to pay for it. What goes on a boat in the other direction so that thing in your pocket is not just a piece of polymer but has value? It's coal from regional areas. It's iron ore from regional areas. It's gas, overwhelmingly from regional areas. It's cotton. It's beef. It's grain. It's wool. This is what underpins the wealth of Australia. If you do not realise that, if you do not comprehend that, then you have no idea about the economics of Australia. I want to go to the budget. In the budget I looked for a thing called the Tomago smelter. I really did. It's about to close. There's no money to prop up the Tomago smelter—none. That's going to be a big issue for about 12,000 people whose jobs are associated with the Tomago smelter. So I'm just going to say to the members for Paterson, Newcastle, Hunter and Shortland: there is a party called One Nation, and we are going to be playing incredibly hard in that space. We are coming to eat your lunch. Government members interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d They're talking now! I've got their ears now, oh yes. I'm looking forward to it. I kind of know how to do this job. I've had a little bit of practice. You saw it the other week. I'm only warming up. Government members interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d Oh no, I'm coming. You won't be laughing so much when I turn up in your electorate, mate. So now we have to see how we can actually build up this balance sheet. There is nothing in this budget for dams. They took away the money for freight rail. They have no idea about substantiating the nation's balance sheet. They go to the profit and loss and go to expenses and give out cost-of-living measures. They don't know how to generate the wealth on the balance sheet, so they go to the revenue side and put up the taxes to pay for their promises, literally giving money with one hand and ripping it out of the same person's pocket with the other. Let us go to the other thing that's really going to hurt people in regional areas. As was said earlier, in the town of Woolbrook we have poor people with a very meagre house on five acres. Their house is now up for the Treasurer to take his swing at it. This is a disgrace. Government members interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d You don't know because you don't know what poor people look like. You've never been around them. This is the issue. I want to say it to people out there: this is the Labor Party that's supposed to understand you. Don't you love it? Might I remind the Labor Party that your vote is around about 30 per cent—you are on ice. You don't understand them, and that's why you've rubbed their noses in the dirt. You have rubbed their noses in the dirt. You are arrogant without any foresight as to what you're doing to people. (Time expired) 16:29 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite More than one-third of Australians live outside our capital cities. It is these regional centres and rural communities that help drive our economy forward every single day. In regional electorates like mine, locals are raising families, running small businesses, producing food, powering our economy and building our future. Our government, the Albanese government, is committed to backing in regional communities just like mine, in the electorate of Corangamite. From health to housing, from education to early childhood education, from infrastructure to productivity, from energy to agriculture to cost-of-living measures, the Albanese government is investing in our regions because, no matter where Australians live, they should benefit from good government. That means tax cuts for every taxpayer, including another cut this July. It means cheaper child care and building a universal early education system. It means expanded paid parental leave to 24 weeks. It means 30 per cent off home batteries to permanently cut household energy bills. It means cutting student debt by 20 per cent, for many a reduced debt of more than $5,500. It means the biggest reduction in the cost of PBS medicines in two decades. These are not metro policies or regional policies. They are policies for all Australians, including the millions living outside our regional cities, and, in regional communities like mine, that matters deeply. In Corangamite, it means Medicare urgent care clinics, like the one in Torquay. They're now a permanent fixture of Medicare. They're free, accessible and close to home. It means a new headspace service in Armstrong Creek, delivering mental health support to young people and families in one of our fastest growing communities. It means a $20 million investment in Barwon Water's Black Rock Precinct through the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program, transforming environmental waste management across the Barwon region while supporting jobs, sustainability and long-term resilience. It means delivering the $318 million Barwon Heads Road stage 2 upgrade, connecting the fast-growing communities of Armstrong Creek and the Bellarine with Geelong. This is what practical delivery looks like. It means the largest investment in Medicare's history, expanding bulk-billing, with seven local GP clinics in my electorate now moving to bulk-billing. We're also strengthening hospitals, investing in services but also infrastructure, with a $500 million investment in the Barwon Women's and Children's hospital, and we've doubled Roads to Recovery funding to deliver more upgrades in the regions. These investments are transformational for regions like mine. Indeed, so is our work to train more GPs and waive HECS for doctors and nurses who work in regional communities and our commitment to roll out even more Medicare urgent care clinics, with dozens in regional, rural and remote Australia. Our budget on Tuesday also included the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund to unlock more housing supply, including $500 million specifically for enabling infrastructure in regional communities. To make this a reality, to build the workforces we need, the Albanese government is backing in free TAFE, regional university study hubs, broadband expansions, road, rail and safer local infrastructure. We also understand the pressures regional Australians face right now, particularly around fuel, freight and supply chains. That's why this government is acting through a $10 billion fuel security and resilience package, fuel excise relief, protections for farmers and stronger safeguards for critical industries. Of course, there is more to do, and that's why we are continuing to do the hard work to support regional Australians, because health care matters in the regions. Housing matters. Education matters. Economic resilience matters. And that's exactly what the Albanese government is doing. We are backing in our regional areas, keeping them front and centre, because we know that when we build communities in regional areas we are helping to build our nation's prosperity. It means we have free bulk-billing doctors. We can find a home, we can gain skills, we can build businesses and we can secure regional work. (Time expired) 16:35 Mr JOYCE e5d New England ():  by leave—Whilst there is no money for Tomago, there is apparently $18.2 billion further for intermittent power rollout, the intermittent power swindle—the solar panels, the wind turbines, the transmission lines. I note that the Treasurer only mentioned the words 'climate change' once in his speech the other night, which was probably a very clever thing because it's terribly unpopular. We've the dearest electricity prices and the most unreliable electricity, basically, in the OECD. It is also important that we secure fuel, diesel—we've all agreed on that. I've been doing my very best to work with people such as Chris Monet in San Diego and with a range of consortiums trying to bring diesel in on the spot market from Singapore. The issue is that we—some time ago, last month—passed the legislation to derisk this, because it costs about $250,000 to hire the boat and about $90,000 a day to push it through the water. You might be up for $200 million or $300 million on a punt. If it goes against you—if you go out of the money—you'll go broke. So we have to derisk it. The derisking process was done through EFA, Export Finance Australia. I have to say I'm incredibly disappointed. It is so slow. These deals are not turning around; they're bogged down. People are coming out and asking, 'How long before you can get this through?' And they're hearing 'A month—weeks.' When you're buying on the spot market, it's bang—it's like that. We've had product at $600 a tonne, and at Platts it's at $1,100 a tonne. And we can't finalise the deal to get it through so we can land it here. It's not one deal of 100 million litres; it's deal after deal after deal that we can do. So I plead with the government: please get going on this. Go down to the department, bang some heads together and make things move, because we're losing these deals and you can't tell big players just to hang around for their money. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 74 BILLS Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026, Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026, Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 74

Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026

Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026

Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026

Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026

Returned from Senate 74 COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 74 Report 74 16:38 Dr REID 300126 Robertson On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr REID 300126 by leave—This review was conducted under section 114A.9 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 following the making of regulations in March 2026 specifying Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group. This was the first use of the prohibited hate group framework established by the parliament earlier this year, and the committee approached its task conscious of both the seriousness of the listing power and the need to ensure that the statutory safeguards enacted by parliament were properly applied. The committee carefully examined the material provided by the government, including a detailed statement of reasons, and considered submissions from a range of stakeholders expressing strongly held and, at times, divergent views. The committee also held an in camera hearing to test the evidence and satisfy itself that the legislative criteria of the listing had been met and that the process followed was consistent with the requirements of the act. Having considered the evidence before it, the committee is satisfied that Hizb ut-Tahrir meets the legislative criteria for listing as a prohibited hate group and that the listing has been properly made. In particular, the committee accepts that Hizb ut-Tahrir has advocated conduct constituting hate crimes, including through repeated praise for attacks that would amount to hate crimes if committed in Australia, and that the listing is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community from social, economic, psychological and physical harm. Accordingly, the committee supports the listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instrument. I want to thank, briefly, the committee, the committee chair and deputy chair, and the secretariat and all of the staff for their assistance throughout the committee's deliberations. I commend the report to the House. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS Defence 75 Presentation 75 16:40 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I present the following documents: Australia's 2026 National Defence Strategy—Speech to the National Press Club—Richard Marles MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, 16 April 2026. Department of Defence— Integrated Investment Program 2026. National Defence Strategy 2026. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 75 Presentation 75 16:41 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I present: National Interest Analysis [2026] ATNIA 3 Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on Common Security (Jakarta, 6 February 2026), ATNIF 1. BUSINESS 75 BUSINESS Rearrangement 75 BILLS 75 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 75

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Second Reading 75 19:31 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume To Australians watching: thank you for your time. Tonight, I want to tell you about my vision for a fairer, freer and better Australia for all: an Australia where life is affordable; an Australia where we have cheap and abundant energy; an Australia where industries thrive and businesses boom; an Australia where we innovate, make and build things of ambition, and farm, mine and drill with determination; an Australia where a single income earner on an ordinary wage has enough for a home deposit and to pay off a mortgage steadily over time; an Australia where a mum or dad can afford to take time away from work to do the most worthwhile thing in life—raise a child; an Australia where those we welcome to our shores are all determined to embrace our values, to work hard, to contribute to this nation and to become Australian; an Australia where we have confidence in our nation's future; an Australia where we have hope and optimism. This isn't the Australia we know today. But we have known it, and we can know it again. We can restore our standard of living and we can protect our way of life. That starts by fighting against the assault on aspiration at the heart of Labor's budget. Labor is locking out young Australians from the opportunities afforded to older Australians to build wealth and prosperity and to get ahead. This prime minister is one of many Australians who have benefited from these opportunities. Now he's pulling up the ladder of opportunity for the next generation by whacking higher taxes not only on housing but also on their savings, investments and small businesses. When government whacks a tax on something, you get less of it—less housing, less savings, less investment and less small business—for the next generation. Labor's budget isn't intergenerational fairness; it's intergenerational fraud. Their budget is also an attack on every Australian. As Labor's own budget papers state, its tax hikes will reduce the number of houses available for young Australians to buy or to rent. Labor's negative gearing changes will hand over housing investment to multinationals and foreign pension funds. Labor's increase to the capital gains tax will discourage the investment Australia needs to grow. Labor's small business tax will punish small and family businesses that are already working harder than ever and collapsing at record rates. The Treasurer's higher taxes aren't economic reform; they're an assault on aspiration. They're an attack on the wealth creation that benefits all. They will crush the reward-for-hard-work spirit that underpins our nation's success. And so the coalition will fight like hell to prevent Labor's toxic taxes from becoming law. But, if they do, I commit that a coalition government I lead will repeal them. There's a simple reason why Labor has broken its core election promises. This incompetent government has lost control of its spending. When Labor runs out of its money, it comes after yours. Intergenerational theft isn't caused by older Australians; it's been caused by the Albanese government. Labor's reckless spending will soon see our country with $1 trillion of debt. The only way to get debt down is to throw out this bad government. To know a fairer, freer and better Australia, we also need something that's been missing for too long, and that's honesty—honesty about what's holding Australia back and leaving Australians behind. First, mass migration is changing Australia for the worse. The number of people coming in far exceeds the number of houses built. Consequently, the great Australian dream of homeownership is vanishing for old and new Australians alike. Across its two terms, Labor will have brought in two million people. That includes 90,000 more than planned in the next two years. By inviting in too many people too quickly, we've also seen some come with the wrong values—people who don't want to join and embrace Australia, but people who want to change Australia to suit them. We saw this with the Bondi tragedy, inspired by radical and violent Islam. Second, prioritising net zero and emissions reduction above all else has seen cheap, always-on power dismissed for expensive, sometimes-on industrial-scale renewables, mainly sourced from offshore. Power prices have soared, causing households to struggle, businesses to close and industries to move offshore. Far from a future made in Australia, our future is being made abroad. Australians have been fed the lie that our economy can function on solar, wind and batteries alone. But the truth is that fossil fuels continue to drive our economy and our prosperity. In this budget alone, Labor has $18 billion in new net zero spending. Labor's net zero obsession is driving up inflation and destroying our economy, and that's why net zero must go. Third, all Australians prosper from having access to international markets, but blind faith in globalisation has hollowed out our vital industries and made our country vulnerable. We're too dependent on other countries for critical supplies of jet fuel, diesel and fertiliser, and yet we have an abundance of resources beneath our feet. We could be self-sufficient and reindustrialise in key areas if we stop locking up our resources and turbocharge digging and drilling. Fourth, during the pandemic, many Australians were reliant on government, but that crisis fed the mistaken belief that bigger government is the solution to every problem. Anthony Albanese promised that you would be better off under a big Labor government, but big government hasn't led to better government or Australians being better off. Government led housing programs have seen 30,000 fewer homes built each year—30,000 fewer each year. Government led industry policy has seen billions wasted on pie-in-the-sky schemes like green hydrogen. Government led child care for all has caused costs to rise by 14 per cent, and government led energy policy—pushing out gas and coal generation—has caused power prices to surge by 40 per cent. Labor's reckless spending has caused inflation to soar. Contrary to Labor's spin, inflation was rising long before the conflict in Iran. Under Labor, interest rates have gone up 15 times, and Australia has experienced the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world. Moreover, under Labor, economic growth is an illusion. Every single dollar of growth has been due to population growth, mostly immigration—every single dollar. Labor remains committed to the follies of mass migration, net zero, locking up our resources and big government. We need to reject these bad ideas to bring about a fairer, freer and better Australia. My life has taken me from the family farm—sheep yards and shearing shed—to small business, to factory floors, to boardrooms and to this parliament. I've seen everyday Aussie men and women who make, build, fix, create, contribute and care. And I've seen big government, big unions and big business direct, influence, accumulate power and seek to control the lives of others. Our nation is at its very best when everyday Aussies are empowered. My ambition for this country is to revive the freedom that Australians have lost under Labor—not a government directed economy but a free-enterprise economy, not bigger government but better government that gets the big things right, gets off Australians' backs and puts its faith back in you. To that end, the coalition government under my leadership will axe Labor's toxic taxes, end Labor's mass immigration and scrap Labor's net zero policies. When we restore and expand our choices, we can begin to restore our standard of living and protect our way of life. To lower inflation, interest rates and the cost of living, we must reduce government spending. Labor has driven it to a 40-year high outside of the pandemic. We will work with the government to make its National Disability Insurance Scheme sustainable. Labor lacks any real resolve to rein in its reckless ways. Unlike Labor, the coalition will get spending under control and save billions. We will abolish Labor's climate bureaucracy, its net zero agency, its powerlines to nowhere and its tax on the family car and ute. We will end tax breaks for electric vehicles, which are overwhelmingly going to high-income Australians. We'll terminate Labor's corporate welfare, like sending money to foreign tech companies that don't deliver. We'll scrap Labor's housing bureaucracy, the ineffective Housing Australia Future Fund and its build-to-rent tax breaks for multinationals. We'll remove Labor's handouts for noncitizens. Many Australians would be surprised to learn that noncitizens are eligible for welfare in this country. We've already announced that the first home buyer five per cent deposit scheme will be reserved for Australian citizens only. That's because Labor has allowed some 50,000 noncitizens to access this scheme. Moreover, this government is funding welfare for noncitizens as soon as they arrive on our soil. Yet it has cut the private health insurance rebate for Australians over 65 and slashed $600 million for our veterans. Labor puts Australians second, whereas the coalition will always put Australians first. Tonight, I announce that a coalition government will reserve the NDIS and 17 different welfare programs, including JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and the family tax benefit, for Australian citizens only, and save taxpayers billions. My message is this: if you commit to Australia, Australia will commit to you. After all, the taxes paid by hardworking Australians should support Australians. Australians know that revenue from booming iron ore, gas and coal prices go a long way. For instance, revenues can help to build more houses and stronger communities, as well as the long-term infrastructure in cities and regions that we need, like the Inland Rail that's been axed by Labor. Revenues can help to pay down debt too. Since Labor came to office, they've received almost half a trillion dollars in commodity revenue upgrades, mostly driven by higher resource prices. This year alone, iron ore prices have averaged more than US$100 a tonne, but this budget assumes they return to US$60 a tonne. Instead of paying down debt and building our nation, Labor has squandered resource profits with its self-indulgent spending. In contrast, the coalition will not neglect our responsibility to our children and grandchildren. Where resource tax revenues are higher than forecast, we will bank 80c in every dollar into our future generation fund. This fund will help to pay down Labor's trillion dollars of debt. It will help to invest in nation-building infrastructure, and 25 per cent of funding will be for our regions that have been neglected by Labor—regions that are home to the natural resources we all benefit from. In my career I've worked across agriculture, energy, resources and infrastructure sectors. I've helped small and large businesses to grow. I know what makes an economy tick and what Australia needs to grow and to thrive. Government doesn't grow the economy; private enterprise does. Tonight, I begin to outline how the coalition will restore Australian prosperity. It starts with driving investment. Investment lifts the economy's speed limit. It drives up jobs, real wages and real income, and it strengthens the budget to pay for the safety net and to pay down debt. Investment is a vote of confidence in our country, with compounding benefits. For example, when a builder invests in a ute, he can do more jobs, take on a new apprentice, grow his business and service more of his community. To lift confidence in our country and encourage business investment, tonight I announce an important down payment—the first of many. We will allow any business with a turnover of less than $10 million to immediately deduct assets of up to $50,000 on a permanent basis To boost investment, we also need to free the economy from the government's chains. Laws are too complex and obstruct enterprise. A coalition government will rewrite and simplify the legislative rulebook, including the Corporations Act, the tax act, the competition act, the National Construction Code and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Take the construction code as one example. Labor has expanded it to more than 2,000 pages. The code's thousands of rules add tens of thousands of dollars to new housing bills. We want the code to be closer to 200 pages, and we will go further. Regulatory bodies created by government set rules and enforce laws, and that's important. But under Labor, these regulators have become bigger, more powerful and overbearing. They're regulating for regulation's sake. They need to get out of the way. A coalition government will impose new responsibilities on regulators by law. We will require regulators to act in a way that encourages competition, nurtures investment, increases productivity, boosts wages and grows the economy. The coalition will also abolish Labor's great big carbon tax, the so-called Safeguard Mechanism. This tax jacks up the price on essential building materials like steel, cement and glass, driving up the cost of a new home. It also undermines investment in key industries and hastens them going offshore. Indeed, we'll abolish Labor's crippling net zero carbon taxes wherever we find them—on mining, manufacturing, electricity, vehicles and imports. Now, just as I want more investment in Australia, I want Australians to keep more of their income. If you're feeling poorer under this government, it's because you are. Labor is stealing from you with inflation. The Treasurer says inflation will reach five per cent next month. People see Labor's inflation steal from them in higher grocery prices, power bills, mortgage repayments and other cost-of-living expenses. But Labor is stealing from Australians in another way, year after year, without new laws, without an election and without you even noticing until you look at your bank account. When your wages rise just to keep up with inflation, you're no better off. But you pay higher taxes as though you are better off. More of your income goes into a higher tax bracket. This is bracket creep, and it's why you feel poorer. The higher Labor's inflation goes and the longer it lasts, the more the government takes from you. This is a stealth raid on Australians working hard to get ahead. Labor's promising that your real wages will finally go up. But Labor's plan is to tax away all of workers' real wage gains. Living standards go nowhere. A typical worker on $70,000 a year will see their entire real wage gains taxed away. The worst thing about this tax is that it keeps going up and keeps taking more each year, forever. Under a coalition government I lead, this will end. Tonight I announce our tax back guarantee. From 2028-29, we will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation. That will fully protect 85 per cent of income earners, with relief of around $2.50 in year 1 for a typical worker, growing to more than $1,000 a year in year 4. From 2031-32, we will index the top two tax thresholds as well. That will fully protect all income earners from inflation. This is generational tax reform. It's fair, it's simple, and it's honest. It will back Australians to work hard, take risks, invest in their future and invest in our country's future. It will force government to respect your money. Any government that wants to tax Australians more should have the courage to front up and take that tax increase to an election. Under Labor, Australians work harder, pay more and fall behind. Under the coalition, Australians will be rewarded, keep more and get ahead. From my first day as opposition leader, I said I wanted to re-establish homeownership as the centrepiece of the Australian dream. My goal is more houses for Australians and a fairer go for young Australians. A coalition government will get stalled housing projects moving again. We will invest $5 billion in supporting infrastructure like roads, water power and sewerage. With this support, we will unlock 400,000 new homes for Australians. As I said, we will cut red tape, which will take up to $70,000 off the cost of a new home. But the biggest problem with access to housing is that, under Labor, immigration numbers are too high. With Labor having opened the migration floodgates, the dream of homeownership has become a nightmare for so many Australians. Since Labor was elected, it has brought in a record 1.4 million people—about the population of Adelaide. That number accounts for 80 per cent of our population growth over the same period, and that's why there's a shortfall of homes for about 400,000 people. Australians are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of immigration on housing, infrastructure and services, and that includes migrants themselves who have become Australians. Tonight I announce a far-reaching and unprecedented housing policy. It's also an immigration policy that puts Australians first. A coalition will cap immigration numbers based on the number of homes constructed each year. Never again will a government be able to bring in more people than our housing can support. That's our commitment. I also stress this point. Given the magnitude of people coming in under Labor, immigration will need to be significantly below our cap in the first few years of a coalition government. We must allow the housing market to catch up. Only closer to the election can we provide a precise immigration number. It will be rash to do so now because Labor always exceeds its immigration targets, and it will do so again. By the next election, the situation could be even worse than it is today. But this much I promise, the coalition will deliver one of the biggest cuts to immigration in the history of this country. Our immigration cut will complement our plan to lift immigration standards. We will make the existing Australian values statement an enforceable visa condition. We'll make it an obligation, not an option, for permanent visa holders to learn English. We will enhance screening to stop radicals from entering our borders. We'll curtail frivolous protection claims by restoring temporary protection visas and establishing a list of safe countries deemed free from persecution. And we will process and deport 70,000 overstayers who have no legal right to stay. Those who criticise the law being enforced must explain why their sympathies lie with illegal overstayers instead of with migrants and Australians who abide by the law. In a dangerous world of coercion, crises and conflict, we need to address threats and risks comprehensively and get serious about our self-reliance. Tonight I announce that a coalition government will develop a national security strategy and appoint a dedicated national security adviser. Central to that strategy will be defence. Unlike Labor, with its accounting trickery, the coalition will commit to spending at least three per cent of GDP on defence. That is what is needed to bolster our ranks of war fighters in this country, to harden our bases, to deliver AUKUS, to build offensive and defensive drones and missiles at speed and scale in an age where such weapons are essential to deter a larger adversary. Energy security will also be a priority in this new strategy. While renewables have a role in our energy mix, especially rooftop solar and home batteries, they aren't a rapid replacement for fossil fuels. Fossil fuels still deliver most of our energy needs. Australia isn't undergoing a rapid, pain-free energy transition, as Labor pretends. Australia's energy security requires energy abundance. That's the coalition's goal. So tonight I announce that a coalition government will work with coal-fired power plant owners to keep them running as long and as hard as possible to get electricity prices down. On fuel, the coalition has said we will double our minimum reserves of petrol, diesel and jet fuel to put our total reserves within reach of 90 days. We will also invest $800 million for new fuel storage to give us one billion litres of additional capacity. To incentivise more refining capacity, we'll make the fuel security services payment available to companies who can build new refineries. This includes refining of non-conventional fuels like biofuels and coal-to-liquids. Ultimately, we want decades of fuel reserves and much more energy. We can achieve that by getting Australian resources out of the ground—more Australian gas working hard for Australians, more Australian oil working hard for Australians. To dig and drill, the coalition will remove obstacles. As I said earlier, we will abolish Labor's hidden carbon taxes, like the safeguard mechanism, and we will rewrite Labor's antidevelopment environmental laws to speed up approvals. We're also going to unlock critical gas and oil projects. We will create under law national strategic priority projects. Two nation-building projects will be immediately designated by a coalition government: the Browse Basin offshore gas field in Western Australia and the Taroom oil field in Queensland. The Commonwealth will get out of the way so the states can get projects going. The coalition will also put an end to the green-energy rent-seeking. We will back any technologies that can deliver affordable and reliable energy in this country. That includes coal, gas, hydro, batteries and renewables in the right places, and it will include nuclear power too. We will lift the ban. To Australians watching tonight, I know you're struggling on many fronts. I know you're apprehensive about your and your children's future. I know you're worried about the state of our cherished country. But decline isn't inevitable. Damage isn't irreparable. Difficulty isn't insurmountable. We can restore our standard of living. We can protect our way of life. I'm not under any misapprehension. There's much work the coalition must do to win your confidence. But, with the policies I've announced tonight and the vision I've outlined, I hope you can begin to believe again. Believe in our promise of better government. Believe in the prospect of a fairer, freer and better Australia. That Australia is worth fighting for, now more than ever, and the fight starts tonight. Debate adjourned. House adjourned at 20:05 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ) took the chair at 09:40.

Thursday, 14 May 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ) took the chair at 09:40.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Animal Welfare 80 09:41 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Animal welfare is one of the issues I've spoken about most often in this place, and it's the one issue that's most consistently generated feedback from the community. No wonder one of the biggest highlights of my parliamentary career will forever be the passage of the legislation to finally set an end date for the cruel live sheep export industry. Good on the Albanese government for delivering that and for also including $42.5 million of transitional industry assistance in this week's budget for the phaseout, which includes funding for onshore processing capacity. But, sadly, this is a rare bright spot amongst the animal welfare crisis in this country. For instance, there are still puppy mills and kitten factories, those intensive industrial facilities which treat animals as nothing more than breeding machines from which to profit at the expense of their health and welfare. Obviously, these need to be banned. In the racing industries, cruelty remains commonplace. For example, in horseracing, there's the urgent need to ban the steeplechase, which is still legal in Victoria despite its shocking cruelty. The use of the whip, I'd add, is outlawed in some countries and in some jurisdictions in the United States. I've also been a consistent advocate over many years to finally end greyhound racing. The only way to end the systemic cruelty in that industry is to, in fact, end the industry. To its credit, the Tasmania Liberal government is seeking to progress legislation to that effect, despite the Labor opposition doing everything it can to thwart the ban. Fancy that! The one issue the Tasmania Labor party has decided to differentiate themselves from the Liberal government on is that they'll stand up for unconscionable and unpopular industrial scale animal cruelty. No wonder no-one votes for them anymore. Meanwhile, on the farm, there are a lot of very decent farmers and animal breeders, but there is simply no conceivable way to justify practices like caged eggs nor so-called free range chickens at 10,000 birds to the hectare, and the continued use of sow stalls and racks is appalling. A couple of themes run through these matters. Firstly, there is often a fundamental tension between the pursuit of profit and animal welfare. Secondly, self-regulation doesn't work. And finally the worst combination is gambling and animals. One part of the solution is, of course, better animal welfare protections. State and territory governments have shown time and time again that they simply can't be trusted in this space, and, to that end and in closing, I call again for a national independent office for animal welfare. Shortland Electorate: Health Care 80 09:44 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland After the cost of living, the No. 1 priority for my region and my electorate of Shortland is equitable access to health care, being able to see a doctor when you need it using your Medicare card. This government has been laser-like in our focus on improving access to primary health care for people in my region. Since the election, we've restored the distribution priority access listing for Lake Macquarie and the Central Coast. For some bizarre reason, the last government, the Liberal government, declared war on health care in my region by banning overseas trained doctors and Australian scholarship doctors from being able to practice in my community. We fixed that. Secondly, we restored funding and saved the much loved GP access after-hours service, so, if it's 10:00 on a Sunday night and you need access for a kid to see a doctor but it's not quite serious enough to get to the emergency department, you can see a GP at the Belmont Hospital, the John Hunter and a few other clinics in our community if you need to. Those two were important initial moves. We then matched them with strong funding for Medicare urgent care clinics—one on the northern Central Coast at Lake Haven and one at Charlestown. The one at Charlestown is one of the busiest in the countries, and we've served it with additional funding to increase the hours, so you can go there between 8 am and 10 pm every day of the year to see a doctor for free without an appointment, and we've funded additional staff for it. We've also tripled the bulk-billing incentive for visits to doctors. I'm sad to say that our health community hasn't responded as fast as the rest of the country in terms of lifting bulk-billing rates. They have improved, but they are not at the national level, so we've made extra interventions as part of this budget. I'm so pleased that the advocacy of both myself and the other Hunter and Central Coast members have led to a $25 million package to put six bulk-billing clinics into our community. These clinics will mean that our patients can see a doctor for free. All you'll need is your Medicare card. Importantly, they'll also increase competition in our community for access to healthcare services. Initiatives have shown that, when this has been put in place in places like Rockhampton, the ring of surrounding GPS have a choice. They either lose patients to the new bulk-billing clinic or revert to bulk billing, and history has shown that bulk-billing rates increase. I'm very hopeful that not only will this clinic bulk-bill but it will lead to an increase in bulk-billing rates in my community in surrounding practices. My community should get access to fully bulk-billed visits as much as every other community in this country. In the end, all you should need in order to see a doctor is a Medicare card and not your credit card. That's what the Albanese Labor government is putting in place in our record investments in Medicare in this community. Housing 81 09:47 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield Wherever you look in my community of Bradfield, across the Ku-ring-gai and Willoughby local government areas, there are new apartments and other homes being built. At the same time, when I speak to people, they raise the same concern. They're struggling to afford to live in Bradfield, or, if they can afford it, it's their children or their grandchildren who can't. How can this be true when so many new housing developments claim to be offering affordable housing? Part of the problem is that there is no consistent definition of the 'affordable' part of affordable housing. It's defined differently by almost everyone and even in ways that undermine the ordinary meaning of affordable. Some have affordability as 30 per cent of a household's gross income, and anything higher is considered as housing stress. But the truth is, for a majority of young people starting their careers in nursing, teaching or in retail on the North Shore, there isn't anything to rent for that amount. I recently spoke with a registered nurse who's just a few years out of university, and she managed to find a share house in Artarmon for just on 50 per cent of her income. That's not sustainable for anyone. Others have affordability defined as a 20 per cent discount on the market rent. But, if market rent is exceptionally high as it is across my area and Bradfield, that 20 per cent reduction isn't going to help much. The result is that most of the time affordable doesn't mean affordable at all, and it inevitably forces people to move away from their families, from their workplaces and from their support networks. Bradfield has a huge unmet need for genuinely affordable housing. Data is patchy, but recent estimates put it at around 3,500 dwellings. That's five times more than the current social and affordable housing stock in the area. To get there, we need to build more homes, and Bradfield's making some progress in that direction, but new supply isn't enough on its own. Governments have to ensure that it's accessible for the people who need it most. Without clear and meaningful standards around affordability, we won't have homes built that are genuinely affordable. We'll just continue to see more and more young families priced out of the places that they grew up in, and we'll see more essential workers forced to move away and commute longer distances to the schools, hospitals and aged-care facilities that they keep operational. Earlier this month, I launched a campaign that called for a clear national definition for 'affordable housing' so funding, planning and construction are all working towards the same goal. With your support, we can push the government to set a consistent definition so we can hold them accountable for the funds that they commit in order to deliver the homes that people can actually afford. Kumanjayi Little Baby 81 09:50 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I begin by acknowledging the family of Kumanjayi Little Baby. This pain cannot be compared. It is deep and it is unending. Not only to mourn such a tragic and horrendous loss but to mourn so publicly is an extremely difficult thing. Minister McCarthy and I were in Central Australia when we received the news that Kumanjayi Little Baby had been found. There was an immense and collective outpouring of grief. That evening I went to see, and sat down with, the grandmothers of Kumanjayi Little Baby to pay my respects. They told me very clearly what they wanted in terms of seeing justice done. It is a matter of pride and gratitude—specifically endorsed by Mr Robin Granites, grandfather of Kumanjayi Little Baby—that the entire Alice Springs community has come together as one over the last couple of weeks. Hundreds of volunteers joined extensive line searches and scoured bushland for a little girl who was missing. Whatever cultural differences may have separated volunteers and well-wishers from the family evaporated in a wave of shared human empathy and concern. The community has shown where it stands and for whom it stands. Everyone is committed to the proposition that little children are sacred. It is likely that no other town in Australia could have displayed more compassion, responsibility and care. I want to thank those on the ground coordinating logistics: the Northern Territory police and emergency services, Tangentyere, the Central Land Council and the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. In particular, our local businesses and our community showed immense generosity of spirit and resources. I have spent considerable time talking to the Granites family. I remain in contact with them still on how to approach this discourse. That is entirely appropriate. I would like to pay my respects to the White and Rockman families, who are also kin to Kumanjayi Little Baby. The family has made it very clear: we do not want the death of this little baby to be politicised or to be used as a trojan horse for another government intervention. We must be collaborative, we must be constructive and we must respect their grief. That is not inaction. That is not abdicating accountability. It is saying we respect your immense hurt. We all want to see justice for Kumanjayi Little Baby, but we also must be very clear about how we seek that justice. We cannot demonise town campers. Conditions in town camps can often be very challenging, and in many cases people are forced to live in harsh and insecure conditions. These conditions are not the result of personal failings. It is the result of systemic failures, and governments of all persuasions and at all levels either condoned or exacerbated these conditions. We have not done enough. We must grapple with the fact that the conditions in town camps are not what they should be, but town campers are not to blame for this tragedy. The family are certainly not to blame, and we must take a wide and honest look at the circumstances that led to this. If it takes a village to raise a child, then the entire village must look at what responsibility it takes when things go wrong. But for the moment the family has asked: 'We must come together. We must show grace and empathy and stay connected.' To the family and to my entire community in Alice Springs: I share in your grief and I share in your resolve. Budget 82 09:54 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I want to start by thanking the previous speaker for the clarity and decency in which she has addressed that issue and called for unity. I thank her for her leadership on it. Australia has always been the place of the fair go. We don't ask for much in Australia; we're willing to put up with all sorts of hardships that are just part of our way of life. Whether you're like my side of the family that came in the Second Fleet or my wife's side who came after Second World War, everyone who's come here has looked to contribute to and be part of that process of giving a fair go to each other. When people need a hand up, we're there. We want to demonstrate that compassion for each other. I think it's such an important part of the Australian story. It's why people want to come here. It's why people want to migrate here. We're a good country because we're good to each other. But in recent times things have changed. In part, I want to speak to one particular issue, which is the issue of immigration and its impact upon housing in Australia. I say that Australians don't ask for much. We just want a fair go. When it comes to access to housing, when it comes to affordability of rent in Australia, that fair go has been slipping away, particularly from the young generation, who just want to get on the property ladder, and from renting pensioners, who are in the golden age of their life and are watching those years get squeezed out as the cost of everything goes up and rents push up whilst they're on a fixed income. I think of those two groups in particular; I don't think they're getting a fair go. I don't think they're getting a fair go in Australia. That's what I hear. I'm sure that every member of this House, when they go out and talk to those demographics in the community, hears the same thing. They want to see change on this. Unfortunately, in the budget last night, one of the things that I think particularly hurt both those demographics was that line on page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 that said that the tax changes that were being brought about in that budget paper would result in 35,000 fewer houses being built by the private sector. That is not a fair go; that is making things worse for those groups. A conversation on tax changes is fine, but, if it results in a downward pressure on supply, that is a terrible outcome. It's an outcome that's going to hurt Australians. So it's no surprise that already what we've seen in the Courier Mail's lead-up and the press around the announcements that will be coming out tonight in our reply to this budget have been met with excitement across all Australians, particularly those two demographics. The idea that we will tie migration numbers to housing supply is sensible. It's a sensible response that says to Australians: 'We understand the pressures you're having trying to get into the housing market and what rent prices are doing to your standard of living. We want a fair go for Australians.' That's a very sensible, credible position. I'm looking forward to the rest of it in Angus Taylor's response tonight. Eastside Business Awards 82 09:57 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt On Wednesday 22 April 2026, I had the honour of attending the ninth annual Eastside Business Awards hosted by the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council in my electorate of Sturt, the Eastside Business Awards celebrate the achievements of small businesses, retailers, restaurants, cafes, entertainment venues and wellbeing businesses within the council area. The awards were established in 2018 in partnership with Solstice Media. This year just over 700 local businesses were nominated in a range of different categories including arts and entertainment, won by HOYTS Norwood; Best Cafe, won by Doppio; Best Hair/Beauty Salon, won by Cozy Hair; and Best Restaurant/Pub, won by Taste of Nepal, with that business also achieving legend status. Best Independent Small Business and Best Professional Service were both won by Tito Pinetti Training & Consulting which like Taste of Nepal, also achieved legend status. We also had Best Health/Fitness, won by MOTUM Health; best retail outlet, won by 48 flavours; and Best Food/Beverage Manufacturer, won by Prove Patisserie, who also achieved legend status. Can I just give a bit of a shout-out to Prove Patisserie? I'm a genuine lifelong coeliac who needs to follow a gluten-free diet, and I can say Prove Patisserie produces one of the best gluten-free chocolate brownies I've ever eaten. It's smooth, fudgy and chocolatey. It is a coeliac's dream because it holds its structure. This is genuinely the coeliac's dream. I'm getting hungry; I wish I had one right now! Finally, the awards also celebrate a business that has achieved hall-of-fame status. This year that business was Art Images Gallery. Established in 1985, Art Images Gallery is a leading contemporary art gallery in Sturt which specialises in showcasing contemporary painting, sculpture, prints, ceramics, glass and jewellery by local artists. There is a thriving arts community in Sturt, and Art Images Gallery takes pride of place within it. Congratulations to all the nominees, as well as to all the winners. The small business community in Sturt is such an important part of our community, with businesses driving economic growth, acting as drivers of job creation and employment and keeping money circulating within our local economy. These small businesses, which are the product of sometimes years and years of dedication, sacrifice and plain hard work, often start out as dreams, as promises, and then they flourish and provide our community with diverse goods, services and connection. Whether it be a cafe, a pub, a hairdresser or a gym, 'my local' is a phrase you hear time and time again thanks to small business. I look forward to further celebrating small businesses in Sturt at the Sturt Small Business Forum on 21 May 2026. Budget 83 10:00 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I say to my electorate: I believe in you and your aspiration. Mitchell has always been an aspirational electorate—hardworking, working families, parents looking after their kids, young people getting ahead, all in work, all producing or creating businesses and all innovating. That's why I'm against this budget from a Labor government which has decided to have a war on capital and a war on aspiration. We already have a war on productivity going on in this country by the Labor Party. We have the worst and most onerous industrial relations regime in the world, mitigating against all productivity that we know of in our economy. In this budget, the government has decided to declare war on capital—your capital. A budget which claims $50 billion to $70 billion more for the government is in no way making your life easier. We see in this budget a war on shares and equities, a war on ETFs and a war of increased taxes. Remember, this is the socialist government that told you that, by keeping a tax bracket, they would be making you better off. In fact, that bracket means the government gets more revenue and you are poorer, and you struggle against the income—and they have the hide to tell you they are arguing for intergenerational fairness. The only take-out of the $70 billion of increased revenue that you get is $250. You would have to be a barking moron to believe that $250, as a return of the government claiming $70 billion of revenue, is somehow intergenerational fairness or equity. We have the highest income tax rates in the world. We have the most regulated labour market. We have the lowest productivity. And the government has decided, in this war on capital, that the movement of capital in our economy is the problem. Capital is vital. It's not piles of wealth or gold; it is hard-earned capital that belongs to individuals and households that they have the right to invest and reinvest, to have more productive assets in our economy. That makes everybody wealthier. The only people getting wealthier out of this budget are the government. The government is getting the money. If anyone in this economy thinks that the government having $70 billion more is going to make them better off, make their small business easier or make their income better, they've got rocks in their head. I believe Australians aren't buying it. I know my electorate aren't buying it because they are hardworking people. They do the sums. By not abolishing that income tax bracket, Labor have absolutely locked in more revenue permanently. By taxing all the capital vehicles people have had access to for their own money, to invest in the economy and to make sure that that is used productively—in claiming it for the government, everyone will get poorer. To say to young people today that, when rents will go up because of these changes, when housing will go down, they will somehow have easier access to a house because the government will give them 250 bucks is a direct insult to every young person in this country. I can tell you, they will not buy it when they look closely at this. Budget 83 10:03 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith One of the great privileges of representing Griffith is seeing how deeply our community cares for the natural places around us. When I join with the Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee or the Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee, when I attend our community forums and meet with our local ACF and WWF members, when I see their practical work that's happening to restore our natural habitats—in particular, the care of the koala populations we have in my area and all the work to keep our waterways healthy—I see that care in action. That's why I'm proud that this budget continues our work to protect Australia's natural environment. Last year, this government passed historic laws through the parliament—landmark reforms that marked a major step forward in the way Australia protects nature. For the first time, Australia will have national environmental standards, providing clear and consistent rules to guide decision-making and better protect our environment. This budget now delivers the funding to put those reforms into action, with $250 million to establish Australia's first national environmental protection agency. This is a massive step forward for our country. In just 48 days, Australia will have a strong independent national environmental regulator with the power to enforce our environmental laws, conduct audits, improve accountability and make sure that the rules designed to protect nature are properly upheld. This budget also provides $110.8 million to continue protecting native species and biodiversity and $21.1 million to continue water reform activities, including support for First Nations people to access and manage water; transparency and integrity in water markets; and the Goyder Institute for Water Research. Queensland is home to six of the world's seven marine turtle species, all of which are considered threatened due to climate change, habitat loss and predation. That is why the Albanese government is continuing to deliver $820,000 for the Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program in partnership with the Queensland government. Since 2014, this program has helped an estimated 2.5 million hatchlings begin their journey to the sea, with 90 per cent of eggs now hatched through predator control and direct nest protection measures. After passing the required legislation in March to support Australia's participation in the high-seas biodiversity treaty, this government is now turning that commitment into action through targeted investment and practical project delivery. We're investing $11.5 million to improve the management of Australia's marine parks, support sea country partnerships with traditional owners and strengthen Australia's ocean leadership. Protecting the environment means protecting the places that sustain us and giving the next generation a country where nature is cared for, threatened species have a future and the restoration of nature is backed in. This budget keeps us moving in that direction with care, ambition and the continued national leadership needed to protect nature and the places that Australians love. Ballina: Boating Accident, Darke, Mr Sam, Coutts Crossing General Store 84 10:06 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to rise to acknowledge a tragedy that recently happened in my community. On 5 May, Marine Rescue volunteers from Ballina answered a call to assist a boat in distress. Six volunteers launched into dangerous conditions. Tragically, the rescue vessel capsized, and Bill Ewen and Frank Petsch made the ultimate sacrifice. We often speak in this place about courage, service and community spirit. Bill and Frank showed all three. They were volunteers who quietly dedicated their time, skill and compassion to protecting others—men who loved serving their community and never hesitated when help was needed. Their loss has deeply affected the Marine Rescue family and our wider community. I extend my condolences to Bill's wife, Kerry; Frank's wife, Janet; and their extended families. Bill Ewen and Frank Petsch: rest in peace. I'd also like to acknowledge Sam Darke, born in South Grafton in 1933. Sam loved his town, he loved a yarn, and, if you ever saw an old 'Bullnose' Morris, you knew exactly who it was. The car was his pride and joy. He also helped start the Grafton vintage car club so others could share the passion as well. As a young man in the Royal Australian Air Force, he was sent out to Emu Field during Operation Totem in 1953. What that involved was Sam transporting scientists into the desert for Australia's first nuclear test, and he held that story in silence for 70 years. Sam is thought to have been the last person alive that stood within five kilometres of the detonation. He said all this was carried out with the utmost secrecy. Sam married his wife, Betty, in 1956 and raised Dennis, Donnie and Carol. Rest in peace, Sam, and thank you for your service. I'd also like to acknowledge and congratulate John and Fay Hooper, and Fay's brother Alan Child, on their retirement after 30 remarkable years of running the Coutts Crossing General Store. For generations, the store has been the heart of the community. Since taking over, John, Fay and Alan have been remembered for their generosity, having donated to countless charities and community groups. Stores like this—and the help they gave in feeding the community through fires and floods and in times of distress—are legendary for how generous they were. Their impact will be felt for many years—so thank you John, Fay, daughter Kylie and granddaughter Matilda; and Alan, children Tim and Ashley and grandchildren Tate, Joslyn and Rylee. Congratulations on all that you've contributed, and I wish you all the very best for a happy and well-earned retirement. Canberra Budget Speech Competition 85 10:09 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra This year I again ran my budget speech competition for year 10, 11 and 12 students in my electorate. It posed the question: if you were the Treasurer, what would be the one big idea you'd like to see in the budget? I'm so grateful to all the students who entered, and I congratulate them for their excellent ideas and really fantastic writing skills. We had entries on topics as varied as youth mental health to free school meals for every Australian school student. I'm really pleased to announce that Imogen Polder, a year 10 student from St Clare's College, was the winner of the competition. Imogen wrote about the pink tax, and she said this: Why do I have to pay more for pink razors compared to blue razors? Why are products suddenly more expensive when they're designed for women? This is not just annoying, it's completely unfair! Women are already earning less than men, only 79c for every $1 men earn, and these increased prices just to make thousands of lives more difficult. If I were treasurer for the day, I would ensure that the pink tax disappears from our supermarkets, forever. By ensuring prices for women's items are dropped and penalties are enforced on companies that continue with this despicable behaviour, women around Australia will have more accessibility to these products and health issues will reduce. We are not in medieval times. Women should not have to make makeshift period products purely because they cannot afford branded items. Sadly, this is the reality for many women today. Supermarkets and major companies do not listen and acknowledge our needs, and this must change. By enforcing financial penalties, major companies will quickly realise that this is an unfair and inequal practise that they can easily stop, just by spending a small amount of extra money. Altogether, as treasurer, I would ensure that women pay the same prices as men, creating a ripple effect that will change the entire world for the better. Congratulations again, Imogen, for your excellent speech. As the prize for her speech, Imogen and her mother were my guests at the Treasurer's budget speech on Tuesday night. Imogen, it was a pleasure to meet you, and thank you for your advocacy for a more gender equal economy. I also want to acknowledge St Clare's College's engagement each year with the budget. It also had a year 11 economics class and their teacher, Philip Coe, come and visit. We get them tickets for the budget speech. I love seeing students getting engaged with the budget, and our parliament more generally. There is such a great opportunity for this here in Canberra, and the budget is such a great opportunity for young economics students to see economics in action and be inspired. I'd really like to see more schools in Canberra get in touch with me if they're interested. And thanks again to everyone who engaged with my competition this year. Cook Electorate: Sport, Cost of Living 85 10:12 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I would like to recognise and congratulate an outstanding local Kirrawee High School student Nate Kell on his selection to the Australian under 16s water polo team. To represent your country at any age is an extraordinary achievement, but to do so while still in high school is truly incredible. It's a proud moment for the Cronulla water polo club, as well as our entire community of the Sutherland shire. I also want to recognise the Cronulla women's water polo team. They won the 2026 Australian women's water polo championship after a 15-12 victory against Sydney University. Dani Jackovich received the MVP of the finals series, along with MVP of the entire competition. The Cronulla women's water polo team is now the best team in the entire country. Congratulations girls! I would like to congratulate the Wanda Surf Life Saving Club on an extraordinary achievement, securing their first state age championship title in decades. Wanda's young lifesavers have delivered a result the club hasn't celebrated since the early 1990s. There were some standout individual efforts, including in the under 11s. Max Pyper rose to the occasion with dual victories in the ironman and the swim. In the under 9s, Mia Apps produced a remarkable medal haul—three gold and a bronze—marking her as one of the most exciting young competitors in all of New South Wales. I'd like to recognise a truly remarkable member of our community, Frank Bova. For more than 60 years, Frank has been part of the fabric of Lilli Pilli Football Club, first as a player, then as a coach, then as a mentor and now as a leader. Six decades of service to one club is not just dedication; it's a lifetime commitment to a community, to sport and to the next generation. Frank's contribution has not gone unnoticed. In 2018 he was the recipient of a Cook community award, a fitting recognition of the impact he has had on Cook for many years. Recently I received an email from Carol, a St Vincent de Paul volunteer for Caringbah. She wrote: In these ever increasing cost of living times it has become extremely obvious the number of people in your electorate around Caringbah who are in need of help has increased dramatically, and if this increase is not enough we have noticed a lot of people are much younger. We receive requests for food assistance, one lady pleading she had nothing for school lunches, We have also been asked to supply beds so no more sleeping on the floor with only a blanket, we have supplied washing machines, refrigerators, we have also been asked by a very distressed lady for financial help as she could not afford to bury her father … Bonner Electorate Awards, Healthy Men Community Conversations Project, Bonner Electorate: Health Care 86 10:15 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner I recently hosted the Bonner Electorate Awards in my community, recognising some truly outstanding local community members. This year's winners represent a different part of what makes Bonner such a special community. Our over-18 winners were truly inspiring. Laura Garside was recognised for years of volunteer service supporting local families through the Wynnum and District Rugby Union Club, Wynnum Ladybugs netball and of course the Iona College community. Joyce Huang was recognised for creating intergenerational programs connecting kindergarten students, special school students and elderly 'grandfriends' to build inclusion and community connection. Finally, Michael Stubbins was recognised for more than 20 years of volunteer leadership with Bayside Community Legal Service supporting vulnerable residents, including women and children escaping domestic and family violence. We also had our under-18 winners. Ava Costa was recognised for her advocacy through the Walking with Ava Foundation and the Sharing Shed, helping people access essential disability and mobility equipment. Also Vinudi Wijesinghe was recognised for her leadership in volunteering and fundraising initiatives supporting people experiencing homelessness. I congratulate all of our finalists and winners and thank everyone who continues to make Bonner such a special community. The Albanese Labor government has launched the national Healthy Men Community Conversations Project. The project will deliver a series of community conversations right across the country, bringing together the public and organisations working to support men's health and wellbeing as well as those engaged in family, domestic and sexual violence prevention. It's about healthy masculinity, positive role models, respectful relationships and making sure men know it's okay to talk, connect and seek support. Next week, Assistant Minister Ged Kearney and Special Envoy for Men's Health Dan Repacholi will travel to my electorate of Bonner to speak with organisations, and together we are going to host the very first Healthy Men and Boys Forum at the Wynnum Manly and Districts Men's Shed. It will form part of the national Healthy Men Community Conversations project. I encourage everyone in Bonner to get along and support this wonderful event. We've got 135 Medicare urgent care clinics now operating right across the country, including two servicing my community of Bonner. The Carina-Carindale and the Capalaba Medicare urgent care clinics have already treated over 8,000 patients since they opened in December. I'm so excited that these urgent care clinics continue to deliver free health care for my local community. They are just such a wonderful addition. I'm proud to see them continue to be funded in our budget. Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games 86 10:18 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise today to speak about an extraordinary opportunity for Central Queensland and for our nation—the decision for Rockhampton to host rowing, pararowing, canoe sprint and paracanoe events on the Fitzroy River as part of the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games. This is more than a sporting announcement. It's a vote of confidence in our region, in our people and in the great future of Central Queensland. For years our community has known what Rockhampton has to offer. We have the natural assets, we have the determination and we have a proud sporting culture that runs right across our region. Now the rest of the country and indeed the world will have the chance to see it too. The Fitzroy River has long been an important training and competition venue, and, with the right upgrades, it will bring world class competition to our backyard. Just as importantly, it will leave a legacy long after the closing ceremony. Planned improvements to the flatwater facility, support for grassroots sports and better connectivity through projects like the Rockhampton Ring Road will help ensure the benefits are felt not just during the games but for decades to come. This is exactly what regional Australia deserves—a real seat at the table when it comes to major national opportunities. These games should not belong to Brisbane alone; they should belong to all of Queensland, and that absolutely includes Rockhampton and the wider Capricornia region. Hosting these events will put our region on the world stage and will shine a spotlight on our local businesses, our tourism operators, our sporting clubs and our volunteers who will inspire the next generation of young athletes from Central Queensland to believe that the road to the Olympics can begin right here at home. It will also drive investment, create jobs and strengthen community pride. We know the value of projects that leave something meaningful behind, and this is why opportunities matter so much. It's about stronger infrastructure, more visitors, more economic activity and more chances for local people. It's about making sure regional communities are not an afterthought but a priority. I want to acknowledge all those who have worked so hard to back these visions: the local clubs, the community advocates, the councils and those across government who understand that when regional Queensland succeeds, the whole nation benefits. Rockhampton has earned this opportunity, and our community will rise to it. I will always fight to make sure Central Queensland gets its fair share, and this is one of those moments where we should be proud, united and ambitious for what comes next. I'd particularly like to thank my LNP colleagues who have helped make this happen: Donna Kirkland, the member for Rockhampton; Senator Matthew Canavan; Nigel Hutton, the member for Keppel; Glen Kelly, the member for Mirani; and the Queensland Premier and Deputy Premier. Rockhampton is ready. Central Queensland is ready. I say let us get on with it and bring Olympic glory to the Fitzroy River. Budget, Masjid Taqwa Brisbane 87 10:21 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie This federal government is backing in my community with the federal budget, with over $800 million for the Bruce Highway. Elizabeth in Griffin has told me that these improvements, particularly the on-ramp and off-ramp at Griffin right there at Dohles Rocks Road, are really going to benefit the community. They're going to see their commuter time cut down by 30 minutes or sometimes up to an hour depending on the day or the weekend. It's absolutely fantastic to see this investment, and I really thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for backing in my community and backing in Queensland. It's so important that people can get from A to B safely and that we can actually cut commuter time so people can get more out of their day and more out of their work. I just want to say that I'm so grateful that the Labor government is backing in Petrie. We're making sure that everyone can go about their daily business in a safe way. Another thing I'm really stoked about is the $60 million investment in the youth housing incentive. Our young people are struggling, and in my community we've got between 600 and 1,000 homeless young people. We have incredible organisations such as Chameleon Housing offering a safe space, a safe home, to young people and giving them the skills that they need to ensure that they can continue to have safe and secure housing. I'm really proud of the Minister for Housing and the Special Envoy for Social Housing for their incredible work in securing this funding. The $60 million is going to make such a difference in helping the young people in our community. Our young people are our future. We need to do what we can to help them get the best out of life, to get the best start in life. If a young person is facing homelessness or is already homeless, things haven't been going too well for them, so it's up to us as the government to really step in and do what we can to help them. I just want to take this moment to talk about a dreadful incident that happened on Sunday in my community. A mosque in Bald Hills was threatened with violence. The man responsible has now been apprehended by the Queensland Police Service, and I thank them for that. As it's a matter before the courts, I won't touch on it any further except to say this is an example of what is completely unacceptable in our country. My great grandfather died in the Second World War fighting to prevent this kind of religious and ethnic discrimination and vilification in our country. Whether you're Jewish, whether you're Muslim, whether you're Christian, you deserve to practice your religion free from violence and intimidation. It is a pillar of our country that we can have the freedom to be who we are, to believe what you believe. Diversity is so important to the strength of our country, and I condemn any kind of vilification. Juckes, Ms Jemma 87 10:24 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Glenorie is a small community where people know each other, where the local pizza shop is the cornerstone of the community and where people band together in tough times. Jemma Juckes was a Glenorie original and for nine years the force behind the Glenorie Pizzeria. She was active and full of life, with dreams of travelling with her husband, Lang, and expanding their family. She developed what she thought was sciatica pain, but, when it became too severe to manage, she went back to her doctor for a scan. That scan found something on her spine— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:24 to 10:36 Mr LEESER 109556 A second scan confirmed tumours. In April 2023, a full body scan discovered stage 4 non-small-cell lung cancer with a rare genetic mutation that placed her in a small and particularly vulnerable group of patients. Jemma underwent treatment and sold the pizzeria to focus on her fight. Then she was offered a lifeline. A family friend working at Chris O'Brien Lifehouse heard about a clinical trial for a drug called amivantamab, specifically targeting Jemma's rare cancer. It was potentially a treatment that could work where others hadn't, but the price was $10,000 a session, every two weeks. It was sourced from overseas with no subsidy on the PBS. Jemma went public, sharing her story with Mamamia and appearing on A Current Affair. She raised funds through Rare Cancers Australia that paid for her treatment costs directly, and her community rallied. I never met Jemma, but, like so many others, I was inspired by her story. I attended a fundraising walk, and I wrote to the minister, specifically asking him to list the drug on the PBS. I first saw at that walk the love that surrounded Jemma—neighbours, friends and strangers coming together for a woman they wanted to fight for. Jemma reached her fundraising target, and she accessed the trial. Sadly, she passed away on 18 December 2024, aged 34. Two days later, amivantamab was approved for listing on the PBS. The PBS wasn't designed for rare cancers; the approval pathways are slow, expensive and often inaccessible to small patient populations that need them most. I call on the government to accelerate its work on PBS access for rare cancer treatments. Since Jemma's passing, her family have channelled their grief into action. The funds raised during Jemma's campaign have been donated to Rare Cancers Australia and to the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse. Last week, at the invitation of Jemma's sister, Elise Pride, I attended the launch of the Jem, the Jemma Juckes wellness program, at the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse. It comprises the Jemma Juckes Wellness Corner, a free online space filled with wellness articles and information about complementary therapies to help people live well with cancer; a grants program to help people living with advanced cancer access support that helps them feel grounded, connected and restored; and the My Journey Wellness Journal, with help to track appointments and questions, wellness practices such as breathwork and reflection, and prompts to help find moments of steadiness while living with cancer. The program supports the mental, emotional and day-to-day realities of living with cancer—the whole person, not just the diagnosis. To Jemma's family—Lang, Riley, Todd, Elise, Lynn and Brett—and the community of Glenorie: thank you for sharing Jemma with us. Thank you for turning grief into something that will help others. Jemma's bright spirit, her courage and her generosity will continue to inspire. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:39 to 10:50 Sherwood State School Fete, Runcorn State School Community Hub 88 10:50 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton My toddler and I picked out two cakes. We picked them out early because they always run out; the stall is so popular. We shuffled through hundreds and hundreds of books, and finally landed on Dumbo. We had a snow cone hand churned by local parents. It was the Sherwood State School fete, and we went there last Saturday. It's always a big effort in our community, and I want to take the opportunity to thank the P&C president, Paul Arias-Winnister, and principal, Lisa Masek, for making it happen. It's a fete that brings our community together, between rides, stalls, plants, clothes, toys, books and well-timed for Mothers Day, with cakes, sweets and a special stall. I want to congratulate every single parent who makes that fete tick. Later this year, we'll also celebrate the school's 160th anniversary—in 2027, next year. It's operated continuously since 1867, and the school is on the Queensland heritage register, with buildings dating back to the 1880s. It's a very special part of my local community. I visited Runcorn State School community hub just the other day. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:52 to 11:05 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Last week I walked into a classroom at Runcorn State School. The shelves were filled with toys, the tables were adorned with cupcakes, and, importantly, mums and babies from across my local electorate were coming together in the community. It's part of Community Hubs, which have received federal funding from our government for the last three years and have so for over a decade. I want to congratulate Principal Meg McClure for hosting the community hub and Miss Tammy, who runs the local program at Runcorn State School. It brings together students from all backgrounds, and they have access to small and caring yet safe and challenging educational environments, whether that's conversational English, relaxed coffee catch-ups, playgroups, crafts or a First Nations group. They create a space of familiarity with the school environment, setting up successful transitions to prep. We now have 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics open across this country, and I was lucky enough to visit one of them the other day, the Oxley endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic. It's called Evoca Women's Health centre in Oxley. We were there with members of QENDO, which is ably led by their CEO, Jess Taylor; nurses; and GPs from that clinic. They're proud to be one of the clinics to be recognised by the federal government to provide expert, multidisciplinary services and care for pelvic pain and women with endometriosis. It's part of the biggest package that this government has put in place for women's health, and I was delighted to share with Dr Than, Dr Thein and Dr Kosaka on the brilliant work they do. Insurance Industry 89 11:06 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I rise to bring to the parliament's attention an unfolding disaster in western Queensland. It's one that's been perpetrated by the insurance industry. In 2011 we had significant floods across western Queensland in places like Roma, St George and Charleville, and there was significant damage. The entire towns were inundated with water, and the insurance premiums in those areas went rightfully from around $1,500 or $2,000 up to $25,000 or $30,000, and the insurance companies basically held the local, state and federal government to account to make sure that mitigation works were undertaken to ensure that those premiums came down. By 2015, in Saint George, Charleville and Roma, mitigation works were put in place. Levee banks were put in. In fact in Cunnamulla there were levee banks put in place in 1990 that weren't even breached, but they also copped this insurance increase from the insurance industry. So we had 10 years where, after the levees were put in place, the insurance premiums stayed in line with what the rest of Queensland was paying, around $1,500 to $2,000. Now, in the last 18 months, we are seeing premiums handed to people in Charleville, Roma, St George and Cunnamulla. The last one I saw was for $43,139.96. Who can afford to pay that? We have had a number of floods in those communities where those mitigation works have proven to work, and the insurance industry is like a corporate cancer that is preying on these communities for no reason. When you look when you look at—and they give you the APRA data to show it—the increase in premiums related to the increase of disasters across Queensland, we are paying exponentially above that despite not having any claims. We have not had any major flood claims in those communities, and the Insurance Council of Australia are running cover for the insurance industry that they represent. It is a shame, and it is now to the point that I have written to the ACCC chair to ask them to investigate this, because we are now seeing that young people cannot go and borrow money to get a mortgage. You need to have insurance to be able to get a mortgage, so, in Roma, St George, Charleville and Cunnamulla, young people can't go and get their first home because they can't get insurance because the insurance premium of $43,000 is more than the mortgage payments. We are only seeing it in these communities. There is a discrimination against these communities. What's happened is we have seen a number of these insurance companies move out of the market, so what they are doing is wanting to get out entirely. This is uncompetitive in what they've been able to do, and it is now time for the ACCC to prove that they do have teeth and that they will protect the people of Charleville, Saint George, Cunnamulla, Roma and the elderly who are giving up their insurance premiums. They need to get affordable insurance so that their homes are protected into the future. I call on the ACCC to look into this quickly. Budget 89 11:10 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to talk about the impact of Tuesday night's federal budget on my electorate of Franklin. I would say to my constituents that this has been our most ambitious budget yet. This is a budget about resilience and dealing with the uncertain times which we face with global uncertainty and the war in the Middle East. But it's also a budget for sustainability in the future and reform for the future. It's really important for the young people of my electorate, particularly in terms of some of the housing reforms that we are doing in this budget, particularly around tax. Importantly, it's also a cost-of-living budget for so many of my constituents in the electorate of Franklin. It means more tax cuts for more working people in my electorate. It means more cheaper medicines in terms of the investments we're making in the PBS. It means our urgent care clinics, one at Kingston in particular that has opened recently, will be there permanently, as well as those other seven clinics across Tasmania, as a permanent part of Medicare,. This is really important for my electorate, and I know that my electorate really values having an urgent care clinic and indeed the cheaper medicines. The tax relief for working Tasmanians will be $250 in the working Australians tax offset and, of course, the $1,000 tax deduction. This means that the average worker in the country will be, with our three stages of tax cuts, this offset and the deduction, on average around $2,000 a year better off because of action that our government has taken. Of course, they might not feel it, but they are certainly getting relief at the bowser with the fuel excise cut. We know that that has had a big impact on the budget, with a cost of around $3 billion, but we're providing that support to households because we know that the war in the Middle East is indeed impacting them at this point in time. Importantly, of course, the budget also has investments for the future in terms of Australia's security when it comes to things like fertiliser, when it comes to things like fuel and when it comes to things like the supply chain and sovereign capability, which is really important to make sure that we're not in this position again and that we can shield Australians as much as possible as a government from some of the impacts of the current global instability. In terms of the additional $2 billion for housing investments, Tasmania is eligible for another $50 million. We've already invested now over $860 million into new housing in Tasmania since the federal Labor government was elected, and we can see homes are starting to come out of the ground in Tasmania because of the investments that we made as a federal government. I must say, as a former minister for housing, I'm incredibly proud of those investments. We've seen around 600 people in Franklin purchase their first home through the five per cent deposit scheme since we've come to office, and I know first-hand from talking to local constituents that the increase in the Commonwealth Rent Assistance of almost 50 per cent since we've come to government is also helping renters. We're tackling the health system in terms of investments into the hospitals, with around $1 billion a year going into our hospital system in Tasmania, and there is around $900 million a year going into education as well. Budget 90 11:13 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes Today I rise to stand up for local government right across Australia. As a former mayor of a New South Wales regional town, as a former board member of Local Government New South Wales and as a former chairman of the Country Mayors Association of New South Wales, I know the challenges of local government. I have lived with the struggle of stretching limited dollars further than they were ever meant to go. Councils provide essential services Australians can't do without—water services, waste services, animal services—and they are responsible for the roads, for the planning, for the sporting fields, the public pools, the libraries, the playgrounds, weed control, sometimes even aged care, child care and disaster planning and resilience and much, much more. Now, as shadow assistant minister for local government and territories, I know that the struggle to make ends meet is real for our councils, and I know that this federal budget has left councils right across Australia devastated. After fighting for the financial assistance grants they rely on so much to be increased to one per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue, they have been cut instead. This week the Albanese Labor government announced a financial assistance grants that are now currently sitting at 0.51 per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue will now drop to 0.49 per cent. This is absolute proof that councils have not been heard—or, even worse, that they've been totally ignored by this Labor government. Despite shifting costs and responsibilities onto the tier of government that can least afford it, the federal government is asking them to do more with less. The statistics show that councils are struggling financially. They are forced to resort to seeking special rate variations or other methods to raise more funds for their communities, with massive increases of up to 100 per cent. No-one can afford that massive bill shock. Once again, it is the local ratepayer who ends up footing the bill; cuts to councils are cuts to our ratepayers. There are almost 10 million Australians who choose to live in regional Australia. That's 10 million Australians who have been left out in the cold with this budget. Alongside the cuts to financial assistance grants, there is minimal spending in regional infrastructure. The Inland Rail project north of Parkes was cut, leaving my regional communities shell-shocked. Communities, businesses and families have factored this project into their life decisions for the last 10 years. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program has gone, under this budget, and there's no new funding for the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program either, in the years to come. This budget is a nail in the coffin for local government's trust, is the final blow for local government's respect and is the latest in a litany of broken promises. This government needs to remember that state governments can't deliver without local government and that the federal government can't deliver without local government. Councils should be our trusted partners to deliver the services Australians need. Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group 90 11:16 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel Having started environmental restoration projects myself, I know the effort it takes to bring them to life. I warmly congratulate Pat Hart and the staff and volunteers of the Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group on their remarkable 30-year anniversary. Bullwinkel is fortunate to have such a dedicated organisation protecting its natural environment. Funded through the collaboration of two local governments, the group has become a cornerstone of environmental stewardship. Its work across the Canning and Wungong catchments, together with the bushland and wetlands restoration, has made a lasting mark on the landscape. AGLG has consistently protected and restored ecosystems, improving water quality, and has strengthened community responsibility for the environment. Its impact goes beyond projects by inspiring people to learn, get involved and care. Much of this success reflects Pat Hart's leadership. Through her work securing funding and championing education and community engagement, AGLG has built a strong volunteer base and secured more than $5.6 million in grants and sponsorship as well as $10 million in federal funding for the Canning River, with support from neighbouring MP Minister Matt Keogh. Anyone who has visited Roley Pools in Roleystone knows how special a place it is, and places like this remind us that this takes years of care and dedication. I also acknowledge Cam Clay, Wayne van Lieven and Dan Walker for their important contributions, along with the councils and mayors of the city of Armadale and city of Gosnells for supporting the group over three decades. The scale of AGLG's impact is extraordinary, with more than 1.4 million native seedlings planted over the last 30 years. On average, AGLG has maintained 25 project sites each year, hosted 600 community events and 200 school programs, and engaged thousands of students. More than 34,000 volunteers have contributed over 74,000 hours, valued at an estimated $2.7 million. This is more than environmental work; it is a long-term investment in the health, resilience and beauty of our natural space. AGLG has made a lasting difference to both the environment and our community. Congratulations again to Pat and the team. May your important work continue for many more years to come. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 91 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Regional Ministerial Budget Statement 91 11:19 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The Albanese government is committed to regional Australia. Its sustainability, its prosperity and its resilience are critical to the Australian economy. Over the past four budgets, 560 regional initiatives have been brought forward by this government, and this is crucial to regional Australia. Accessibility, connectivity and equity of service are crucial to nearly one-third of Australians who live in regional and rural areas. Complex challenges are experienced by those living in rural and regional areas in relation to fuel and food security; climate change; the tyranny of distance, which impacts people's health; educational opportunities, which disadvantages young people; and job creation, which is always a big issue for young people in rural and regional areas on farms and in country towns. It is absolutely vital that we support regional Australia, and that's what this government is doing in this budget. We are backing regional Australia. We're delivering on cost-of-living relief, health care and housing, because every postcode is critical in this country. We're delivering the transport and community infrastructure that regional Australians need. As part of our $120 billion, 10-year infrastructure investment pipeline this budget will see a total of $12.1 billion in new investments across the infrastructure, transport and regional development portfolio, with $10.3 billion for transport infrastructure projects, $976 million for transport and $803 million for community infrastructure. During a period of global uncertainty we're building on infrastructure with investment in responsible projects that boost productivity, deliver safer and faster freight and support connected housing. The budget will see new investment to support new and existing projects across every state and territory. In my home state of Queensland, there's an $812.5 million investment to deliver stage 2 of the Bruce Highway—Gateway Motorway to Dohles Rocks Road—which will build on the $758.4 million investment into stage 1, which will connect Moreton Bay and the Sunshine Coast regions north of Brisbane. In Western Australia, there's a $552 million investment to deliver the first stages of road upgrades to strengthen supply chain resilience, support housing supply and improve productivity in the defence and critical minerals industries. We're also supporting productivity and resilience upgrades in our national freight rail network with a $1.75 billion investment, which will bring the Australian Rail Track Corporation's network investment to nearly $2.8 billion. I'll have more to say on Inland Rail and the ARTC shortly. This government is absolutely committed to making sure that we support not only local governments but also local communities. We continue to invest in local communities by providing grant funding, which will make our suburbs and regions even better places to live. This includes bringing forward 80 per cent—that is, $2.9 billion—of the 2026-27 financial grants entitlement to local government and providing funding for the delivery of infrastructure that meets the needs of our cities and regions. I want to highlight our commitment of an additional $750 million for further rounds of our flagship programs, the Growing Regions Program and the Thriving Suburbs Program, which brings our total investment since 2022 to $1.7 billion. The government is creating a new $2 billion local infrastructure fund under the Housing Support Program, with $500 million being dedicated to local enabling infrastructure in regional Australia. I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, there are stakeholders and organisations in my community chomping at the bit to get access to some of that money. There's $22.5 million to deliver round 10 of the Stronger Communities Program, which builds on more than 18,000 projects that have already been delivered to benefit local communities—many in the regions. We're providing $500 million to build on the successful Active Transport Fund. It will provide active transport options, like walking and cycling, and will make our cities and regions more vibrant places in which to live. This budget also provides support to keep Australians moving through current fuel disruptions while investing in long-term productivity and resilience in the transport industry. When it comes to the cost of living in regional Australia, not much bites more than the cost of fuel, and there's no doubt regional Australia has been hit the hardest by the impacts of the global fuel shortage. That's why our comprehensive $14.8 billion plan to secure more fuel, to strengthen supply chains, to build resilience and to take the sting out of prices is so incredibly important for regional communities. As I said earlier, the Albanese government is committed to making sure people in regional and rural areas are not disadvantaged in terms of health care. We're making that more accessible. The Medicare urgent care clinics—we're investing $580 million to keep them permanent and free. There are 137 clinics providing accessible urgent care services across the country, and 47 are supporting communities in regional, rural and remote Australia. We're making them permanent, as I said. In my local community, there are nearly 37,000 visits to the clinic, the Ipswich Medicare urgent care clinic, which opened in August 2023. On top of that, in regional areas, people have had access to cheaper scripts. For example, in my electorate, people have got nearly 3.1 million cheaper scripts under Labor's cheaper medicines policy. This is absolutely crucial, and we're supporting fully bulk-billing practices across the area. In my electorate alone we've seen an increase of 12 to 30 bulk-billing practices. We're investing in public hospitals and making sure that there's a $25 billion Commonwealth investment in public hospitals. This is so critical in regional towns like Rockhampton and Townsville and Mackay and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. It's absolutely critical in my home state of Queensland. We dedicated $500 million to local enabling infrastructure and regional Australia—the power, the roads, the drains. These are all crucial for new housing and we're working with local government across that space. I want to speak about the Inland Rail. We have made a commitment not to continue the northern leg of the Inland Rail project from Parkes in New South Wales to Queensland. Last week, the government announced it would only prioritise the construction of the southern leg from Beveridge in Victoria to Parkes in New South Wales by the end of 2027. The planning work north of that in rural areas will continue on, but there's important work that we need to do in terms of rail, and we've given the money—as I outlined earlier in my speech—to the ARTC and put an emphasis on freight. In 2013, we provided $1 billion for planning work on Inland Rail. Who wouldn't like the idea of taking trucks off road and reducing carbon emissions? But the coalition government came to power, and they allocated $9 billion, off budget, and said, 'Thank you very much. That will build, the $9 billion, the whole of the Inland Rail,' which, by the way, initially went to 43 kilometres west of the Brisbane port, finishing at Acacia Ridge, going through the Lockyer Valley into rural Ipswich. Now the farmers and small business residents and homeowners in the Lockyer Valley, Toowoomba and rural parts of Ipswich are very pleased with our decision not to proceed, because two-thirds of the cost was going from Toowoomba to Brisbane. I don't think they want 1.8-kilometre-long rail freight trains going every hour on embankments without noise abatement. That's precisely what was going to happen in my community. I've met with landholders across the proposed route, like Ivory Rock's convention and events centre at Peak Crossing who raised concerns with me. The rail was going to go 500 metres, and when they sought assistance from ARTC on noise abatement—crickets, no support whatsoever. The Inland Rail is disliked immensely in my community, and I'm very pleased the government has decided what it's done. It was high impact with no value for rural Ipswich and the Lockyer Valley. So the decision we made is absolutely vital for koala protection and conservation in our local area, including farms. The Inland Rail was going to go just south of Rosewood with an intermodal, affecting the people in the township of Rosewood. Imagine their lifestyle and their livelihoods in that area. Also, it was going to go right beside Grandchester State School—right beside this rural school through koala habitat, through the food bowl of the Lockyer Valley, through into rural Ipswich with the cattle farms et cetera in those areas. The decision to stop Inland Rail was the right outcome for the people in my community. I am very pleased we made that, and the people in my community are supportive of that in relation to the decision the government's made. That is critical, and I'm very disappointed that the coalition can't see it. The member for Wright knows how important that decision was. He knows that people in the Lockyer Valley in his community, which I used to represent, absolutely hate the concept of the Inland Rail going through the Lockyer Valley. Our government is getting on with the job of delivering for regional Australia. The stark contrast for a big game opposite and failure to deliver. It's absolutely vital that we support regional Australia and that's what this budget is precisely doing. 11:29 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest Australians have seen a budget built on Labor lies and broken promises with higher debt, higher taxes, more migrants and fewer homes. It is absolutely the last thing that Australians needed, particularly those Australians who live in regional communities like mine in the south-west of WA. The Prime Minister has sought to sow his politics of division through this budget and divide Australians between those who live in the city and those who live in the country in some sort of sick postcode lottery. We know that they're racking up spending at an almost unprecedented rate because these budget papers show that this is the highest taxing government in Australian history outside times of war or pandemic. Indeed, the government's own projections show that there is no sign of a surplus until at least the middle of the next decade, and they are sneakily squirrelling away a bunch of spending in off-budget numbers, racking up some $256 billion in total spending on the national credit card. That is money that our kids will have to pay back, so to dress this up as a budget that somehow addresses intergenerational fairness while pushing that credit card debt onto our kids is a disgrace. With more than $1 trillion in national debt on the horizon and rising beyond that, we are seeing our debt climb towards some $1.2 trillion over the decade, or some $37,000 for every Australian. This is a government addicted to spending more than it saves, and it highlights the fact that there's a big difference between what Labor says and what Labor does. So let's have a little bit of a deep dive into it because the economy is sick. Growth, on the government's own numbers, will slow to 1.75 per cent, whilst inflation rages in our country at five per cent in the optimistic case, or pushing seven per cent in a more pessimistic case. That means that already Australians are poorer today than they were on the day the Albanese government was elected, and that will only get worse in the years ahead. We have been in a real GDP per capita recession for years, and that will continue on the government's own numbers. The budget did contain some 130 new measures, reflecting the continued expansion of government, which is pushing some 27.1 per cent of GDP. There's billions of dollars of spending in the short term, despite claims of restraint. But where's the good news for regional Australia? The reality is that regional Australia has been shafted by this budget, and none more so than my community in the south-west of WA. There's $3.7 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop in Victoria, a fanciful project that the Allan government seems determined to do no matter the cost. And we all know why; it's because of the CFMEU and their cartel mates demanding more and more infrastructure funding to be funnelled into the organised crime links that they have. There's some $30 billion in money that's already been siphoned off by organised crime and the bikies in Victoria, and yet more billions are being pumped in by this government. However, is there $25 million for the Busselton Margaret River Airport? Not a cent. Margaret River Hospital has been unchanged for some 25 years, despite the population surge around it and the huge numbers of tourists that flock to that part of the world every year. Any money for the upgrade there? Not a cent. Indeed, the only infrastructure funding in the regional budget statement for Western Australia is a $4 million road. It is a disgrace that the Prime Minister and his government pretend to be a friend of Western Australia whilst handing down a budget of betrayal, built on Labor lies and broken promises, that leaves Western Australia, particularly regional Western Australia, high and dry. The reality is that Australians are going to pay more for this spending spree. They're going to pay through bracket creep, inflation raging at between five and seven per cent, as well as the policy changes that are dressed up as tax reform but are really a tax grab. They expose the central lie of this budget. The Treasurer has claimed that this budget rebalances the taxation revenue in Australia from salaries and wages towards assets and investment income. However, his own budget papers show the share of personal income tax rising over the decade ahead. This is a budget that is shamelessly a tax grab and attempts no serious tax reform at all. They rely heavily on banking and some $37 billion in projected NDIS savings, which are backloaded and uncertain. And, indeed, in regional communities like mine, where we've already seen slashing to things like regional travel allowance, it seems that those who live outside a city will bear the cost of that disproportionately. But that increase in debt means more taxpayer money diverted into interest payments rather than delivery of services, especially the delivery of services in regional WA, where we have been ignored for too long. So the major changes—including capital gains tax discounting being adjusted to an inflation model, restricting negative gearing to new builds and increasing the taxes on trusts—target aspiration. Tuesday 12 May 2026 will go down as the day that aspiration died in Australia, and unfortunately people like my farmers, small-business people, fishermen and other agricultural operators are the ones who will pay the price of this. The reality is that some 13 million Australians have been promised a $250 carrot from 2028. The bad news is that, with inflation raging, the benefit of that will be gobbled up in real terms in just six months from today. That means Australians are poorer today than they were on the day the Albanese government came to power, and that situation will only get worse from here. We've seen immense pressure on rents and house prices across the south-west of WA. The reasons for that are obvious to anyone who has bothered to look: too many people have been welcomed to Australia too quickly, and the standards for those migrants coming to Australia has been too low at a time when we are delivering fewer and fewer houses. In Western Australia, the number of dwelling completions has decreased every quarter for the last year. More migrants arriving in a country and a state with fewer houses being built is obviously pushing up prices. It is obviously pushing up rents. And that is why, in car parks next to the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, there are things resembling shantytowns now, with more than 100 people living in them—all with cars, all with jobs and some, shamefully, with kids forced to live alongside them in their cars. This is a housing crisis, and this government is now entering its fifth year running this country. Those opposite talk about what went before. It's time we saw some accountability and some ownership from the bloke who promised Australians that he would be the guy who would show up, who would take responsibility and be accountable, but I guess that was just another promise broken. Another time that the Prime Minister look down the barrel of a camera and promised the Australian people one thing before the election, only to do something completely different the day after. This is a budget of betrayal. It is built on Labor lies. It contains higher debt, higher taxes and higher spending. It also promises fewer homes and more migrants. It does nothing for the people of regional Western Australia, the people that I am fortunate enough to come to this place to fight for. Those opposite blame the war in Iran for all of it. It is a disgrace, because at the same time the Australian Public Service here in Canberra has grown to more than 217,000 staff. The budget includes funding for some 700 people for the new National Environmental Protection Agency. At the same time, the government's promising to cut red tape and get projects moving in states like mine. However, four months after the passage of the EPBC reforms, Minister Watt travelled to Perth to announce there would be eight months of discussion to land an MOU by the end of the year. If we really had a one-stop shop for approvals, to get projects moving in WA, we certainly wouldn't need 700 people at a cost of many hundreds of million of dollars here in a new Commonwealth environmental protection agency. This budget is a shameful betrayal of regional Western Australians. 11:39 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise today to speak on the government's 2026-27 budget and what it means—or, more importantly, what it fails to deliver—for the people of Capricornia and across Central Queensland. Let's be clear: when you look beyond the headlines, this budget follows a familiar pattern—big promises but very little for the region that actually powers this nation. Regional Australia is not an afterthought; it is the engine room of our economy, driving our agriculture, resources, manufacturing and energy sectors. Yet, time and time again, we see budgets that prioritise the capitals while leaving regional communities behind. As my colleague the member for Gippsland has constantly highlighted, there is a growing concern that regional Australia is facing what can only be described as an investment drought, with fewer new infrastructure commitments and no clear pipeline of future projects to support jobs and growth. Unfortunately, this budget does little to change that. In Central Queensland, we know exactly what this looks like on the ground. It means motorists travelling on roads like the Bruce Highway, one of the most critical freight and tourism routes in the country, still waiting for the upgrades needed to improve safety and reliability. It means local councils are struggling to deliver essential infrastructure because key funding programs have been cut or scaled back. And it means, quite frankly, that councils are being left behind. Local councils and community organisations are crying out for support to deliver critical infrastructure. Yet funding programs have been scrapped, delayed or not replaced, leaving communities in limbo. We've seen regional programs axed, billions in promised funding delayed and councils left trying to plan their budgets without any certainty about when or if support will arrive. That reality is being felt right across Capricornia. Our local governments are doing the heavy lifting, maintaining roads, delivering community facilities and supporting local growth, but they are being asked to do more with less. When councils miss out, it's not just the numbers on a balance sheet; it's fewer community projects, it's delayed road upgrades, and it's missed opportunities for local jobs and economic development. It means industries like mining, agriculture and manufacturing, industries that underpin our national prosperity, not receiving the long-term infrastructure investment they need to remain competitive. It means families in communities like Rockhampton, Yeppoon, Moranbah and Clermont continuing to face rising costs of living without meaningful relief that reflects the realities of regional life. We know that cost-of-living pressures hit harder in the regions. People travel further. Fuel costs more. Services are fewer. And yet too often the measures announced in this budget are designed with city living in mind, not the unique challenges faced by regional Australians. Even where there are national initiatives, whether it's tax changes, health funding or housing programs, they often fail to account for regional workforce shortages, housing supply constraints and the higher cost of doing business outside the capital cities. This budget does include significant spending across the economy, including billions for infrastructure and cost-of-living measures. But the question from my constituents is simple: Where is our fair share? Where are the transformational projects that will unlock growth in Central Queensland? Where is the commitment to regional roads, regional rail and regional connectivity? Where is the long-term vision for the communities that keep this country running? Without that vision, we risk falling behind. Central Queensland is not asking for special treatment. We are asking for fair treatment. We are asking for investment that recognises our contribution to the nation's economy. We are asking for policies that support local jobs, strengthen local industries and build stronger, more resilient regional communities. We are asking for a government that understands that, when regional Australia succeeds, the entire nation succeeds. We should be investing in our regions, not overlooking them. We should be building infrastructure pipelines, not allowing them to dry up. We should be backing regional Australia, not taking them for granted. So, when we look at the budget in more detail, we need to ask: where is the money for projects like Rockhampton Airport? This is something that the coalition made a commitment to last election. This has the potential for international exports, tourism and more defence in Central Queensland—we have Shoalwater Bay sitting on our doorstep—and we have been ignored. The Rockhampton Ring Road was something that we had to fight enormously for. We had people coming down here fighting for it, a $1.8 billion project that's transforming for Central Queensland. Rockhampton-Yeppoon Road was something that just recently opened, but we had to fight for the funding. So what is missing in this budget? Upgrades to the Bruce Highway. We see that the Treasurer says, 'Oh, we've put an extra billion dollars into the Bruce.' Well, where? Down in the south-east corner, around the capital cities. Nothing— An opposition member: Not in my patch. Ms LANDRY 249764 No, not in your patch, not in my patch, not between Rockhampton and Mackay—that's for certain. The amount of traffic that we have on there, with the trucks, the tourism, the military—it's enormous, and we keep missing out. There's the Peak Downs Highway, a major highway that accesses the minefields of Central Queensland, the coalfields—nothing for that either. Once again, the wealth of the nation comes from areas like this. Today I had a phone call from a very distressed constituent who was very upset about these tax changes. They'd lost hundreds of thousands of dollars overnight in the share portfolio that they use instead of their superannuation. We saw a major drop yesterday in our banks. What is going on is horrendous. People have worked hard all their lives, and, now, this has been ripped away by this government. It's an absolute disgrace. The people of Capricornia and the people of Australia deserve more than words and more than what has been offered in this budget speech. They deserve action, and, until we get it, I will continue to stand in this place and fight for them. 11:46 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I was genuinely hopeful when I received the budget papers. I was hopeful that our regional communities would finally receive some recognition of the potential that we have when it comes to solving the issues facing our country at the moment. When I heard, prior to budget night, statements like, 'We will be providing a framework for more houses to be built in every corner of the country,' I thought, 'Brilliant,' because my electorate—that's us. We've got the room. It's certainly a beautiful place to live. We've got the demand, particularly in coastal areas, and we could see some really decent infrastructure built there to provide those houses that we are desperately in need of. Then I saw that Labor's broken promise on negative gearing wouldn't apply to new home loans, and I thought, 'Okay, silver lining to a very dark cloud—at least it's aimed at electorates like mine so we can get the benefits of investor builds.' But then I read the Regional Ministerial Budget Statement and I looked at the Regional Investment Framework, and it was this government telling regional people what they wanted—not asking what they wanted or what they needed. Effectively, they were sanctimoniously treating regional people in ideological terms, not tangible ones—'in every corner of the country' actually meant 'outer suburbs'. The three priority areas and the key objectives—this is on page 19 of the budget report—for regional areas are 'meeting the needs of, and providing opportunities for, First Nations people', 'supporting the transformation to a net zero economy' and, finally, 'achieving gender equality'. These are the three focus areas that the government believed were 'unique' and 'specific'—their words—to the needs of regional communities. Now, I'm not going to say what came out of my mouth when I read that, because it would be unparliamentary—and I'm in enough trouble as it is, at the moment. But the fact is my community's population is growing rapidly. I'll give you an example. Port Macquarie-West has grown by 17.5 per cent since 2021, and Coffs Harbour is now ranked third on the New South Wales top 10 list of unaffordable areas, outranking the affluent North Sydney, as a result of the population boom putting an extreme squeeze on the housing market. We are desperately in need of infrastructure to keep pace with this boom. From a national perspective, we need to be recognising the potential that we have in the regions—in Cowper—to solve the housing crisis. People want to move to the Mid North Coast. People want to move to the regions, out of the cities, to have a better life, and they should be able to have that choice. We just need the funding, and we just need the focus to achieve it. We have to invest in our roads—both in paving the roads and maintaining them in areas in Port Macquarie like the Oxley Highway and Wrights Road. If you live in Port Macquarie or travel to Port Macquarie, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I have lobbied long and hard, firstly for the return of the $5 million that was taken from us for the feasibility study and secondly for the minister to come up and have a look. But those requests have been denied. To add insult to injury, the state Labor government has contributed funding to the doughnut, which is completely the wrong area. It should be focused on Wrights Road. Then you have a look at Waterfall Way. Again, it was closed recently. The shop owners and retailers in Bellingen saw a 60 per cent decline in turnover—in fact, some of them have been forced to close. Again, they were on bended knee begging for funding that has been ignored. In fact, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government went up to Coffs Harbour, which is only 30 minutes up the road, to claim credit for the bypass, which is ongoing, and which, in fact, was promised under the coalition state and federal governments in 2022. She wouldn't go and visit Bellingen and have a look at Waterfall Way. It was 30 minutes away. These poor people in Bellingen and Dorrigo have to put up with this day after day. We need the funding for our regional towns. We also need investment in telecommunications. We can't reach our economic potential without it. I lament the last disaster round of 28 towers. They went to 28 Labor seats. I've made the point time and time again. Five of those were deemed not appropriate, so it just went back into the bucket. These aren't big-ticket items that we're asking for. We're not asking for football stadiums. We're not asking for the top running tracks. We are asking for the basic services—water, sewerage and telecommunications—that you have in the city and that you have in periurban areas. Why can't we have that? Why can't our people have that? Port Macquarie is facing a situation where their water and sewerage is now at capacity. The mayor said to me: 'If it gets any worse or if we do any more development, you will not be able to flush your toilet.' This is not the Philippines. This is not Indonesia. This is regional Australia. Every single mayor in my electorate I spoke to the day after the budget are gutted. They're also very, very angry. They know that the best they're going to get out of this budget is a million dollars per electorate. One million dollars does not cover the construction of one kilometre of roadway. We have tens of thousands of kilometres of roadway throughout my electorate, and those mayors now have to go back with their directors and with their staff and say, 'What are we going to do to make sure that we provide those services for our residents and ratepayers?' They can't keep going back to the ratepayer and saying, 'We're putting your rates up,' because the ratepayer can't afford it. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, with interest rates going up, food going up—you name it; it's going up. And it is a direct result of the incompetence of this government. But, according to Dr Jim Chalmers and the Prime Minister, there is nothing to see here and you've never had it so good. Well, I ask you, Prime Minister and Treasurer, to come to my electorate. Come to my electorate, speak to my mayors and speak to my people, and they'll tell you how bad it is. 11:55 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee This budget from the Labor Party is a Trojan Horse. It looks okay on the outside, but dig a little deeper and you find out that, for regional Australians in particular, it is a shocker. We already bear the brunt and the cost of the renewable fantasy that this government has stuck to like glue. The cost to our communities is division. The cost to our communities is that we cannot get on with the jobs that already should be happening in our electorates. Our farming land is being taken over by renewable enterprises funded by this government. Do we know where the funding comes from for these projects? No. We don't know, because they're hidden in clever entities such as the CIS, the CEFC and the National Reconstruction Fund. The list goes on. Australians are kept in the dark, and they don't know what is coming for them. In point of fact, it is a socialist dystopia that Bill Shorten tried to bring in—capital gains tax and attacks on negative gearing and trusts. What else do they want to do? There was nothing honest— Mr Wallace 265967 At least Bill had some courage. Dr WEBSTER 281688 At least Bill had courage; he took it to an election. And guess what? The Australian people didn't support it. What do we have? We have a prime minister and a treasurer who are not honest with the people of Australia. They did not say—in fact, they deliberately said the opposite—that they would be attacking CGT, negative gearing or trusts. And here we are. They say that it is about ensuring 'intergenerational equity'. What a title! It is an absolute con. It is a Trojan Horse, because, in actual fact, it is our younger people who will not have those tools. CGT, negative gearing, trusts and the ability to build wealth and aspiration are being taken away from them. It's older people who will be able to keep such benefits, because they're going to be grandfathered. This is shonky, and I could use a whole bunch of other words to describe it. This budget is not for regional Australians, and it is not for young people, as this government want to say that it is. Labor talks about equity. The words of the National Rural Health Alliance's Susi Tegen come to mind. She said on budget night: There is … no reference to how the government will implement the National Health Reform Agreement Schedule F: Better Health Equity for Rural and Remote Communities— which has been agreed to already. It will take effect in—guess how long—two months. In fact, it will take effect in less than two months—six weeks. But there is no funding for it. What is going on that this government can make promises and then walk away from them as though it doesn't matter? It absolutely does matter, and people who live in regional Australia are feeling it. There's no funding for health care, no funding for aged care and no answers to the problems they face every day. I acknowledge the member for Cowper, who just spoke about the cost of living in his electorate. You know what? It's same same in my electorate and same same for the next speaker, my colleague the member for Lyne. Mr Wallace 265967 And Fisher. Dr WEBSTER 281688 And Fisher—absolutely. The member for Fisher tells me right now that it's the same for him. Our people are suffering under this government, and what is this budget bringing for them? Absolutely nothing. It is bringing no funding for regional communications—in fact, regional communications funding has been cut—no funding for mobile black spots and no funding for regional connectivity. They've taken away the funding for the Regional Tech Hub. It is an unbelievable disgrace that this government walks away from the people it says it is leading, for all Australians. 'No-one held back, no-one left behind'—yes, we know the words, Prime Minister. We hear them often enough, just like we heard you say you would not attack the capital gains tax or negative gearing or trusts—but here we are. So what does that make the words of this prime minister? I can tell you: absolutely not to be trusted. There are so many Australians right now who do not trust politicians—well, what a shock! Why would that be, when they've got a prime minister who is not telling the truth to Australians before an election and then comes out and says: 'Oh, it's the right choice. It is the right policy for the right time.' I'm sorry, Australians are not that gullible. We don't believe what you say, Prime Minister. Every day we get the same story, and we don't believe it. Tuesday's budget is divisive, setting one generation against another, pitting the older generation as the bad guys or the cash cows, or both, so Labor can pretend they are doing the right thing by the younger generation—as I said, the Trojan horse. They've deployed the influencers to sell the budget, and it's falling flat. Labor's reckless spending is bequeathing $1.2 trillion of debt to the younger generation. It is not just the younger generation; it is their children and their children's children that are going to be paying off this debt into who knows how long into the future. Intergenerational equity? Give me a break! Are you joking? They can use all the spin they like, but the fact of the matter is it's not true. The very tools that gave older people an advantage, such as capital gains tax and negative gearing trusts, are being removed for our younger people. What a con! Speaking of cons, how's this? Despite the finance minister saying they're pulling back on climate spending, Labor is spending another $12.3 billion on net zero commitments over the next few years and $18.3 billion over the next decade or so. That brings Labor's total net zero spending to $80 billion. As I said before, that's if you don't consider all the other entities they are funding on the closed books; nobody can know what is actually being spent. I can tell you right now that the people of Mallee are not happy about that announcement. They are very unhappy because it's their farms that are being railroaded through the push from the federal government and the support from the Victorian Labor government to ensure these renewable projects go ahead. I can tell you right now, I'm meeting with over 100 farmers on Wednesday in Mallee with the new Leader of the Nationals, Matt Canavan, and shadow minister Darren Chester, the member for Gippsland. They're coming down to meet with my farmers because my farmers are very angry with the Labor government, and they have all the right to be. It's their land that's being ripped up, and there are no consequences for this Labor government to continue bulldozing, literally, through Mallee. It's ironic hearing a government use the word 'equity' to describe the creation of the intergenerational divide between older and younger people, when the gross inequity that we in the Nationals know, sadly, all too well is the inequity between the city and the bush. This is literally the prime minister who has brought the greatest division to our country, going back to the Voice—which was never flagged prior to the election. What else is going to come from this prime minister that has never been flagged with the Australian people prior to an election? Setting older against younger Australians, setting city Australians against those in the bush, is an outrage. And his dealing with antisemitism over the last couple of years—what awful leadership, if you can call it leadership. This budget is simply another nail in the coffin for regional Australians. Worse, it continues to bring division to Australians. I can tell you the truth. I'm not impressed, and my electorate's not impressed. 12:05 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne Next week represents a year since my electorate was smashed by a once-in-500-years flood. Next week will be a very traumatic time for many people in my electorate. I had hoped that the federal budget that was released on Tuesday night might just do one thing: give some hope that this government cares, listens and delivers for the people on the Mid North Coast and Hunter region that I represent. I wasn't going to leave anything to chance with this federal budget. I'm a new MP. I'm learning the ropes. I did not want to leave anything to chance, so I took the opportunity to develop a prebudget submission. I worked with my communities. I asked them: 'What are the priorities in your community? Share them. It doesn't matter if it's a pothole in your local street or a major piece of infrastructure.' I developed a submission which I put into the Albanese government's Treasury process prebudget submission. I did the right thing, making sure the government was very clear on the agenda for the Lyne electorate. The budget was handed down, and all I can say is that the budget that was handed down provides no hope to the people of the Mid North Coast. It is a regional funding bloodbath at a time when my community needs support. It's crying out for support and for so many services and so much infrastructure right across the region. I know a lot of you would be expecting me right now to say, 'What about that urgent care clinic in Taree?' I'm saving that up for the women's statement. I was very disappointed to see in the regional statement that the list of urgent care clinics in regional Australia left off Maitland. It left off the Maitland urgent care clinic. I was very disappointed because like you, Deputy Speaker Swanson, it's important to communities in the southern part of my electorate. Deputy Speaker, you may want to have a look at that list; I think it's on page 51 of the regional statement. Maitland is not listed. It should have been listed, as should Taree, but I will come back to that in another speech today. You're all welcome to join. If I can just focus on one area, quite extensive notes in my submission were around local roads. I think all of us—the member for Fisher and the member for Mallee—are desperately needing investment in local roads. I'm on an inquiry at the moment looking at the financial sustainability of local government. They're crying out for more investment. I know the government says that they've doubled investment in Roads to Recovery, a great coalition and National Party program from 20-odd years ago. They acknowledge that Roads to Recovery is making some difference, but it's come at the expense of axeing the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, a program that every council that's appeared before the inquiry has praised as a means of getting funding out to key projects because it's not competitive; it's effectively block funding, and it allows them to prioritise those critical local roads and small roads in their communities. In this budget, there was not one additional cent in roads funding for any part of regional Australia, including the Lyne electorate. I made a number of submissions about particular roads, including the unfinished Pacific Highway. When the commitment was made to duplicate the Pacific Highway back in the mid-nineties, it came after the Kempsey and Grafton bus crashes. The decision was made at the time to fast-track the four-laning of the Pacific Highway and come back and do those overpasses and grade separated interchanges. We are now 20 years on, and we've got six of those overpasses still not on anyone's books. They're not on the state government's priority list. There has been some funding, I admit, for The Bucketts Way, but we are a long way from seeing any prioritisation of fixing those intersections. Anybody that's from Dungog—maybe their kids go to school in Medowie or maybe they're working at Williamtown or Raymond Terrace—use the intersection, The Bucketts Way and Medowie Road. You're playing chicken with the traffic at those intersections, yet they're not on the priority list for the New South Wales government. They need to be, as does the Houston Mitchell Drive intersection with the Pacific Highway, which is, I think, one of the most dangerous intersections on the Pacific Highway. It needs to be addressed. When you raise it with the New South Wales government, they're talking about making another U-turn 200 metres down the road. That is not going to save the lives of the people that use that intersection, and the community has been crying out for investment there. They're also crying out for investment and support for local councils to put money into the length of The Bucketts Way, the length of The Lakes Way. The Lakes Way used to be the Pacific Highway. I've now got constituents coming to me talking about busted suspensions and blown tyres on that Lakes Way, which is not only an important route for people from Foster and Tuncurry down to Bulahdelah along the Pacific Highway, but is a tourist route. We're talking about attracting people to our region, and they're coming on a pothole filled road. It's a substantial road, but it's one that's full of potholes. That's just great for showcasing the wonders of the great lakes. We've got the Thunderbolt's Way as well, and I could go to a lot of those smaller roads that are key productive routes. We've got the Lorne Road, and the member for Maranoa is here. He has been to Lorne Road and made a substantial funding commitment to Lorne Road. This is a key road from the Comboyne Plateau down to the Pacific Highway. It's a produce route for dairy, beef and horticulture, yet, again, you're playing chicken with your life if a tanker is going up to collect milk and you're bringing your family down, maybe to go to school at Camden Haven High School. These are critical routes. This matters to the people in regional Australia. Good roads matter to people in regional Australia. I think it is different in the cities. I've lived in Canberra. They do a pretty good job, I have to say, for roads in Canberra. I don't think they should be getting much money from the Commonwealth. I know where the money should be going, and that's to local councils. On that point, I was exceptionally disappointed to learn that under this budget the distribution of financial assistance grants has fallen again as a percentage of Commonwealth tax revenue down to 0.49 per cent, from one per cent. That has a real impact on regional councils. Some councils in regional members electorates rely 10, 20 or 30 per cent on those financial assistance grants. They make the difference to fix the local roads, to make sure that the local footy club has a field that they can play on that's safe and to look after the local swimming pool. In our local council areas—we're talking about in the MidCoast—it's not just one centre that they have. They have five or six centres that have a swimming pool, that have a library and that have community sporting facilities. So, when you reduce financial assistance to local governments, you are impacting the way that people in our communities can live. I've just touched on one issue that that is incredibly disappointing from this federal budget. I'm also disappointed at the stripping of $103 million from the National Water Grid. I have a dam that needs to be built in the Manning. That opportunity is potentially now lost. I also note that funding has been stripped from the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program and that funding has been reduced for the agriculture stream of the Natural Heritage Trust. Now, this is about helping and supporting people in our regional communities to invest in environmental stewardship. As I said, I think this is a regional funding bloodbath. Shame on this Albanese government. 12:15 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa On Tuesday night we saw Labor's fifth budget and, let me tell you, they haven't got any better, particularly for regional Australia. You only have to go back to their first one in October 2022, when $27 billion was ripped out of regional infrastructure and put into little chestnuts like the Suburban Rail Loop, which is going to cost over $200 billion and beyond. Infrastructure Australia hasn't even been able to have a look at it or tick it off, but we're going to continue to take infrastructure spending out of regional Australia and throw it all into the Suburban Rail Loop. That's taking away the productivity of this country. If you don't give regional Australia the tools they need, this country gets poorer. That is what we saw, again, in this budget. We are seeing infrastructure being stripped out of regional Australia and put into the Suburban Rail Loop. The Inland Rail—for some reason, the government can't tell us exactly how they got to $45 billion for this project. They won't tell us in any detail where the costs have blown out, but they have decided to pull it up halfway and not go through with this. Even if they were saving $45 billion, there's not a dollar being spent on filling in some potholes on the Warrego Highway, the Cunningham Highway, the Leichhardt Highway, the Landsborough Highway or anywhere across regional Australia. They've been forced into spending a few dollars up and down the Bruce because we made a commitment in the last term about doing an 80/20 split with the Queensland government to fix the Bruce. It does need fixing. It's outside Maranoa, but, I grant you, it's an important arterial. But this government has stripped away the 80/20 arrangements they had with state governments. That means that the funding all goes into the capital cities, and regional Australia misses out. It's not just about the productivity of our nation; it's also about our safety. We are driving on roads that are effectively killing people. That's right. That is the stark reality that we live with every day. This is about making sure that there is equity. Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, on election night in 2022, said: 'No-one held back. No-one left behind.' Well, that's unless you live in regional Australia. When you look at what was ripped out in 2022, they've come back again to take what was left in the cupboard on water infrastructure, with another $100 million taken out of the national water infrastructure fund. This was a fund that we had set up with $7 billion. In fact, in my electorate, a dam at Emu Swamp, near Stanthorpe, was fully funded until the Albanese government came to power and took it away with the Miles government. That is a community, Stanthorpe, of around 8,000 people. It's one of the most productive food bowls in our nation. They are now, already, cutting water again to keep their permanent plantings alive for your apples, your peaches and your plums. They don't have water security. Primary producers are spending thousands of dollars every day on sending water tankers from down the road in Warwick. They're taking away the water supply from the town of Warwick, where 15,000 people live. We haven't thought about digging some holes and storing some water for when it rains so that these communities can not just survive but prosper. To take another $100 million out of that might sound great. People in metropolitan areas don't have a clue that this has happened. They'll probably wipe their brows and go: 'You know what? It doesn't worry us, because we'll probably get an intersection upgraded.' But what this means is your food security diminishes and your food prices go up. If you do not give primary producers the tools they need, then you produce less and that means you pay more. That is the stark reality of what is happening to regional Australia. For communities like Stanthorpe and Warwick, a piece of infrastructure that would have not just increased agricultural production but given water security to the town of Stanthorpe as well has been taken away by a government that is city centric. That tears at the very heart of exactly what it is to be Australian. It shouldn't matter where your postcode is. We've got a housing crisis in regional Australia as well, I've got to say. We're looking for people to come out and do the jobs. For some reason it's taken five budgets for the Albanese government to think that there now is a crisis for young people trying to get into housing. I mean, really? That wasn't an issue 12 months ago? They've only now said that we have to tax housing more to get young people into housing? That was a problem 12 months ago. That was a problem two years ago. And now, because of this ideological budget, they've decided to tax housing more when effectively all they need to do is actually reduce migration. This government's going to bring 2 million people into this country, and they're not just being poured into capital cities. We're missing out in the regions where we need skilled workers. They have bought in people that haven't got the skills that we need. They were prioritising dog groomers and martial arts instructors up until about 12 months ago, rather than maybe some engineers, some roofers, some tilers, some builders. I mean, that's just common sense. We're giving the greatest gift we can give to any person on this planet—a ticket to Australia. We should pick and choose who comes here and where they live. We should be saying to them, 'We want these skilled people to live in regional Australia.' But instead we've had this open door policy to send them all into Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and there's been an epiphany here in Canberra by the Treasurer to go, 'We've got to help young people get into housing.' You keep fuelling demand by letting these people pour in. It doesn't cost us a cent to use some common sense and stop the migration rot that has gone on, this mass migration, and have the numbers that we need where we need them to come. But we've even had those tools taken away from us because we had the agricultural visa taken away. We have communities that can't get mechanics. I've got communities where pubs cannot even open at night to put meals on because they can't get cooks. We're pouring all these people into capital cities, but there's no chefs sitting at the pubs in Barcaldine, the home of the Labor Party. We cannot get the skilled workers because of this ideology that has just gone out of control, and we are paying the bill for it. And then you get to telecommunications. Again, we've seen this heartless response by this government—tools that we need. There was outrage across this country when triple zero didn't work on the east coast. That was tragic. But let me tell you, we face that every day. Triple zero doesn't work for us most days because our mobile phones don't work, and what this government has taken out of this budget is the regional tax hubs. This was an organisation that was funded by the Commonwealth through the NFF to help people in regional Australia navigate new technology and find new technological ways to be able to keep themselves safe—not just do business but keep ourselves safe. I feel sorry for the families, my heart bleeds for the families, who lost loved ones in that triple zero outage. But let me tell you, come and have a walk through western Queensland. This mobile phone isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's worthless. It doesn't work in half the places because we haven't got the connectivity. We've had the investment stripped away from more mobile phone towers and better regulatory reform for protecting us. Now the one organisation that was set up with just $20 million—I mean, most departments have spilled that before smoko on a Monday—they took 20 mil away from the regional tech hub to help regional Australians navigate technology to keep them alive. Where is the national outrage on that? Are our lives not as valuable as those that lost them on the east coast when triple zero didn't work? I have a community of Dalby, and 12,000 people didn't have mobile service for two weeks. No-one cared. No-one batted an eyelid about this in Canberra when you raised it with the minister or anyone else. This is the reality that we live in regional Australia, and this budget just goes to show that it just feels as though this government hates us. They don't think that there's any value of us living in regional Australia. We contribute, we're paying the bills, we're feeding you, we're clothing you and we're putting a whole lot onto trains that go out the port which allows you to be able to have the infrastructure and the cities that you enjoy and you take for granted. We're not asking for a lot. We're just asking for some potholes to be filled in. We're asking for some water to be to be able to grow some more food for you. We're talking about simplistic things like technology that would be able to give us the tools to be able to operate a business in the 21st century and to keep us alive and safe, being treated fairly and being able to say that we are part of Australia in a way that is valued. Even when you talk about housing—I will give credit where credit is due—the $2 million that they've announced around helping the last piece of infrastructure in housing across this country is a great thing, but it's a fraction of what we announced at the last election. You have market failure in many of these communities. A block of land in Charleville will probably cost you $60,000 to develop— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:24 to 12:36 Debate adjourned. STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 101 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Malouf, Mr David George Joseph, AO 101 12:37 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to honour David Malouf AO, one of the great makers of Australian literature, who died on 22 April 2026 at the age of 92. Some writers describe a nation and some enlarge it. David Malouf did both. He widened the imaginative map of Australia and did so with a prose style so exact that many of his sentences seemed less written than tuned. Born in Brisbane in 1934, Malouf grew up in a city often treated by the southern capitals as a place of verandahs, heat and provincial manners. Malouf turned it into one of the great literary landscapes of Australia. In Johnno, Brisbane became a place of memory, desire, comedy and loss. It gained weather, depth, danger and metaphysics. The jacarandas acquired a syntax. As the son of a Lebanese Christian father and an English mother descended from Sephardic Jews, Malouf had an instinctive sense that identity is a set of crossings rather than a sealed compartment. Australia, in his work, became a country of inheritances and unsettled borders. His fiction understood that people carry histories they can scarcely name and that a nation is made as much by what it half remembers as by what it declares. Malouf's range was astonishing. He was a poet, novelist, essayist and librettist. For most writers, that would be a crowded CV; for Malouf, it seemed the natural result of having more than one instrument in the house. He wrote in conversation with the great dead and the vividly living. An Imaginary Life returned to Ovid in exile; Ransom returned to Homer. He inherited a literary landscape in which Patrick White had shown that Australian fiction could bear the weight of myth and metaphysics. Yet David Malouf found his own light, which was quieter, more sensuous and more hospitable to ambiguity. Among later writers, Nam Le and Christos Tsiolkas have written of him with evident admiration. That's a mark of a major writer. He gives other writers permission to become more fully themselves. David Malouf's major books now form part of the architecture of Australian letters. Fly Away Peter found in the First World War a terrible collision between beauty and violence. The Great World, winner of the Miles Franklin Award, traced friendship and survival through war and its aftermath. Remembering Babylon, shortlisted for the Booker Prize, gave Australian readers one of the most searching accounts of colonial fear, belonging and estrangement. Ransom retold the journey of Priam to Achilles, finding in the ancient story a modern grammar of grief. David Malouf's genius was often to notice the moral force of a small gesture—a meeting, a memory, a boy looking from a window, a king kneeling before an enemy. He knew that civilisation is built not only in parliaments and courts but in acts of recognition. In Remembering Babylon, Gemmy Fairley's fractured cry: Do not shoot, I am a B-b-british object!— is comic, painful and politically exact. In a handful of words, Malouf catches the absurdity of empire with a human being trying to save himself by turning himself into property. In An Imaginary Life, he imagined Ovid hears the plea to 'cross the river into your empire'. That sentence could stand as an invitation to read Malouf himself. His books ask us to cross borders of language, class, race and time. The honours were many. He was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia, won the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, became a fellow in the Royal Society of Literature and received the Australia Council award for lifetime achievement in literature. Yet Malouf wore distinction lightly. He had the rare ability to be both grand and modest—a difficult combination among writers and almost an endangered species among politicians. There was wit in him, too, the wit of precision rather than performance. He could draw on Homer and Ovid, then bring the reader back to a Brisbane street—a patch of light, a bird in a yard or a silence between friends. He reminded us that erudition is most powerful when it travels economy class. In his Boyer Lectures, David Malouf spoke as a public thinker as well as an artist. He understood that literature is one of the ways that society tests its moral imagination. Good writing asks us to inhabit the minds of others. In a democracy, that's a habit worth cultivating. For Australian writers, David Malouf helped prove that local material could carry the weight of world literature. He showed that Brisbane could speak to Rome and Troy, that the subtropics could converse with antiquity and that Aussie sentences could hold their own anywhere. For Australian readers, he offered something rarer than reassurance; he offered enlargement. He made us more attentive to language, memory, landscape and the uneasy bargains of history. He asked us to look harder, and he trusted us to follow. David Malouf gave Australia books of enduring beauty and seriousness. I'll never regard Brisbane without thinking of his writing, just as I can't go to a Western Australian beach without thinking of Tim Winton's. Malouf leaves a body of work that will continue to unsettle, console and instruct. His sentences will keep their music. His characters will keep walking through our minds. Brisbane, because of him, will always be a little more mysterious, a little more luminous and considerably better written. 12:43 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith Tall buildings now surround 12 Edmonstone Street in South Brisbane, in my electorate of Griffith. The old weatherboard queenslander is gone. It was a place that David once called home. Today, I pay tribute to David Malouf AO. David is one of Australia's great writers, a Queenslander and, importantly, one of Brisbane's great literary voices. David was born in Brisbane on 20 March 1934. He grew up in South Brisbane. He passed away on 22 April this year, aged 92, leaving behind a body of work that reached across poetry, novels, short stories, essays, libretti and memoir. His writing took us across continents and centuries, from hot, suburban Brisbane to ancient worlds, but it returned us again and again to the questions of memory, identity, belonging and home. In my 20s, I worked evenings and weekends as an usher in Brisbane Powerhouse, a performing arts and cultural centre on Brisbane River. During that time there was a stage production of Johnno, my first introduction to the writings of Malouf. Watching that show from the darkened wings of the theatre night after night, I couldn't quite believe how consistently and magically I was transported through time to 1940s and 1950s Brisbane and how his writing made me strangely nostalgic for a time I never knew. In Johnno, Malouf gave Brisbane one of its great literary portraits, revealed through memory and affection as anything but ordinary. And 12 Edmondstone Street, named after his childhood home, showed us how a vanished home could remain alive in the mind long after the street had changed. In Earth Hour, which he wrote much later in life, he turned again to the fragile gifts of the natural world—light, breeze, blossom, birdsong—and small moments that ask us to notice while there is still time. That is where Malouf's work so often begins—a street, a house, a fall of light, the heat held in a timber floorboard, the shade of a verandah, the river turning quietly through a city. From Edmondstone Street, from South Brisbane and West End, from the remembered textures of an older Brisbane, his imagination opened onto the largest questions: who we are, where we belong, what we carry and how the past continues to live in us. The city has changed. Houses have given way. Streetscapes have shifted. Skylines have most certainly risen. But Malouf reminds us that place is never only in its buildings. It is weather, memory, family, language, longing and return. It is the city we inherit, the city we make and the city that goes on making us. Perhaps that was true of Malouf himself—gentle, generous, exacting, attentive, a writer who taught us to look again at the world closest to us and to find there the whole world. My condolences to David's nieces and nephews and to everyone who loved him. Vale, David Malouf. Women's Budget Statement 102 12:47 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Women's rights have made significant strides since we first got the vote in my home state of South Australia in 1894. It has been a hard slog to get where we are now. Women were only allowed to open their own bank account in the mid-1970s. No-fault divorce started in 1975. The national Paid Parental Leave scheme started in 2010, the same year that saw our first and only female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. These are, in the context of the long span of women's rights movements, recent developments, and there is much more to do. The Albanese Labor government's budget recognises the disadvantage that women continue to face across many areas of life in Australia today. This budget doesn't and can't fix all of the issues that women in modern Australia face. But it's another stride in that long trek towards a better future for women. The Women's Budget Statement was first presented by a Labor government in the 1980s. The Albanese Labor government revived the Women's Budget Statement in 2022 because we believe that, in order to seriously address the issues that Australian women face, it requires a planned, practical and sustained response. It requires remembering to think about the impact of women in our economic agenda. The reality even today is that women have a much smaller superannuation balance than their male counterparts on average, and hence we see more old women retiring into poverty. Women are likely to earn less than men to begin with and to experience unpaid periods away from the workforce. Women are more likely to be doing unpaid work, including the so-called 'second shift' when they get home at night. Women are more likely to experience domestic, sexual and gender based violence. Women are underrepresented in boardrooms and executive roles across a variety of sectors and industries. By facilitating women's success, we access the talents and skills of all Australians and facilitate the success of our country. We become a happier, healthier, more productive society and a more equal society. This budget, as with the government's previous budgets, will continue the move towards social and economic equity for women. In the words of the late Dame Roma Mitchell, former SA governor and pioneer of women's rights: There is a need for affirmative action, not to give preference to women over men in employment, but to ensure that women do not suffer detriment by reason of gender. It is this affirmative posture that the government is taking We have put gender-responsive budgeting at the very heart of this process, which means that every measure has also been considered for its impact on women. Be in no doubt; these measures will make real and long-lasting difference in women's lives. Women will be able to keep more of what they earn. From 1 July this year, the government will be delivering more tax cuts for every Australian to help with the cost of living, and 6.3 million women will benefit from our $250 tax offset and a $1,000 instant tax deduction. The combined tax changes will mean women will be better off by nearly $3,000 a year. The cost of child care is a factor that every family considers when making decisions about whether both parents want to and can afford to work outside the home. That is why the Albanese Labor government increased funding for early child care. Families are entitled to three guaranteed days of subsidised child care per week. Cheaper child care has already benefited more than one million families. This supports women having choice about if and when they want to return to work, something that has significant impact on their financial independence. We have invested $1 billion in building more early childhood education and care centres. We've extended paid parental leave by six months. When I had my children, there was no paid parental leave, only unpaid. The parenting payment has been extended to when the youngest child reaches 14 years of age. We're also cracking down on abuses in the child support system by making it safer and fairer and ensuring that women receive the funds that they need and are entitled to in order to be able to support their families. The child support system supports around one million children every year. One million children are vulnerable to parents who maliciously weaponise the system—parents who weaponise this system by withholding funds that they are legally obligated to pay to support their children. This can be for cruel purposes to harass, control or inflict intentional harm. It is, more often than not, women who are subjected to this cruelty because recipient parents of child support payments consist overwhelmingly of women. Currently, there is up to $2 billion in unpaid child support debt, or an average unsatisfied debt of nearly $8,700 for every woman. To combat this, the government is investing nearly $183 million in the biggest reforms to child support in 20 years. These reforms aim to put an end to the weaponisation of the child support system and make it safer and fairer for women to navigate. This is something the sector has campaigned on long and hard, and I'd like to recognise Dr Terese Edwards from Single Mother Families Australia for her excellent work in this field, and I congratulate her on recently receiving her doctorate. The budget will also provide more secure housing for women and girls in crisis because every woman and girl experiencing domestic and family violence should not have to make the decision between staying in a violent relationship and being homeless. As the former CEO of Catherine House, I understand the crucial importance of resources being readily available to women and girls who have otherwise nowhere to go and no-one to turn to. Unfortunately, the trend continues. It is women and girls who are the largest cohort and the most likely cohort to seek out homelessness services, and young women in particular are more likely to leave home due to gender based violence. The Albanese Labor government is therefore investing $59.4 million in the community housing sector to support young women who are victims of gender based violence. This is just one facet of the government's overall $308.6 million in continued investment to end gender based violence, and these commitments are in addition to the previous work the government has done to improve housing security for women and children. Since 2022, the government has invested $1 billion to help women and children escape from abusive circumstances into crisis and transitional accommodation. This is on top of our 50 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, 30,000 new social and affordable homes and a leg-up for first home buyers, with the five per cent deposit and help-to-buy schemes, because every woman and child deserves a place to call home—a safe place to call home. Since 2022, the government has provided $3.9 billion in new funding for legal assistance services, $41.8 million for 1800RESPECT, and 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave and has fully implemented Respect@Work, meaning women have stronger protections from workplace sexual harassment. In this budget, we have committed to an additional $61.2 million for the 500 Workers Initiative, which will create 500 new jobs to support victims-survivors of family, domestic and sexual abuse. Unsurprisingly, issues of health are a major concern for women, and what appears to be innocuous in the first instance can have major impacts on how women navigate their day-to-day lives. This is why, in this budget, we are making a record investment in women's health. We have already made medicines for women cheaper and more accessible, with savings in excess of $647 million across 139 million PBS prescriptions for contraceptives, menopause therapies and the like. We'll be investing a further $2 billion to make medicines more affordable and more accessible. Also, $2.7 million will be invested in making long-acting reversible contraceptives, like IUDs and implants, cheaper and more accessible. The data shows material improvements in the lives of Australian women as a result of the Albanese Labor government's practical and long-term plan. Women's participation in the workplace is at an historic high, the gender pay gap is lower than it has ever been before, women have been earning approximately $300 more per week since 2022, and Australia has risen in international gender equality rankings from 43 to 13. These are staggering achievements that have made a real difference to Australian women's lives. But, as I stated at the outset, this is only the beginning, and there is so much more to do. It is vital that the Women's Budget Statement, an in-depth look at how budget measures affect women, remains a fixture of the political landscape, because ignoring a problem—like different gender impacts—doesn't make it go away, and it's important that the budget works for all Australians. In the words of former prime minister Julia Gillard, 'A gender-equal world will be better for everyone.' 12:57 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne I quote from page 50 of the Women's Budget Statement: The Government's investment in the ongoing operation of UCCs— urgent care clinics— is likely to have a greater positive impact for women, increasing free access to a service they are more likely to use. Well, that does not apply in the electorate of Lyne. For the past 12 months, I have stood in this place and I have made the case for an urgent care clinic in the Lyne electorate. When I opened the budget papers, I was disappointed to see that, yet again, somehow—I think the government has lost the map of regional Australia. They've certainly lost the map of the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. On urgent care clinics, in a media release—a joint statement with the Prime Minister—Minister Butler said: The network of Medicare Urgent Care Clinics are proving to be a gamechanger for all Australians. How can it be a game changer for all Australians when the electorate of Lyne does not have a Medicare urgent care clinic? Are we not Australians? Are we in the Lyne electorate considered second-class citizens? Now, I didn't leave this issue to chance. I have written seven times to the minister. Not once has he written back to me; I've only had a response from his chief of staff. And I've asked to meet with the minister. I think people in this place know just how passionate I am about this issue. Next week is the anniversary of the May floods of last year, the one-in-500-years flood that smashed my electorate. Taree was the epicentre. I was looking for some hope, not for me but for the people of the Lyne electorate, for the people of Taree and the Manning. I put in a pre-budget submission to the government. I didn't leave this to chance. I made the case again, in a pre-budget submission to the government. The case is 'that the Mid-Coast LGA, in the SEIFA index, is well below the Australian average'. We have fewer general medical practitioners per thousand of population—significantly fewer. The Manning Hospital is the region's only public hospital and is seeing a substantial volume of semi-urgent and non-urgent—that's triage 4 and 5—presentations that are appropriate for an urgent care pathway. I looked up the figures this morning. In the October to December period, 46— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299964 It being one o'clock, I call the member for Hughes. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Iranian Australian Community 104 13:00 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I'd like to share with this House an email from Dr Babak Farr, a constituent of Kooyong, who, like many others, is concerned about recent harmful and alienating public rhetoric against Iranian Australians and other immigrants to this country: Dear Dr Ryan, I am writing to you as one of your constituents in Kooyong, a fellow medical professional, and a proud member of the Iranian Australian community. I wish to express my profound disappointment regarding recent comments made by Mr Angus Taylor and the broader trend of targeted policy affecting our community. I arrived in Australia 20 years ago with my wife. Since then, we've both dedicated our careers to the Australian healthcare system—my wife as a General Practitioner and myself as a Rehabilitation and Pain Medicine physician. Every day, we care for Australians and work to improve our community. We have built our lives here on the promise that this is a nation where people are judged by their contribution and character, not by their place of birth. Mr Taylor's recent remarks labelling Iran a "bad country" and suggesting that individuals from such backgrounds represent an inherent "higher risk" are deeply biased and reductive. I would add that the member for Hume is not the only coalition member who has adopted this harmful label; his deputy leader, Senator Jane Hume, has also repeatedly used divisive and hurtful rhetoric against immigrant communities. I'll continue with Dr Farr's letter: To categorise an entire diaspora in this way is the very definition of prejudice. As physicians, we rely on evidence and individual assessment; to see a national leader use such rhetoric to alienate a specific community is both hurtful and dangerous to our social cohesion. Equally concerning is that this rhetoric is also mirrored in policy. The current Labor government's recent decision to implement an Arrival Control Determination, effectively barring thousands of Iranian visitor visa holders from entering the country, is a distressing example of this. Such broad-brush restrictions punish individuals who have acted in good faith, paid fees, and sought only to visit family or escape the very regime Australia claims to oppose. It is disheartening to see the rights of one nationality curtailed so specifically, regardless of which side of politics holds the pen. I acknowledge that "bad people" can come from any nation, and Iran is no exception. We share the frustration when individuals linked to the regime—such as the children of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf or senior IRGC commanders—are granted visas to Australia. However, these are the very people that the majority of the diaspora have fled from. To conflate the victims of a regime with the regime's own beneficiaries only compounds the injustice we face. Iranian-Australians are your doctors, engineers, and neighbours. We are not "risks" to be managed; we are integral threads in the fabric of this country. As my representative, I ask that you stand up for the values of inclusion and respect, and raise these concerns in Parliament to ensure our community is not targeted by divisive rhetoric or discriminatory policy. I sincerely thank Dr Farr and his wife, and I thank and acknowledge other Iranian Australians for their contribution to our country. In Kooyong alone. I'm fortunate to represent more than 1,050 individuals who have Persian heritage. Around 800 were actually born in Iran and speak Farsi at home. When public speakers like the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition label entire nations and entire peoples as bad, they divide, they discriminate, they demean us all, they legitimise prejudice and they entrench hate. That hate damages the very fabric of Australia's proud multicultural society. I put it to the House that there are no bad countries but there are, sadly, bad politicians who act in bad faith. Australian Parliament 105 13:05 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne This year marks 125 years since Australia's first parliament opened inside the Royal Exhibition Building in the heart of Melbourne. For 125 years, the Royal Exhibition Building has stood as part of our national story. Long before Canberra became the seat of government, before this chamber, before the systems and traditions we now know, the Royal Exhibition Building held the very first parliament of Australia. When we reflect on the first sitting in 1901, we should celebrate how extraordinary that moment was—a new nation coming together for the first time, a parliament beginning its work, a democracy taking shape. But we should also be honest about what that democracy looked like at the beginning. While the parliament gathered inside that grand building, many Australians were excluded from the national story being written in there. First Nations people, whose sovereignty was never ceded, were not recognised in the founding of the nation, despite caring for the continent for tens of thousands of years. Women could not sit in this parliament, could not stand for election and could not shape the decisions being made about the future of the country they lived in. There is one story from the opening ceremony that stays with me. A young woman named Sabina Peipers attended the opening alongside her father, the German consul. She was the only woman to sit among the dignitaries on the main floor of the Exhibition Building. She was there for the birth of the nation, but, when the famous painting of the opening was complete, Sabina had disappeared from her seat. She was painted out. In the place where she had been sitting, the artist painted himself instead. There is something powerful in that choice. To paint a woman out is not just to remove a face from a canvas. It is to erase her from the memory of the moment and to suggest she was not central to the story and not important enough to be remembered. Even when women were present in the room, they were often pushed to the edges of the story. Yet, 125 years later, that story looks very different. Australia became the first country in the world to give women the right to both vote and stand for parliament. That was in 1902. In 1943, Enid Lyons and Dorothy Tangney entered the parliament and changed it forever. And today this parliament reflects more of modern Australia than ever before, with people of different cultures, different faiths, different ages and different abilities, people whose families came from every part of the world, people with lived experiences that would once have been completely absent from this chamber and, in many cases, even the country. For me, that progress feels especially meaningful because, for the first time since Federation, the people of Melbourne elected a woman to represent them here. That progress matters, not because representation alone solves everything but because democracy becomes stronger when more Australians can see themselves inside it—when more voices are heard and when more experiences shape the decisions we make. That is why the Royal Exhibition Building still matters so much today. As we mark 125 years since the first parliament sat in Melbourne, we celebrate not only the history of the building itself but the generations of Australians who helped shape the country since the first debates echoed through its halls. We honour the people who fought to be included, the people who pushed to be heard, the people who believed Australia could be fairer, broader and more equal over time. And we carry that work forward still because that too is part of our national story. As the Royal Exhibition Building continues to stand in the heart of Melbourne, watching the country change around it for more than 125 years, it reminds us that democracy is never finished. It is something each generation must keep building and protecting. It is the idea that requires all of us, both in this place and across the country, to stand up for equality, for truth-telling, for a sustainable future and for the young people who will take up this unique Australian version of democracy. Each generation leaves its mark. Each generation widens the circle a little more. Each generation takes up the challenge of making this a better country. And, after 125 years, that is something worth honouring. Budget 106 13:10 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I want to talk about a few things that came out of the budget this week, but, before I do, I think it's important, unfortunately, to remind not only this Chamber but also the Australian public that this budget is built on broken promises. It's important to remind this Chamber of that, because this is the whole issue that people have of trust in the House and trust in this institution of the parliament. The Prime Minister was asked, on record, over 50 times before the last election—which was only 12 months ago, so we're not talking about a big period of time here—whether he would do the three things that he announced in this week's budget. You might say, 'Why was he asked about those three specific policies?' To at least give him credit for this, these were the three policies that the then Labor leader Bill Shorten took to the 2019 election. At least he had the decency to go to the Australian public and say, 'If elected, I am going to institute these three policies.' You may well argue and say, 'If those three policies were taken to the Australian public now at an election, then things have changed and the vote might change,' but we'll never know. We'll never know because this Prime Minister didn't have the guts, the transparency or the honesty to do that, and great shame on him for that. He doesn't just undermine his own credibility as Prime Minister, which I think he's done enormous damage to this week, and the Labor Party; he undermines the whole institution of the parliament because of how he's done that. I want to go through a few policies—in particular, the three policies that he did move this week with the budget—and I want to explain why I think the Australian public didn't vote for it last time and the damage that it will do, which the Australian public will never get to vote on before he institutes it through this parliament. The first one is the capital gains tax. We now have one of the highest capital gains taxes in the world. If you are going to start a small business, a lot of small businesses—I know the member for Lyne would know many, and I know them myself—will invest in things and they, especially young people, will often forgo income. Why do they do that? Because they have this idea that they're going to create this asset that they're going to be able to sell and have a capital gain because of the work they do. There are countries like New Zealand, to name one—I name that because it's the closest country that is doing the exact opposite with capital gains. They're actually lowering capital gains taxes because they want to encourage New Zealanders to have a go. It was said to me by someone yesterday that Labor wants you to take the risk, but they'll take the gain. They'll take the reward. 'You take the risk; we'll take the reward.' That's how it was referred to me, which is very apt. You take the risk but Labor will take the reward if you're going to have a go at trying to create wealth for yourself and your family. We want to encourage that. I say that unashamedly. We want people in our country to take a risk and get a reward for it. We want to encourage that, and this is doing exactly the opposite of that. There'll be ramifications of this that won't be seen today. They won't be seen next week. They won't even necessarily be seen within the next year or so. But over time the culture will change and the behaviour of people will change. The other policy is negative gearing. This actually surprised me, though why would I be surprised? I was surprised by this. I was sitting in the budget lock-up. Page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 says that, because of the tax changes that were announced Tuesday night, 35,000 fewer homes would be built in this country over the next 10 years. This is a policy that they sell by saying, 'We want housing to be more affordable and easier to access for young people to get into the housing market.' Their own documents refute that. Their own document refutes the idea that this is going to make it easier. The other one, of course, is rents. The budget document also says that rents are going to go up. You can't make this up. The policies and the reasons they're saying are actually having the opposite effect. I don't think this is anything about what's going on in the economy. This is just about Labor's socialist ideology. They don't like people who are successful, they want to tax people who are successful, and they want to hurt people who are successful. I've got so much more to say, but I've run out of time. Budget 107 13:15 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand This has been a defining week for Australia, one where the Australian public has been able to see clearly where the people in this parliament stand and who they are fighting for. On Tuesday night, the Albanese government delivered a budget focused on national resilience, economic reform and cost-of-living relief for Australians. The budget confronted the challenge to Australia's resilience that followed the global oil shock caused by the conflict in the Middle East. Our $14.8 billion fuel resilience package will deliver more fuel for Australians and more fuel security for our economy. The budget also delivered a series of economic reforms designed to boost productivity, intergenerational equity and access to housing. Our changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax and trusts will deliver a better tax system and a fairer housing market. These changes will give more young Australians a fair shot at owning their own home. The budget also recognises the pressures that Australians are under now and takes real action to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians and even more tax relief for Australian workers. The Albanese budget does all of this with lower deficits and lower debt, and we're delivering $63.8 billion of savings to help us pay down Liberal debt and fund the services that Australians rely on. It's responsible economic management at a time of global uncertainty, taking the pressure off inflation and building our fiscal buffers. It's a budget that delivers for all Australians, confronting immediate challenges to our resilience, delivering genuine economic reforms to make Australia fairer and more productive in the future and delivering cost-of-living relief for all Australians. In contrast, the three right-wing parties of this parliament have been focused on the politics of division. The Farrer by-election revealed a number of fundamental truths about the Liberal and National parties. First, the campaign they ran in Farrer shows they have absolutely nothing to offer the Australian public on the issues that matter to them. Second, the result of this campaign showed that the Liberal and National parties are unable to beat One Nation in electorates like Farrer by imitating them. The Liberals tried to protect themselves from One Nation by preferencing them. It didn't work. As a result, there's now no way that the Liberal and National parties can form government without One Nation. My community in Melbourne's west should know what this means for them and our country. Modern Australia is a nation where more than half of our population is born overseas or has a parent born overseas. It's the story of my community in Melbourne's west. More than two-thirds of my community are born overseas. I have a parent born overseas. Families that call my community home come from all corners of the world. Our doctors, our nurses, our researchers, our IT geeks, our aged-care workers, our entrepreneurs and business owners—they are an invaluable part of every dimension of Australian society and our economy. They are our friends and family, our fellow Australians. They contribute to Australia every day. They make our country a better place every single day. It's who we are. This is the modern Australia that the Albanese government proudly represents in this parliament with a caucus that similarly draws on the contributions of MPs whose stories began in every corner of the globe before becoming a part of our shared story as Australians. We love modern Australia—the country that we've all built here together. The three right-wing parties in this parliament have a different view. In 1996, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson said plainly that all Asian migration to Australia should be stopped. She said that Australia had been 'swamped by Asians', as though being Asian and being Australian were somehow different things. She declared that Asian people 'have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate'. She's never changed that view—20 years later, in 2016, she was again saying that we would be swamped by the Chinese. In 2017 she said: I don't change my tune … If you look back at what I said 20 years ago— in 1996— it's exactly what I'm saying now. This is the party that the Liberals and Nationals recommended that voters preference in the Farrer by-election. This is the party that the Liberal and National parties cannot govern without the support of. In the 1990s, the Liberal and National parties made a different choice. People like Peter Costello and Ron Boswell chose to confront One Nation instead of collaborating with them. And thank God they did, because in the 1990s when Pauline Hanson first said that we should stop Asian migration she was talking about the Australians in my electorate who have arrived since then—she was talking about all of the Chinese Australians, Indian Australians, Vietnamese Australians, Bangladeshi Australians, Nepali Australians who make my community the place that it is today. Imagine if the Liberal and National parties of the 1990s made the mistake that the Liberal and National parties of today are currently making. I'm proud of my community in Melbourne's west. I'm proud of modern Australia. I'm proud to be a part of an Albanese government that represents all Australians, that brings together Australians at times like this instead of playing the politics of division. Aged Care, Cost of Living 108 13:20 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I'd like to cover an email one of my constituents sent to me about our healthcare system and about aged care. Martin is 90 years old. Martin is not a statistic. He's not a case number. He's a member of my community, someone who has lived a full life, contributed and now, in his later years, is asking for something very simple—to remain in his own home. But over the past two years, Martin has presented to hospital at least 20 times—not because he wants to be there, but because the system is not built around him and it's not working the way it should be. Like many older Australians, Martin has been waiting—waiting for the support he needs to live safely at home; waiting for a home-care package; waiting for a system that is backed up, delayed and struggling to transition into the new Support at Home program. In the meantime, Martin has been allowed to fall through the cracks. His family has had to step in. His granddaughter Chantel is the one who is advocating for him. Social workers have tried to help navigate My Aged Care, but they struggle to get traction. This cycle continue when Martin returns home without the support he needs, deteriorates and then ends up back in hospital. Martin's worse off, our hospital system is worse off, it's costing us more money and, sadly, I worry that it's costing us lives again and again. This is not just hard on Martin; it's hard on his family as well. But there's something deeper. Martin wants dignity, to live in his own home with dignity. He doesn't want to be a burden on his granddaughter and on his family. He wants the chance to live out his remaining years in a place he knows well, in his home, and he just wants what was promised to him under the My Aged Care system. He wants what we promised to deliver to him; he doesn't want the delays. The backlog doesn't care. It's beyond time we fixed it. Now this isn't an unreasonable request. It's what our aged-care system is meant to do. We talk a lot about reform in parliament, about funding, about programs and about people like Martin. It's about whether the system works for the people it was designed to support. When it doesn't, and it's not right now, the consequences are real. They're measured in hospital admissions, they're measured in stress on families, they're measured in older Australians denied the ability to live the final chapter at home and on their terms. And, unfortunately, I worry they are going to be measured in deaths. Today I am asking that this government does better. We need to ensure that people like Martin in my electorate access the support they need when they need it and when we promised it. We need to reduce delays; we need to make the system navigable; we need to restore what matters most—choice, control and dignity. Martin has given 90 years to his community and to his family. For many of those years he was paying taxes. Surely, we can give him some dignity, like we promised, for the last few years of his life. I'd also like to make some comments about the cost-of-living problems we're facing in my electorate. Recently I visited a local cafe in Woolooware, the Playground cafe. The owner, Mr Vasili, has spent two decades in hospitality, and he told us plainly that he has never seen it this tough. Costs are rising across the board. Electricity, ingredients, wages—everything is going up and going up more frequently. Small businesses are being forced to track every dollar just to stay afloat. At the same time, he notes customer behaviours changing. People are coming in but spending less. Once it was a meal and coffee; now it's just coffee. Some businesses are operating on tight margins, where costs rise and revenues fall and the pressure becomes unsustainable, but we're now seeing business owners question whether it's worth continuing at all. The worst thing is that this isn't isolated. It's happening all across hospitality, retail and local services. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economy and when they struggle, communities feel it. Do you know what else affects these small businesses? It is this budget, because, now, when they want to sell their small business, they will be taxed almost double what they were. The 50 per cent CGT discount is gone. If they've been distributing money through a trust, that's now gone too. These small businesses suffering will now have a much higher tax burden and will suffer so much more as a result of this budget. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events 109 13:25 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Today I rise to talk about one of the most beautiful towns not just in Eden-Monaro but in all of Australia: Jindabyne. It's located in the Snowy Mountains, the rooftop of Australia, where you can see Mother Nature at her breathtaking best. Jindabyne has postcard-perfect scenery, but it's so much more than that. It's a community shaped by determination, resilience, innovation and pride. It's the residents and the small businesses that give this town its heart. Take Wildbrumby Distillery, a standout local business quietly achieving international recognition with gold medals at the Melbourne International Spirits Competition and the Australian Distilled Spirits Award. That's a remarkable achievement for a regional distillery and a testament to Snowy Mountains craftsmanship. Jindabyne is also producing world-class talent on the global sporting stage. Josie Baff, a proud local, has become a household name in snowboarding, as a 2026 Winter Olympian and women's snowboard cross gold medallist, inspiring young athletes across Australia. Jindabyne sisters Charlotte and Abbey Wilson made their Olympic debuts at Milano Cortina: Charlotte in the women's moguls and Abbey on the snowboard cross. Then we've got Adam Lambert, who flew the flag at Milano Cortina competing in the mixed team snowboard cross. A shout-out to Jakara Anthony, who trains in Jindabyne at the National Snowsports Training Centre. By winning the dual moguls at Milano Cortina, Jakara cemented her place in history as Australia's greatest winter athlete—the only Australian to ever win two gold medals. What an extraordinary achievement by these athletes and a powerful reminder of the world-class talent coming out of the Snowy Mountains. Speaking of talent, the town is also making itself seen and heard in the performing arts scene. Jindabyne local Kesha Oyada captured the nation's attention earlier this year as the winner of Australian Idol, proving that creativity thrives well beyond capital cities. In education, Jindabyne High School student Blake Wigger achieved an outstanding 99.6 on his ATAR in the 2025 HSC—an extraordinary result that speaks volumes about our local schools, our teachers and the commitment of families in the Snowy Mountains. Also from Jindabyne High School, Emelia Greville has been named the district winner of the Lions Youth of the Year and has also been selected to represent Eden-Monaro at this year's National Youth Parliament. Jindabyne shows us exactly what regional Australia does best. It punches above its weight, it supports its own and it quietly produces excellence in business, sport, creativity and education. I'm proud to represent Jindabyne, and all those people who make it a great place to live, in parliament. I also want to acknowledge the work of a leading Australian visual artist who lives at Bibbenluke on Ngarigo country in the Snowy Mountains. Lucy Culliton is the winner of the 2026 Sir John Sulman Prize, awarded by the Art Gallery of New South Wales alongside the Archibald and Wynne prizes. A seven-time Sulman Prize finalist, Lucy draws deep inspiration from the landscapes, seasons and everyday life of our high country. Lucy won this year with a portrait of Toolah, one of seven greyhounds among her nine rescue dogs who share her home at Bibbenluke. The work depicts Toolah settled in her favourite chair in Lucy's studio. In the background sits one of the large Monaro grass paintings Lucy was working on at the time, bringing the textures and colours of the region into a quiet domestic scene. This year's Sulman win is fitting recognition of a distinguished career. Lucy's work is held in major public collections, including the National Gallery of Australia and the Australian Parliament House collection, and she's a familiar name in Australia's major art prizes. A big congratulations to Lucy on winning this prize. Her career is a powerful reminder that world-class creative work can be made right here in Eden-Monaro. The Narooma Oyster Festival is another success story. From 1 to 3 May this year, Narooma hosted growers, chefs, shuckers and oyster lovers from all around Australia, celebrating local oysters. The festival is famous for its ultimate oyster experiences, including shucking classes, live music and world-class seafood. It also hosts the Australian Oyster Shucking Championships, and this year Tasmania Zoe Jacobson was crowned the 2026 Australian Oyster Shucking Champion—the first woman to win the title. She joined the oyster industry at a factory in Sorell. There was no room for females on the shucking room floor, so she practised removing the shells secretly after her work as an oyster packer. Now she manages, and is the sole oyster shucker at, 42 Degrees in Dunalley and is represented by the fantastic member for Lyons, Rebecca White. Self-taught and already a multiple Tasmanian title holder, Zoe topped an outstanding field of 17 competitors. She shucked 30 oysters in two minutes and 53 seconds, including penalties. Not only was she unbeaten in the women's final; she also beat all the men. She is now headed to the world championships in Galway on 26 September. A big shout-out to the Narooma Oyster Festival for the work they do. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13 : 30