COMMITTEES

2026-06-04 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 4 June 2026

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations—Select Committee 1 Appointment 1 09:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That: (1) a House Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) the cyber maturity of Australian small to medium sized businesses and organisations, including not-for-profit organisations; (b) the adequacy, appropriateness and accessibility of guidance provided to small to medium sized businesses and organisations by Government in relation to cyber security; (c) whether there are appropriate standards for small to medium sized businesses and organisations in relation to cyber security; (d) the ease for small to medium sized businesses and organisations to procure appropriate cyber security services in Australia; (e) the importance of training for employees on good cyber security practices to the overall cyber security of small to medium sized businesses and organisations; (f) the impact of cyber security maturity on the feasibility for small to medium businesses and organisations to participate in Government and large corporate supply chains; and (g) any other related matters; (2) the committee presents its final report by no later than 31 March 2027; (3) the committee may choose to table an interim report at any time; (4) the committee consist of: (a) seven voting members, four Members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and (b) two supplementary (non-voting) members (one Government, one non-Government) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member); (5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (6) the members of the committee hold office as a House select committee until 30 April 2027 or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier; (7) the committee elect a: (a) Government member as its chair; and (b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; (8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting; (9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote; (10) three members of the committee including at least one Government member constitute a quorum of the committee; (11) the committee: (a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and (b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only; (12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting; (13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee including at least one government member; (14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and (16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders. 09:01 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I move: That paragraph (7)(b) of the motion be amended to read: "(b) Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;" I commend the minister. This is an important committee. It's a good committee, particularly when we look at cybersecurity and the challenges that all businesses face—but we do know small businesses in particular are really vulnerable to cyberattack and they don't have the resources to protect themselves and invest. So it's important that the government and this committee, in a bipartisan way, look at how we can protect small businesses and work with them. That's why we believe as an opposition that the deputy chair should be a member of the opposition, in particular given the fact that this committee is going to 2027. It is an opportunity to signal to the sector—small business and the cyber industry—that it has bipartisan support and parties of government want to work together to deliver better outcomes for industry. 09:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The government is happy to accept the amendment, but I advise members, even though it's a time limited debate, that, if we want to make sure that people get to speak on the tax bills, we're just going to have to get moving on it. In the interests of that, I'll accept the amendment. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 2

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

Second Reading 2 09:04 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It's been just 11 hours since the House rose and my contribution was interrupted by the adjournment, but, in that ensuing time, we've had many businesses face the awkward decision as to whether in fact they will continue to operate or not. Australia's small businesses are shutting at a disturbing rate: 40,000 microbusinesses lost in four years as wages that they have to pay go up. Admittedly, the workers are getting less bang for their buck, but tax reforms and calls for a three-day week just mount and small business is doing it so very tough. What I fear is that those opposite don't understand or appreciate the hardships of small business because in many cases they have not run one. They've run picket lines out in front of them and they've run them into the ground, but they haven't actually run a small business to save themselves, and they don't understand and appreciate the complexities facing the operators of those many, many small businesses. I ran one for nearly a decade, with a couple of others, and it's tough. Often you take home less pay yourself than you are in fact paying your employees, your workers. As to workers, yes, we saw the independent commission this week give a wage rise to Australia's lowest paid workers—bearing in mind Australia has one of the highest minimum wages anywhere. But I say to those workers: do not be fooled, because once you take away the power bills, the rent or mortgage costs, the grocery bills and the fuel costs, you're taking home less. We as a coalition—we as Nationals and Liberals—want people to keep more of what they earn because it's their money. The other side treat wages, superannuation and all of these things as though it is the government, the taxpayers, paying for it, when in actual fact it's the small-business owners and operators who are being slammed every day of the week. The national economy has slowed to a crawl, and the budget has not helped. You've got people who are running businesses who are saying that this government is waging a war on work and on small business. We had the small-business minister even talk about those businesses which accepted money during COVID as if somehow they were dodgy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released just this week show the economy grew by a weaker-than-expected 0.3 per cent in the March quarter amidst declining productivity. It was only on 27 June 2025 that the consultation process was opened on a productivity roundtable. Well, how did that go when we see that productivity in every shape, way and form is being smashed by this federal budget? Then we had, of course, the Treasurer out there trying to explain it away and saying: 'Nothing to see here. All is well. All is good. The economy is growing.' Well, we should be booming. Despite the worldwide headwinds, including the war in Iran, we should be, as a nation, booming, but we are being slowed by bad policies and by a bad government, and small businesses have had enough because they are copying it in the neck every day in every way. We have heard from people such as Mark McCrindle, a social demographer, who said small businesses were being confronted with a 'war on work, an attack on risk takers and a target on the back of the entrepreneur'. Once we take away that entrepreneurial spirit, that yearning to get out there, follow your dream, take a spark of an idea and turn it into a small-business success story, we pull the rug from underneath the economy. Small business—make no mistake—runs the economy. Small business employs the majority of Australians. This government believes in a big Public Service, although they're taking away 111 Department of Veterans' Affairs staff, which is reprehensible. They believe that, because there's a bigger public service, they're doing their job. A bigger government with more control over people is how this government operates, and it's wrongheaded. It's absolutely wrongheaded. Now, Mr McCrindle had this to say: It is already a challenging environment for small and medium enterprise, and the ones doing it tough are the smallest businesses. There are 40,000 fewer of those micro businesses today than there were four years ago— 40,000 fewer! Do we think that the government, that the Minister for Small Business, that the Treasurer, that the Prime Minister no less think to themselves when they're formulating a budget: 'What can we do to help small businesses? What can we do to ensure that that engine room of the economy can prosper, can thrive?' They can barely survive with the policies that have been put out under this cruel, mean spirited, wrongheaded budget. What we've got here is Mr McCrindle adding: They are the ones— he's talking about microbusinesses— most impacted by these suite of changes, whether it's (capital gains tax) reform or minimum wage increases. Here's an interesting statistic just to dwell on: New insolvency data shows 281 small businesses shut their doors in the five days after the federal budget alone. That's 281 people who may well now be forced to live on welfare, 281 people who've given up the dream of running their own business, 281 people potentially—probably more—who've lost that hope, who've lost that drive, who've lost that zeal, that energy, that desire to get out of bed in the morning and make this country a better one. Shame on the government for this budget. It's an absolute disgrace. It should be very much looked at and reviewed. 09:12 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I want to give a quick shout-out to the kids up in the gallery as I wave to them. These students—I'm sure, looking at their age—have been taught about grammar and these things. I'm sure by now they know a verb is a main word in a sentence that expresses an action or occurrence, a state of being. There is, of course, one verb that's not allowed to be used in this place. Take, for example, the students up there. I reckon, if they were talking to their teacher and gave the teacher an assurance that they would do a particular thing after recess with every intention of doing completely the opposite after recess, the teacher would bring them in and use the verb and say, 'Little Johnny, you "what-ed" to me.' But, of course, we're not allowed to use it in this place. Quite frankly, it's causing frustration because, I've got to tell you, outside the crystal gates of this building, people are using that verb and many more besides. Do you know why? It's because they tuned in before the last election because they never want to get it wrong. In my view, electorates never get it wrong. But the fundamental, if you like, bargain between electorates and those seeking election is that you'll be straight up and fair dinkum with them before an election so that they can make that decision in good faith. Why do I say that this is a 'bad faith budget'? It's a bad faith budget and it's a bad faith set of tax changes because the architects of this change, or changes, looked squarely down the barrel, speaking into the households and loungerooms of millions of Australians in the lead-up to the election, and said not once, not twice, but more than 50 times, 'No, no, no, we don't propose any changes to property taxes or the like.' Now, I've got to give former prime minister Bill Shorten his due. He was looking to establish many of these changes, but he had the honesty, the guts, to put it to the Australian people. Do you remember the current energy minister, who was then shadow Treasurer, saying—it's in fact my favourite quote from the energy minister—'If you don't like it, don't vote for it.' And guess what? The people of Australia didn't. That led to poor Mr Shorten going through some very difficult times, but the truth is that he was honest with the Australian people. Personally, I think those opposite have learnt the lesson that, if they're straight up and fair dinkum about what they want to do before an election, they won't win elections. It's a change of strategy. The strategy now is to say, 'We won't do certain things,' with the very clear intention that they will do certain things. We've seen the Prime Minister in question time. When he's now asked about yet further property and other changes—for example, taxing the family home—he rules it out. But could anyone take the word of this man, the Prime Minister of Australia, given what he sought to do in this budget? Let's be clear: these are the most significant changes to Australia's tax law that were never put to the Australian people—full stop. When John Howard established the GST, he took that to an election. When former prime minister Shorten proposed changes, he took that to an election. These changes were never put to the Australian people. The Prime Minister wonders why, when his face is splashed on the television at a sporting event, the crowd boos. It's because he's broken that fundamental agreement that sits between those that are elected and those that elect members in and to this place. I've got to tell you that almost everything about these changes is rotten. It's not just the fact that they weren't socialised with the Australian people before the election. It's not just the fact that the likelihood of them occurring was denied not once but 50 times. I'll tell you what else is rotten about it. Those opposite, almost in an Orwellian doublespeak, seek to say that the very measures that will strip aspiration away are doing the opposite—that they're measures that will assist our nation with its endeavours for aspiration. In another example of Orwellian doublespeak, they say this will help young people into homes at the very time these measures do quite the opposite. Let's talk about young people and homeownership, which, thankfully, all sides of this place, I think, agree is a social good. We want more young Australians owning a stake in this great country. What do these tax changes do? As a result of these tax changes, there'll be 35,000 fewer homes. Leave aside the fact that we've got a migration policy that's now out of control, with more people coming to the country and seeking homes. There are fewer homes. If you don't own your own home, presumably if you're not living with family members otherwise, you're renting. But what do these tax changes do to renters? It's suggested, on the modelling of those opposite, that there'll be an impact of about $2 a week. I've got to say, I've had more than one person come up to me in the street and say, 'Tony, have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?' And you know why they say that? It's because many of them are renters. Very few of them have seen their rent go up by $2 a week. They've experienced rent increases much more than that and, indeed, couldn't imagine a world in which there would be an increase of only $2 a week. What, then, about first home buyers? One of the very important prerequisites to entering the housing market is that you need to be able to save for a deposit. I'll leave aside criticism of the five per cent deposit scheme, and we read a tragic story this morning in the news of a young person who went and bought an abandoned home for an alarmingly large amount of money, given that I think it was around $850,000. He spent $150,000 doing it up and he's just had a valuation of it at about $850,000, meaning he's now deeply into negative equity. I'll leave the criticisms of that for another day. What I want to talk about is this idea that you've got to save for a deposit. Now, smart investors or smart savers put those savings where they're likely to earn a substantial return—the share market, ETFs and other forms of wealth accumulation. What do these taxes do? These taxes say to those people who are doing their best to get themselves on the property ladder: 'Thank you very much for doing the right thing. We're now going to take 30 per cent of that in the form of tax. That is what you've managed to gain by making that investment.' This makes it harder for first home buyers who might be investing in shares or ETFs to get into a first home. Then there's the idea of rent vesting. Many might not be familiar with this term, and I wasn't familiar with the term, but I've got to tell you, my wife and I did it. We purchased a home we couldn't afford to live in at the time, and so we leased it for a period of years until we could manage the mortgage payments without the rent and without the tax deductions that came along with it being an investment property. I now know that what we were doing is what people now call 'rent vesting'. Well, there's trouble on this front as well. Trouble on this front comes in the form of the fact that the advantages that come with rent vesting are stripped away as well. Like you, Mr Speaker, I grew up in a small-business household. My parents weren't butchers, although as farmers we've cut up our fair share of meat on the farm. My parents were farmers and my mum was in retail. I learned the value of hard work from both of my parents. Small businesses are a 24/7 operation. In my mum's case there wasn't a day or an hour the shop was open that she wasn't standing in the shop. She would then come home and do copious amounts of bookwork both to pay accounts and to manage her accounts, because she ran a business that allowed ladies to buy goods on credit and pay monthly. Then, weekends were spent driving to Adelaide or Melbourne to purchase stock for upcoming seasons. In my father's case, he would get up before dawn and often come home in the dead of night. There were good years, there were bad years, and, effectively, they drew out of those small businesses simply enough to live, because every other dollar was invested back either on the farm, in the farm or in my mother's business. My parents weren't Robinson Crusoe when it came to running small businesses. I think that very much is the story of small businesses. You work every hour the good Lord made, you invest everything back into your business, you don't put away superannuation. You don't have that free cash available to you. Your business is your superannuation. So imagine the alarm of business owners around the country. I think those opposite have underestimated the likely backlash. I expect that members of the backbench are feeling it up close and personal when they do their little coffee catch-ups or pop in on street walks and those sorts of things. Imagine the alarm across the small business sector when they'd just found out they'd acquired a new shareholder. The Prime Minister and those opposite are now 47 per cent shareholders in those small businesses. We've seen the memes online. That is an outpouring of concern, of frustration. I'll tell you what: when Aussies are really angry, they use comedy and levity to deal with it. But my feed has filled up on the back of this, because Aussies think it's rotten, mean and nasty that those opposite, who haven't picked up a shovel, haven't been on the pricing gun, haven't drenched the sheep, haven't done the fencing— Ms Ryan 249224 Name someone here who hasn't picked up a pricing gun! Mr PASIN 240756 I'll take the interjection. I can tell you, when it was sale time in my mother's business, we were there till midnight and after, reducing all the prices, praying that people would buy those goods. In any event, those opposite, having done none of that work in the businesses and small businesses across Australia, want to take a 47 per cent stake. That's why—and perhaps I can end where I began—the Prime Minister of this country, when he goes to the football, when he goes to the tennis and when he goes to other places, is a little surprised by the response he gets from ordinary, everyday Australians and why those opposite are having to embark on these history-making, world record tax increases. It is because those opposite are addicted to spending. If they run out of money, as Labor has traditionally done and has done again now, they come after yours—the businesses of Australia—and that's exactly what's happening here. 09:27 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and related bills amend tax law to implement changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing announced at the recent federal budget, along with the $250 tax offset and the instant $1,000 expense deduction. These bills before us do not address changes to the taxation of trust income, and that's something that is of great interest and indeed significant concern to many of my constituents, who use trust structures to manage their family businesses. Neither do these bills seem to implement the exact capital gains tax changes that the government intends to proceed with. This is tranche 1 of the legislation, with more to come. While it's not unusual for bills to be amended or for complex legislation to be introduced in tranches, we are being asked to vote on this legislation knowing that it likely doesn't represent the intended final operation of these reforms, because the government is currently working through potential modifications and carve outs. Frankly, this is really bad practice for legislation. It makes it truly difficult to engage with the substance of this legislation and to truly consider how it will affect the people I represent, especially given the length of time we've had with this bill, which is just one week. Homeownership has become one of the most significant generational divides in Australia. When people of my generation bought our first house, it probably cost us three to four times the average annual income. Today it's closer to eight or 10. It used to take a couple of years to save for a deposit. Now it takes more than 12. Extraordinary growth in house prices has contributed to household prosperity for some, but the gap between housing costs and incomes is now so large that it's simply insurmountable for many young Australians. Those of us who got in early may have benefited financially, but we aren't crowing. We're increasingly worried that our children, our grandchildren and other people's children won't have anywhere they can afford to live, and we're seeing that playing out on our streets. I hear this consistently from my constituents. It's not just the question of intergenerational equity. I've been talking about regional housing and the regional housing crisis for a long while. Over the past five years, house prices have increased faster in regional areas than in capital cities. There are fewer rental vacancies, and they're becoming less affordable. Building new homes costs more and takes longer. Lack of housing is a genuine barrier to workforce supply in critical sectors like education and health care, and that has existential outcomes for us in rural and regional Australia. So this is a serious problem. Housing access and affordability are serious problems we need to address. It is urgent. We also know that the tax system in general is out of kilter, with wage and salary earners doing too much of the heavy lifting. Our tax system does need to be more efficient, more effective and fairer. Every option should be on the table. I commend my colleague the member for Wentworth for the hard work she's done in bringing this issue to the national attention. Over the past 25 years, and notably since the Howard government introduced a flat 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, house prices have risen and homeownership has steadily shifted away from owner-occupiers and towards investors. It's clear that this has been driven, at least in part, by capital gains tax and negative gearing. We know that the benefits are unequally distributed. In 2022-23, 83 per cent of the value of the CGT discount went to the top 10 per cent of income earners. We know that the discount has favoured people living in capital cities over regional areas. Recent ACOSS analysis showed that, in my electorate of Indi, we share in just 0.3 per cent of the total national benefit. Five inner city electorates enjoy more than 20 per cent between them. We have a problem. The proceeds of negative gearing flow in a similar way to older, wealthier people in capital cities. The electorates with the lowest rental losses are overwhelmingly regional. Property owners in Indi are less likely to negatively gear than the average Australian. So how does the legislation address these problems? Probably the most significant element of these bills is the changes they make to capital gains tax or CGT. CGT applies to gains made from assets. Put very simply, you pay tax on the difference in value if you sell an asset for more than it costs you to buy it. That makes sense. When you earn money, you pay tax. This delivers aged care, health care, disability services, defence, education and national infrastructure. Under current arrangements, as long as you've held an asset for at least one year, there's a 50 per cent discount on your CGT. You pay tax on half of your profit, and the other half is tax-free. This legislation replaces the 50 per cent discount with a cost-base indexation method. Indexation ensures you're only taxed on your real proceeds over and above growth just from inflation. So if you spent $100,000 on an asset in the year 2000, that's the equivalent of almost $200,000 today. It's fair to take that into account. The exact amount of tax you pay on your adjusted gain will depend on how much other income you earn that year, as it does now, but the rate will be at least 30 per cent unless you receive means tested income support payments like the aged pension. Crucially, these changes won't commence until 1 July 2027. Any assets you sell before then are completely unaffected. For assets you sell from 1 July 2027 onwards, only the profits after that date will be affected. All the gains you accrue right up to 30 June next year will be preserved under the existing system. As drafted, the changes apply to all assets. The government has foreshadowed potential carve-outs for certain types of assets or investors. The changes apply to gains made by individuals, including partners in a trust, partnerships and trusts. Companies and superannuation are subject to different rules that will not change. The fact that CGT changes extend beyond residential property has caused considerable concern for small businesses, including from start-ups. I've seen the memes, and I've heard it directly from small-business owners in north-east Victoria, and I thank my constituents of Indi who have responded to my call to get in touch with me. It's understandable that there are concerns because, in the weeks leading up to the budget, the government articulated a case for tax reform that was clearly linked to housing. That was a missed opportunity for this government to be more upfront about the broader change. It's no wonder people are concerned; it took them by surprise. This legislation works alongside existing CGT concessions for small businesses, which I'll outline in a moment—and it's important to understand this. But the fact that there has been so much confusion and uncertainty only highlights the importance of not rushing these changes. We saw these bills for the first time less than seven days ago, and this is a three-day sitting week. Complex reform demands good process. Australians deserve to understand how these changes will affect them, and parliamentarians must be given time to engage with their communities. So I want to say to my constituents, especially those people who've contacted me with really genuine concerns about their futures and livelihoods, I hear you. I too wish the government had done a better job at explaining these reforms. I too wish the government had taken the time to build genuine consensus. For the small businesses in my electorate, I want to emphasise that this legislation does not affect any of the existing CGT concessions for small businesses, including the automatic 50 per cent discount on active assets and exemptions to help you prepare for retirement. These concessions can be used together to reduce or even eliminate the tax payable on capital gains. They are available to businesses with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $2 million or a net asset value of less than $6 million, and that actually is the vast majority of businesses in my electorate. However, these thresholds have not been updated in almost two decades. The member for Kooyong has moved a second reading amendment calling on the government to increase the amounts to $10 million in turnover and $12 million in assets, indexed into the future. I echo her call, and I was pleased to second that amendment. I've had valuable—very valuable—discussions with COSBOA and the National Farmers' Federation about the need to bring these 20-year-old thresholds into line with the present day. I'm encouraged by their feedback that the government is engaging constructively with them, and I sincerely hope that the government fix this bit, because this is a simple change that will ensure concessions remain available to the businesses they were designed to help. For farming families and for agricultural businesses it will provide certainty about longer term succession planning, and that is critical to us in rural Australia. In addition to the CGT, the bill makes changes to negative gearing. Right now, investors can use the cost of owning a rental, including interest on the mortgage, to offset their overall income and lower the tax they pay. From 1 July 2027, it will only be possible to offset rental losses against income from other residential properties, not what you earn from other sources. This only applies to properties acquired after 7.30 pm on 12 May this year—budget night, when the change was announced. If you owned a property before then, you can continue to negatively gear it. In tackling CGT and negative gearing, the government is taking steps towards addressing housing inequality. The proposed reforms are ambitious, and I welcome ambition in government. Changes to both CGT and negative gearing include exemptions for new houses, to help incentivise supply. From 1 July 2027, if you'd like to negatively gear an investment property and retain access to the 50 per cent CGT discount when you sell it, well, you can. You just need to invest in a new dwelling that adds to Australia's housing supply. Of course, new houses cannot be built in a vacuum, and I welcome the government listening to my call to put money in the budget for critical enabling infrastructure so that we can get those houses out of the ground. In addition to the changes to CGT and negative gearing, this legislation implements the working Australians tax offset, a permanent annual $250 deduction. In practice it is a very small bracket adjustment. It would be preferable to commit to actual indexation. Two hundred and fifty dollars might not have as much purchasing power by the time the WATO commences in the 2027-28 financial year, but it does provide some cost-of-living relief, and I don't think too many people in Indi will be knocking it back. The final thing this legislation implements is a new instant $1,000 tax deduction starting in the next financial year, and this will allow workers to automatically claim $1,000 in work related expenses without having to provide receipts. This was a recommendation of the 2010 review of the taxation system led by Ken Henry, and it will make things simpler for taxpayers and should knock a couple of hundred dollars off the average tax bill. I welcome it. Importantly, charitable donations and other non-work related deductions can continue to be claimed on top of the automatic deduction, and those with more than $1,000 in work related expenses will still have the option to substantiate them and claim them as usual. Whenever I consider legislation, I think about what it will mean for the people of Indi, what it will mean for regional Australia and what it will mean for the nation. Tax law might seem dry, but reforms like this raise fundamental questions about what's fair and about what's right. There's no objectively correct rate at which to tax capital gains, just different approaches that give effect to different priorities. There are legitimate reasons to tax capital more concessionally than labour. It promotes innovation, encourages future consumption, compensates for additional risk and incentivises the investment we need for long-term growth and productivity, but there is also a strong case for equal treatment or at least something a little less lopsided. Why should a nurse pay more tax on what they earn working a shift at a hospital than an investor who earns the same amount from selling an asset? In considering this bill, I've tried to weigh all of this up. Ultimately, I think what Australians expect is a fair go on the same terms as other people. It's clear our current tax settings fall short on this principle. What remains to be seen is whether the full package being developed by the government will indeed help more people own their own home and meaningfully move us to a system that is more efficient, effective and fair. 09:41 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson The Albanese Labor government's budget has gone over like a lead balloon. It's a typical Labor budget. It's big spending and high taxing, and it's full of broken promises. Actually, there are a litany of broken promises out there, and Australians cannot believe it. Those opposite at the last election in 2025 looked the Australians people in the eye and said, 'There are going to be no new taxes,' but after this budget we can clearly see that is simply not true. Those opposite have effectively been elected on a falsehood. At least the then leader of the opposition Bill Shorten took it to the election. He had the guts to take these taxes to the electorate and say, 'This is what I'm going to do.' The people voted against it, so Mr Shorten didn't become Prime Minister. What did Prime Minister Albanese do? He looked people in the eye and said, 'There are going to be no new taxes,' and, when asked about capital gains tax, negative gearing and trusts, he dismissed them and said, 'For the 50th time, no,' but here we are with this budget a year later sneakily bringing these taxes in. What will these taxes mean? They're an assault on aspiration. They're an assault on the young people, the young people in this great country of ours that are simply trying to get ahead. People in my generation have had these tools—we've had capital gains tax, we've had negative gearing, we've had trusts—that we can use to help us create some wealth, but that's being taken away from our young people. It's not just the young people it's being taken away from; it's being taken away from anybody who's had their circumstances changed. For example, if someone was unfortunate enough to get divorced—they were living in a house together, and they unfortunately get divorced—then that person needs to buy another house. They move out, and they need to buy another house. They might not have the money for a deposit for that house. What do they do? The same as what young people do. They try to invest their money. They work hard. They invest their money in shares, EFTs or bitcoin, chasing a bigger return so they can then have that deposit so they can afford to buy a house. It's the Australian dream to own a house. What's going to happen now? They're going to be taxed more, so that aspiration of trying to get that Australian dream of owning the house under this Albanese Labor government is being moved further and further away. It is just simply not fair. And there's negative gearing, the other broken promise—well, it's not the other; there seem to be broken promises after broken promises. What will the negative gearing changes mean? For an investor who's going to buy a home that he could rent out, what happens when he can't have this as a tax deduction, when his numbers don't work? He has to put the rent up. For people who are trying to get into a home, more of their disposable income is used up when the rent goes up. So they then haven't got the money to buy or have the deposit to buy a house. We've all been told that these new taxes are fair and that they're what we need for more houses. But the budget papers themselves show that there are going to be 35,000 fewer homes. So how do you think that's going to work? It's making it harder and harder for all Australians. But I think we need to get to the crux of it. This isn't about homeownership. This is about Labor control. Labor don't want people to be aspirational, to own their own homes, to independently think. They want people who have spare money to invest in bigger corporations, larger businesses, that they can then unionise, because that's how they get their money. It's simply not fair. With the $77 million extra in tax, this is the highest taxing budget in history. It's certainly not the gold medal that I'd want to aspire to. As I said before, Prime Minister Albanese didn't have the guts to take these proposals to the election. This won't hurt the big end of town as much as it will hurt the little guys. Now, I know those opposite are saying, 'Oh, you're only looking after your big businesses.' That's absolutely ridiculous, because the bigger end of town will already have money for a deposit or they will have the money, potentially, to pay cash for a house. It's going to affect the everyday battlers, and that is the bad thing about this budget. Flying down here, I was talking to a guy on the plane sitting next to me. He said: 'Andrew, I hope you're going down to try to breathe some common sense into the Labor government about this budget. Mate, I'm a battler. I've got a small business; I employ three guys. We do shutdowns. I'm travelling away from my family now to do this. I've bought a house and I've got a child. At some point, if I can pay enough off the house and eventually own it, I might be able to give that house to my child just to help them out.' But, with all the changes now, he's saying, 'Why bother?' And that is the really big issue that I have with this budget. When someone wants to work hard in this country, they deserve a fair go. And that ladder is being pulled up from them. The ladder of aspiration is being taken away by this Albanese Labor government, and I really believe that that's sad. This isn't the Australia that we aspire to. We want a better Australia. We want people to be able to afford their own homes. This budget is dissolving faster than sugar in the North Queensland wet season. The Albanese Labor government is trying to promote this budget as a sweet deal, but beneath the sugar coating is a bitter recipe of broken promises and tax grabs. It leaves the public with a sour taste in their mouths; frankly, it is a budget that the Australian people are finding hard to swallow. Break this budget down into its ingredients, and the bitter truth is laid bare. Hidden in the fine print of this budget is a death tax, called an inheritance tax. Let's be honest—the truth on the other side is in very short supply. Those opposite are trying to dress this budget up as something that is palatable. You can't put lipstick on a pig, because if you do it's still a pig. This is certainly a swine of a budget, and those opposite are telling porkies. The Treasurer serves up tales of relief while the family budget bleeds. The government paints a picture of prosperity while the people are working harder for less. It's a banquet of deception where every course is seasoned with a new tall tale, and the Australian people are sick of being force fed this steady diet of fabrications. The cold, hard truth is that the cost of everyday life is pricing ordinary Australians out of their own future. We all know that, when Labor run out of money, they come after yours. No-one voted for these new taxes. These taxes weren't taken to the Australian people. The Prime Minister promised more than 50 times before the last election that he would not introduce them. But, as we know, his word is a bond that constantly defaults. In an act of complete bad faith and disregard for the Australian people, he turned around and broke every single one of those commitments. These new taxes are not designed to grow the economy. They are designed to manage its decline. Like I said before, there's a death tax, a tax on family savings, a tax on renters, first home buyers and young Australians just trying to get ahead and a tax on small business, startups and entrepreneurs. The member for Parramatta is one of those opposite, but he's a businessperson, so he even spoke about how bad this budget was. This budget is full of broken promises, and it's a budget that breaks the Australian dream. It's an assault on aspiration. Like I said before, it pulls up the ladder of opportunity. Labor's budget does not create intergenerational fairness. It is intergenerational fraud. This government's treasurer is the inflationary arsonist who pretends to be a firefighter. This is now the highest-taxing government in Australian history. The budget locks in $77 billion of higher taxes, and the Prime Minister has now confirmed $273 billion in taxes that we did not vote for, and that is over the next nine years. Debt is heading towards $1.25 trillion. The interest bill is $80,000 a minute. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxes, and it will be the next generation that will be handed the bill. The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, but we will support schedules 3 and 4. We are the party of lower taxes. Not only is this budget built on broken promises, higher taxes and lower living standards, but it's also building fewer homes. The government's own budget papers say that 35,000 fewer homes will be built as a direct consequence of their new taxes. This is not the coalition's number. This is the government's own numbers. When you tax something, you get less of it. This is an obvious economic concept to all other than those opposite. The more you tax housing investment, the less housing investment you get. This is a plain and simple fact. This Labor government's budget narrative is built around intergenerational fairness, but strip away the rhetoric and the budget papers confirm that the lower supply, combined with the government's own overshoot of immigration to the tune of 90,000, means higher demand, lower supply and higher prices. When you increase the cost of investment to investors, guess what? These investors aren't a charity. They will pass the cost of those onto the renters, and this will make it harder for people to save for a deposit. This is just common sense. The government's own budget papers admit their tax changes will increase rents. Labor are taking from young Australians at every stage of their journey, not just at the point of the purchase. I want to talk about Jen and Mike from my electorate. They are the generation that this budget was supposed to champion. Instead, they are the casualties. After a decade of savings, they finally built their new home in 2021. They thought they'd achieved the Australian dream, but now they are trapped. They've paid nearly $2,000 extra every month in additional interest alone since this Labor government was elected. That is money being forcibly extracted from their family budget. It has resulted in their health insurance being cancelled. They have to make a choice between paying their electricity bill or buying groceries. To the total shame of this government, it's their son's swimming lessons that have had to be cancelled. Is this the Australia we want for our future generations? Our young people to be struggling just to get by? Jen and Mike are being penalised for the crime of hard work. They were promised a fair go; instead, they've been stripped of all their savings and are at risk of having to sell the house they've spent a decade saving for. Shame, shame, shame on those opposite! This government claims to stand for workers, yet they have turned Jen and Mike into victims of their own success. Because Jen and Mike earn slightly more than the minimum wage, there was no pay rise for them yesterday. They have to watch real wages fall while they work harder to take home less. Jen and Mike said there is nothing in the budget for them, and they are right. They are the young, hardworking Australians this government should be rewarding. They are the hardworking young Australians that the coalition will be there to support. 09:56 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan This bill, seemingly, has no friends. On one hand, the Greens have been campaigning for property tax concession reform for a long time. It's clearly necessary to wind back these concessions if we are going to fix the housing crisis, but we also need investment in public housing and renters' rights reform. However, the reforms that we've been presented clearly have many loopholes that advantage existing property owners over young people trying to enter the property market. Why should these tax concessions be grandparented for people with five, 15 or 50 properties? If this reform is actually going to have an impact on the housing crisis, those people cannot be encouraged to hold on to their dozens of properties. But that's what these reforms as drafted will incentivise. Young Australians are not cheering for this package of reforms, because they've watched the property ladder being pulled up before their eyes. Another really serious concern is the broad, sweeping ministerial powers that this legislation gives the Treasurer. Then there are the changes to tax concessions for non-housing assets. The government has failed to communicate with the public about these changes, leaving the door open—as we've seen—for a massive campaign against them by big business, start-up founders and people invested in shares—people earning a passive income from simply owning assets shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than people earning an income from working. I don't think that that should be controversial to say. What gets a little more complex is the situation where people who might be earning an income from work are supplementing that with earnings from non-housing assets. Many people doing this are quite wealthy, but certainly not everyone. I can totally understand why young people who feel locked out of the housing market and may have resorted to assets like shares to save up for a deposit would feel that they're getting the rug pulled out from under them. I do think that that's understandable. I've also been hearing from many of my constituents—some retirees, some small-business owners, and many others concerned about potential unintended consequences—that the government simply has not been able to explain or to justify its proposed changes to these concerned people. So where are we left on this bill? It's going to a Senate inquiry where these issues will be examined, as they should be. It's important we let that process play out. What we ultimately want to see is the billionaires, the ultrawealthy and the one per cent who are earning a huge amount from simply watching assets grow paying their fair share, but let's make sure that is actually what this bill will achieve. The Greens will be supporting this bill in the House. The government has the numbers, and the bill's clearly going to pass. But I want to make very clear that we will be reserving our position in the Senate. 09:59 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash I rise today to speak on behalf of the small businesses, the family farmers and the regional communities who are about to be caught in the blast radius of Labor's latest tax changes. While those opposite try to dress this up as tax reform, people in the real world see it for what it is. This is a government that promised certainty, delivered confusion and has become known for its backflips and broken promises. Accountants across this country are dealing with something very different. Right now, they are not preparing for tax time. They are managing panic. An accounting practice in my electorate told me yesterday that they have never seen anything quite like it. For the past three weeks, their days have been consumed by calls from concerned clients looking for the answers, reassurance and certainty that the government has failed to provide. This is not a practice serving multinational corporations or wealthy inner city investors. Their clients are dairy farmers producing milk for Australian families, beef producers feeding our families, contractors, transport operators and small-business owners who keep Australia running. The accounting practice states that, across the practice, around 150 clients have raised concerns or requested advice. Many of them are worried that changes to trusts and capital gains tax could fundamentally alter the way their family businesses and farming enterprises operate. Many of these businesses operate through family trusts not because they're looking for loopholes but because family trusts have long been a legitimate and practical structure for succession planning, asset protection and the transfer of businesses from one generation to the next. These are mums and dads who have spent decades building something they hope to pass on to their children. Long may the family farming model continue in this country; its greatest threat is this Albanese Labor government. These are family farms trying to ensure that the next generation has an opportunity to continue that family enterprise. They're farming families trying to ensure their businesses remain viable not just for themselves but for the wider community and our nation, which depends on their success. Where I come from, our towns revolve around the dairy industry. In parts of my electorate, there are around seven dairy cows for every one person. That industry is the economic heartbeat of our communities. The local machinery dealer depends on it. The local stock agent depends on it. The accountant, the veterinarian, the transport operator, the local cafe, the retail store and the sporting clubs all depend on our local dairy industry. When our farmers are strong, our towns are strong. I always say healthy local businesses sustain healthy regional communities. But, when our farmers struggle, entire communities feel that impact. Without a viable farming industry, many of our regional towns simply wouldn't exist in the form we know them today. They would be shadows of themselves. Let us not forget what is really at stake here. Every Australian relies on farmers every single day for the milk on the breakfast table, the cheese in a sandwich, the steak on a dinner plate and the fruit, vegies and grains that feed this nation. So governments that make it harder for farming families to invest, grow and plan for their future are not just affecting farmers; they are affecting the very people who produce the food and fibre that every Australian across this nation depends on. If farming families cannot remain viable, a simple question follows: where does your dinner come from for tonight? Why is the government making it harder to run a family business in Australia? Why are families who have spent a lifetime building a business now facing uncertainty about how they will pass it on to the next generation? Why is this Labor government making life harder for the very people who produce our food, create local jobs and keep local communities strong? The local accountant's assessment was blunt. The proposed changes to trust taxation will force many small businesses and primary producers to consider expensive restructures. These are businesses that have followed the rules, businesses that have already adapted to previous ATO changes and businesses that simply want certainty so they can focus on growing food, employing local people and investing in our regional communities. When one regional accounting practice is reporting 150 clients in a state of genuine distress, this Labor government should be paying attention. If this is what is happening in one country town in my electorate of Monash, it is happening in farming communities and regional centres right across Australia. For many people in my electorate, this debate is not about tax law. It is about whether decades of hard work can be passed on to the next generation. It is about conversations around the kitchen table. It is about whether a son or a daughter can afford to come home to the farm. It is about whether a family business stays in local hands or is eventually sold off because the costs and complexity are just too much, and that is why so many people are worried. They are not asking for special treatment. They are not asking for loopholes. They are not asking for favours. They just want a fair go. The Prime Minister said 'no new taxes' more than 50 times. He told us himself. Meanwhile, one regional accounting practice has had 150 calls from those clients about those 50 promises. If that doesn't tell you who Australians are believing, I don't know what does. They want to know that, if they work hard, invest in their business, employ local people, play by the rules, those rules won't suddenly change underneath them halfway through the game. The reality is that regional Australia is already carrying a very heavy load under this Labor government. Farmers are dealing with rising input costs. Small businesses are dealing with higher energy prices. Transport operators are facing increased operating expenses. Manufacturers are battling with red tape and global competition. Many family businesses are still recovering from years of economic uncertainty. At a time when confidence should be encouraged, this government is creating more doubt. At a time when investment should be rewarded, this government is creating more hesitation, and, at a time when Australia should be backing the people who produce, build and create, this government is making it harder for them to plan for a future ahead. What concerns me most is the signal this sends to younger Australians, particularly in our regional communities. We hear speeches in this place about innovation. We hear speeches about backing aspiration. But what message is this Labor government sending when every time someone works hard, takes a risk, builds a business or creates wealth the government's first instinct is to look for another way to tax it. The people I represent do not expect success to be easy. Farmers and small businesses understand risk. They live with risk every day. Markets, fuel prices, labour shortages and rising costs are all part of their lives. What they should not have to contend with is uncertainty created by their own government. Regional Australia does not need more complexity. It does not need more paperwork. It does not need more reasons for investment decisions to be delayed and undermined. It needs confidence. It needs stability. It needs a government that understands that every decision made in this place eventually lands on the kitchen table of every Australian family. The coalition believes there's a better way. We believe aspiration should be encouraged not punished. We believe family businesses should be supported not burdened. We believe farmers should have confidence to invest, expand and pass their enterprises to the next generation. Most importantly, we believe governments should keep their promises, because trust matters, confidence matters and certainty matters. When governments lose sight of those principles, it is hardworking Australians who pay the price. The farmers, small-business owners and regional communities I represent deserve better. They deserve policies that strengthen local economies. They deserve policies that encourage investment. They deserve policies that support family businesses and farming enterprises not make their future more uncertain. For those reasons, I stand with the farmers, small businesses and families in my electorate of Monash. I oppose these measures. I want to say to family businesses and farmers in my electorate: I back you, the coalition backs you and we will be supporting you. 10:10 Mr BURKE DYW Watson After about 17 hours of debate, I think it's time we got this done. I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be put.

The House divided. [10:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

89 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. 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. 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. 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. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 49 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:18 The SPEAKER 53517 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Hume moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. We'll deal with the immediate question, which is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

8 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Gee, A. R. Le, D. T. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Steggall, Z. 92 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) 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. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:30 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

10 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Wilkie, A. D. 89 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. 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. 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. 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. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:36 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

8 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) 127 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aldred, M. R. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Buchholz, S. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Campbell, J. P. Chaffey, J. L. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conaghan, P. J. 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. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Rebello, L. S. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Small, B. J. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Witty, S. J. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:45 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

9 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Wilkie, A. D. 126 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aldred, M. R. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Birrell, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Buchholz, S. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Campbell, J. P. Chaffey, J. L. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conaghan, P. J. 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. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Neil, C. E. Penfold, A. L. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Rebello, L. S. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Small, B. J. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Teesdale, J. A. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Witty, S. J. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:53 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

43 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Rebello, L. S. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Taylor, A. J. 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. 92 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. 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. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:59 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. [10:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

96 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. 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. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 46 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Taylor, A. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

11:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the debate be adjourned and the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

The House divided. [11:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

92 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. T. 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. 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. 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. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 48 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

BUSINESS 20 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 20 11:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) in relation to proceedings on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026: (a) when the bill is considered in detail, any amendments circulated being treated as if they had been moved [together] by the Member proposing them with: (i) one question to be put on any government amendments; (ii) one question to be put on any opposition amendments; and (iii) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; (b) debate on any amendments provided for under paragraph (1)(a) being limited to up to five minutes for the mover and up to five minutes for a minister speaking in reply; and (c) the questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put immediately; (2) in relation to proceedings on the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, when the order of the day for the resumption of debate is called on: (a) any second reading amendments circulated being treated as if they had been moved by the Member proposing them; (b) the questions being put immediately on any second reading amendments and on the second reading of the bill; (c) any consideration in detail amendments circulated being treated as if they had been moved [together] by the Member proposing them with: (i) one question to be put on any government amendments; (ii) one question to be put on any opposition amendments; and (iii) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; (d) debate on any amendments provided for under paragraph (2)(c) being limited to up to five minutes for the mover and up to five minutes for a minister speaking in reply; and (e) the questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put immediately; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to. 11:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.

The House divided. [11:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

90 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. 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. 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. 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. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 51 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:22 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

Question agreed to.

BILLS 23 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 23

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

Consideration in Detail 23 11:23 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be agreed to, and, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the question now is that amendments (1) to (4) circulated by the member for Hume be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments — (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2, 3 and 4), omit the table items. (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item. (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 47 (line 24), omit the Schedule. (4) Schedule 2, page 48 (line 1) to page 53 (line 11), omit the Schedule. 11:23 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Australians need cost-of-living relief after four years of Labor's raging homegrown inflation. They do need cost-of-living relief, with a broken economy that we saw yesterday, productivity down five per cent and the standard of living down almost four per cent. We see that the only thing left growing the economy is record levels of migration. So we support Labor's $250 annual income tax cut. We support Labor's $1,000 deduction for work related expenses. These cost-of-living measures could have passed this parliament easily, with bipartisan support. But tricky Labor and this tricky Treasurer have deliberately tied these measures to their toxic taxes, using a single piece of legislation, an omnibus bill, for their tax cuts and toxic tax increases. They could have put forward separate bills—one bill for tax cuts and one bill for tax increases—but they didn't, and what Australians see is a bad faith government playing a cynical, tricky game, because that's what they do every single day of the week. Back in 2022, on the day he was sworn in—the day he was sworn in—the Prime Minister said: I look forward to leading a Government … that doesn't seek to have wedges … I reckon he's eaten a lot of wedges! But here is the truth: the Prime Minister's word is never his bond—never, never. Ramming this 'wedgislation' through the parliament without sufficient scrutiny is an act of political expediency—an act of political bastardry! Labor is more interested in headlines than in helping Australians. That's what you get when you get a media adviser as a Treasurer. And Australians know it. The coalition's resolve is clear: Labor's toxic taxes need to be axed. That's why we don't support Labor's legislation and we have proposed an amendment today. Now, for simplicity, there are two schedules we seek to retain in the bill. We seek to retain schedule 3: the WATO $250 annual income tax cut would stay in the bill. We support it. We also seek to retain schedule 4—the standard $1,000 deduction for work related expenses. We support that as well. However, we oppose Labor's toxic taxes on Australians. So there are two schedules we seek to omit from the bill: schedule 1, the CGT amendments—we don't support those, of course. They punish aspiration—that's what they do. Again, we seek the removal of schedule 1 from the bill. We also seek to omit schedule 2, the negative gearing changes—we don't support those changes as contained in schedule 2. The government's own budget papers, on page 158, explicitly admit that these combined toxic taxes will reduce housing supply and push up rents. The Treasury secretary has had to admit it, because it's there, plain, for all to see. We seek the removal of schedule 2 from the bill as well. Put simply, we support tax cuts, but we don't support Labor's toxic taxes. As the government is aware, during my second reading speech on Tuesday I moved another amendment in my name, calling on the government to immediately pass laws to end Labor's automatic tax increases using bracket creep, and to implement a tax-back guarantee by indexing the personal income tax brackets to inflation. If the Albanese government doesn't support our two amendments, it means two things: (1) Labor is imposing higher, aspiration-killing taxes on hardworking Australians; and (2) Labor is for inflation pushing more Australians into higher tax brackets, so they can take more of their income as tax. We know that's what they want. The ball is in Labor's court. The Albanese government should stop its toxic taxes. The Albanese government should support the coalition's bigger and better personal income tax cuts. 11:28 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin That entire five-minute rant from the opposition leader can be summarised in one sentence. The coalition is voting against tax cuts once again. Once again, not having learnt from the first time they made this mistake, they're all lining up and limbering up to make the same mistake that they made 15 months ago. And that's the reason why the Opposition Leader was shaking. That's the reason he was shaking, because, the last time he got this wrong, he sacrificed a whole generation of backbenchers. And now they want to do it again. This bill will implement the most ambitious tax reform package for a quarter of a century—a package that cuts income taxes for every Australian worker, again and again, and they're against it; a package that makes it easier for people to buy their first home, and they're against it; a package that better aligns the treatment of labour income and asset income, and they are against it. These reforms are brought together in one bill because one part of the bill helps fund the other part of the bill. When I introduced this bill, we said it presented a choice: a choice between cutting income taxes for Australian workers or keeping them higher, a choice between standing with first home buyers or locking more Australians out of the market, a choice between taking our intergenerational responsibilities seriously or defending a broken system that locks too many young Australians out of the Australian dream of homeownership. Today, in front of the whole country, they have chosen higher taxes on workers. They've chosen to lock more Australians out of the housing market. They've chosen a broken system. This side of the House is standing with workers. We're standing with first home buyers. We're standing with the next generation, and that's why we will pass this bill unamended. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments circulated by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

43 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Sharkie, R. C. C. Taylor, A. J. 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. 93 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. King, C. F. 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. 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. Ryan, M. M. 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. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:39 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the question now is that the amendment circulated by the member for Warringah be agreed to. Member for Warringah's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 1, page 47 (before line 2), before item 82, insert: 81A Application of amendments — general The amendments made by this Schedule apply only in relation to CGT assets that are real property. 11:39 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah The government argues that this legislation is about making the tax system fairer between income earned from wages and income earned from passive investments. But that framing is too simplistic. A capital gain is often realised only after many years of risk, delayed reward, reinvestment, losses or uncertainty. If we want an economy that backs enterprise, innovation and productivity, we must recognise and reward responsible risk-taking. I support the principle of reforming housing tax settings. Negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions have too often encouraged investment into established housing rather than new supply, and that has contributed to a market where too many young Australians are locked out. That is why I support the bulk of this legislation, schedules 2, 3 and 4. But schedule 1 requires amendment, and that is the amendment I have moved. This bill goes much further than housing. It extends the CGT changes across shares, ETFs, managed funds, startups, small and larger business assets, employee equity trusts and family business succession. If the government's policy target is speculative investment in established housing, then the legislation should target that. It should not drag productive investment, business risk-taking and modest long-term savings into the same net. The government has framed this package as reform for workers, first home buyers and future generations. But the concerns raised consistently with me in Warringah are that the CGT changes are not properly targeted. Young professionals, small-business owners, startup founders and families feel blindsided. Many are not wealthy investors living off passive income, as has been suggested by too many members of government. They are working Australians trying to build a financial buffer outside the property market. The government may say that there will be amendments, carve-outs and extensions. But that leads us to the difficulties. We simply do not know where that is going to land. We are not privy to the negotiations around where the thresholds for business are going to be. For many young Australians who cannot get into housing shares, ETFs or employee equity are among the few remaining pathways to save, invest and build some financial security. Small businesses have raised similar concerns. Shares, startups and business equity are not the same as passive property investment. For entrepreneurs, early employees and local investors, capital gains can be the reward for taking risks, for accepting lower wages, for reinvesting profits or for building a business over many years. Integrity in our trust system is also important, and income-splitting should be ended. But many family businesses and small operators also use trusts for legitimate reasons. The suggestion that businesses can simply restructure into companies is too simplistic again. Restructuring can mean legal costs, accounting costs, state taxes, transfer costs and additional administration. For small operators, that is not a minor inconvenience; it can be a major barrier. There are also concerns around investment in clean energy and innovation. Australia needs more capital flowing into productive enterprise startups, renewable energy and growth businesses, not less. The object should be clear: reduce tax advantages that encourage speculation in established housing while protecting investment pathways that support productivity, entrepreneurship and long-term economic resilience. The government has said there will be carve-outs, but the parliament has not seen what they are. I am not in a position to genuinely say to the people of Warringah that I think the carve-outs have met the right balance or are fair. We don't know which businesses will be protected, which asset classes will be exempt, how startups will be treated, or whether ordinary investors and employee equity arrangements will be caught. And that's precisely why my amendment is appropriate. It restricts schedule 1 to real property now, where the government says the core problem lies. Once the government has done the modelling, consulted properly and settled the detail for other asset classes, the parliament can then have a proper debate about whether or not CGT changes should apply beyond property. It avoids capturing shares, ETFs, business equity, startup capital and other productive investments that are not the source of the housing affordability problem. It's a cleaner and more defensible approach. I recognise that this has been a difficult debate and that it has taken courage from the government to bring a debate on housing investment in changes to CGT and negative gearing. I welcome it. I took that to the last election, but there is just so much uncertainty around the rest. I commend this amendment to the House. 11:44 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the honourable member for Warringah. The first and most obvious point is that there is still a capital gains tax discount under this legislation, just one that better reflects the real gains that people make. The reforms in this bill are about reducing distortions in the market that have been encouraging people to invest in established houses rather than in other assets like units or shares. The current 50 per cent discount is arbitrary. It undercompensates some investors for inflation and overcompensates others. Since the Howard government introduced the 50 per cent CGT discount at the turn of the century, there's been a big decoupling between housing and incomes, as the honourable member has acknowledged on other occasions. House prices have risen by more than 400 per cent since 1999, which is more than twice as fast as average full-time earnings. At the same time, the proportion of Australians who own shares has declined by almost 20 per cent. Our reforms will mean that investors in all asset classes will be accurately compensated for inflation in line with the original intent of the CGT regime, and our changes mean some people may pay less tax. For example, on average, over the past 20 years, the indexation approach would have been broadly neutral or even a bit more generous for share investors. Only applying the CGT changes to property would replace one big distortion with another. Thanks to Howard and Costello, we've had a tax system that has been misallocating investment across our economy for a quarter of a century now. That's why it's so important to apply these changes broadly—so that, in future, investment decisions are driven by economic outcomes rather than by what delivers the best tax outcome. It's part of a bill, as we said in response to the earlier amendments, which is all about cutting taxes for workers, making it easier for people to buy their first home and better aligning the tax treatment of labour and asset incomes. For those reasons, we'll be supporting the bill unamended. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

7 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) 104 NOES Abdo, B. J. Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Buchholz, S. Burke, A. S. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Campbell, J. P. Chaffey, J. L. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conaghan, P. J. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Farley, D. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. P. Gregg, M. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Sitou, S. Small, B. J. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Teesdale, J. A. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Witty, S. J. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:55 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the question now is that amendments (1) to (4) circulated by the member for Wentworth be agreed to. M ember for Wentworth's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 13), after item 7, insert: 7A At the end of Division 102 Add: 102-31 Income averaging (1) The regulations may provide for or in relation to the proportional allocation, by individuals, of capital gains over the shorter of: (a) the period for which the individual holds the relevant *CGT asset; and (b) a period of 10 years. (2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may directly amend the text of this Act. (2) Schedule 1, page 9 (before line 14), before item 8, insert: 7B After section 110-10 Insert: 110-11 Indexation of capital losses (1) The regulations may provide for or in relation to indexing the *reduced cost base of a *CGT asset. (2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may directly amend the text of this Act. (3) The Minister must take reasonable steps to ensure that regulations are in force for the purposes of subsection (1) within 6 months after the commencement of this section. (3) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 40 (line 1) to page 43 (line 26), omit the Part. (4) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 47 (after line 24), at the end of the Part, add: 84A Application of amendments — active assets The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to a *CGT asset that is an *active asset. 11:55 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I've been advocating for tax reform since I was first elected, and I welcome the government's guts to bring a serious proposal forward. I share many of the ambitions the Treasurer has identified in his budget, but I cannot support the bill's proposals in their current form. It's not because I don't support the intent. The government has correctly diagnosed significant problems in Australia's tax system. It's not because I don't support the broad direction of measures. I believe we do need to rebalance the tax system to reduce our reliance on wages and to pay for that by reducing concessions on assets alongside reducing spending as well. But I cannot support the bill in its current form for three reasons. Firstly, not all of the revenue is being returned to the taxpayers. Some of it—$77 billion—has gone to the government, and I don't believe that's what the community wants. Secondly, I think there are real issues that are unresolved with the CGT model the government has chosen. Thirdly, this bill has been rushed through in an unacceptable way. You cannot say that this is the most important tax reform in a generation and then rush it through as it has been. I have put amendments forward in relation to the CGT model because I think this is an area where there is an opportunity to get it right. I recognise that the government has an intellectually consistent approach, which is trying to make sure we only tax real gains, and that is what they're trying to do in this budget. I accept that they've done that well, but I don't think that's the main objective we should have in how we tax CGT. I think we also need to consider international competitiveness and incentives for risk taking that make it easy for people to plan and are simple enough for them to understand. That helps create a fair society. Those are the other considerations. I think the government should, instead of the work that they're doing, move to a reduced flat discount to, say, 35 or 40 per cent rather than an indexation approach, because I think that would narrow the gap between the taxation of labour and capital, produce a model comparable to other countries, raise similar amounts of revenue, not have issues with high-growth businesses or high-growth investments, and people would understand it. Regardless, given that the government has moved forward with this CGT model, I think there are three amendments that deal with three of the known challenges to the model the government has put forward. Firstly, I've moved an amendment to remove active businesses from the new indexation CGT regime and remain under a flat discount regime until such a time as the issues around startups and small businesses are resolved. I recognise the government is serious about trying to resolve some of these issues, but these changes should not be made until those issues are resolved. Secondly, a second amendment would allow regulation to deal with the issue of capital gains being taxed on a real basis and losses being taxed on a nominal basis. I recognise there are integrity issues around this, and I recognise the government is sincere in trying to deal with them, but, honestly, this is a significant issue in this model of indexation of CGT. I think, if the government isn't willing to deal with these issues, it needs to recognise this model is not perfect either and that other models should be considered. Finally, I think that, instead of using a flat 30 per cent minimum real tax rate, the government should income average over the life of the asset or up to a maximum of 10 years. This is different to the Keating model, because the Keating model did allow for game playing in terms of some of the issues that have been rightfully identified. It would ensure that people pay tax at the marginal rate of the time that they held the asset, on their CGT. I think that is not an unreasonable mechanism. It would deal with many of the issues the government is trying to deal with in relation to the 30 per cent minimum real tax rate but would do it in a way that people would find easy to understand and that is simpler. Those are the three changes I have put forward in terms of this bill. I recognise that none of these amendments are perfect, but I also don't think the bill is perfect. The government is not giving this bill enough scrutiny in the Senate and it is not giving enough consideration to the real issues with the bill, nor is it trying to make the bill better. I stand on the basis that I want this bill to be better. I want the government to make really substantial tax changes that make a real difference to the country over a long period of time. But, at this stage, I think there are issues with what the government has done, and they need to be resolved, and they should be resolved in the House before we're obliged to pass the legislation. 12:00 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for putting her amendments. Of course, in the legislation before the House we are making the sorts of changes that the member has long called for to address a number of serious challenges in the system, which the member has long railed against. The idea that people don't have an opportunity to express their views doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly in relation to the member for Wentworth, who has been included over a long period of time in these sorts of deliberations. On the specifics raised by the member, when it comes to income averaging, the reason that the Ralph review proposed removing averaging was for integrity reasons. When it comes to the indexation of losses, if we allowed that, that would mean that more people would sell and repurchase the same assets to offset other gains. That would disrupt markets and reduce the integrity of the system. On the minimum tax, we're making sure that the tax rate that people face will be more in line with the rate that they faced during their working life and with the tax rate paid by most workers. These reforms will make the system fairer and more efficient. They mean people will be more accurately compensated for inflation, and they reduce the incentive to defer selling assets until it's most advantageous in tax terms. For those reasons, we won't be supporting the amendments put forward by the member. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

9 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. 69 NOES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Farley, D. 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. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Joyce, B. T. G. Kearney, G. M. 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. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. 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. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:08 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the question now is that amendments (1) and (2) as circulated by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to. Member for Kooyong's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Parts 3 and 4", substitute "Parts 2A, 3 and 4". (2) Schedule 1, page 43 (after line 26), after Part 2, insert: Part 2A — Relief for small businesses Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 60A After section 152-12 Insert: 152-13 Indexation of thresholds (1) The regulations may provide for or in relation to the annual indexation, in line with the consumer price index, of the following amounts: (a) the amount of $2 million mentioned in paragraph 152-10(1AA)(b) (meaning of CGT small business entity); (b) the amount of $6,000,000 mentioned in section 152-15 (maximum net asset value test). (2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may directly amend the text of this Act. 12:09 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong While we're making generational changes to Australia's capital gains tax system, we need to ensure that wholesale reforms don't come at the expense of clear modernisations. The thresholds for small businesses claiming capital gains tax exemptions is such an area of clear modernisation. The existing CGT small-business concession regime, the SBC regime, provides a sliding scale of concessional tax treatment to business owners when they sell their businesses. That regime is preserved by this budget. Under the current Income Tax Act 1997, in order to qualify for the regime, small businesses must have either an aggregated turnover of less than $2 million or combined net assets of less than $6 million. Those thresholds have been unchanged for almost 20 years. The maximum net asset value test was first introduced in 1999, with the Howard government's discount. At that time, the threshold was $5 million for small businesses. That was lifted to $6 million in 2007. The $2 million annual turnover level has also been static since 2007. Were the government to adjust these thresholds to take into account consumer price index changes since 2007, today a small business would be one with a net asset value of about $10 million or an annual turnover of about $3.3 million. There's a clear need to increase these thresholds to account for inflation and for a different business environment to the one we see today rather than 20 years ago. The existing tax thresholds no longer reflect the realities or the operating scale of many modern small businesses. I spoke to this when I moved my second reading amendment to this legislation last night. For CGT purposes, a small business is currently considered to have a turnover of up to $2 million and net assets of $6 million, while in other tax matters the thresholds are $10 million and $12 million, respectively. I previously suggested that that definition should be made uniform and consistent across tax matters. This suggestion is supported by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. Concessional tax regimes usually have indexed thresholds. That was acknowledged and respected most recently in the changes to taxation of superannuation. So, what I'm proposing here with these amendments in the consideration in detail of the legislation is that the net asset value test for this concessional tax regime be indexed in line with the consumer price index, as was suggested in Treasury's 2005 tax review, in order to modernise and optimise the treatment of small businesses under our capital gains tax regime. 12:12 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the honourable member for these amendments. I also want to thank COSBOA, particularly Skye Cappuccio, for the engagement the government has been doing, the consultation we have been doing, with the small business sector. I acknowledge as well the wonderful work of the Minister for Small Business, who's been doing some of this engagement and consultation as well. As the honourable member I think rightly acknowledged, or has on other occasions, there are four CGT concessions for small businesses, and we're keeping all of them. That means that eligible small-business owners pay reduced or no capital gains tax when the time comes to sell. The vast majority of small-business owners are eligible for these concessions on top of the indexation or the current discount. Our changes will mean that some people will actually pay less tax, depending on their circumstances, because the current arrangements undercompensate some investors for inflation while overcompensating others. Also, in the trusts changes that we have proposed there is generous rollover relief for small business. In the budget more broadly, Mr Speaker, you can see that we are big supporters of small business. The budget was all about helping small businesses to invest and grow $3½ billion in tax cuts for business, particularly small business—whether it's making the instant asset write-off permanent, whether it's the two-year loss carryback, whether it's the loss refundability or whether it's expanding tax incentive for venture capital. There are a range of things we're doing, in addition to the 1½ million sole traders who will benefit from another tax cut from this government. As the honourable member knows, we will do further consultation on the implementation details of parts of this legislation. That's entirely consistent with what we said in the budget papers and entirely consistent with how tax reform is undertaken by governments of both political persuasions. In the course of doing that consultation, in good faith, we look forward to talking more with the small-business community and its leaders. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

50 AYES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 87 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. 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. 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. 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. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:26 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

93 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. King, C. F. 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. 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. Ryan, M. M. 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. 49 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. 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. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.

Third Reading 33 12:29 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is now that this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. [12:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

94 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. Ryan, M. M. 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. 49 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 34

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

Second Reading 34 12:35 The SPEAKER 53517 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein, as circulated to members in the chamber, be agreed to. Member for Goldstein' s circulated amendment— That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading and: (1) notes that: (a) this bill increases income taxes; (b) the Government promised Australians lower taxes at the last election; (c) after four years in office, the Government has broken its promises on superannuation tax increases, franking credits, stage three tax cuts, capital gains, trusts, and negative gearing; and (d) a minimum tax on discretionary testamentary trusts as implemented in the budget has been described by independent experts as a death tax; (2) criticises the Government for the misrepresentation of its tax policies prior to the last election; and (3) calls on the Government to abandon these higher taxes, and end waste and rein in spending before increasing taxes on Australian families, inheritances, small businesses, and .start-ups".

The House divided. [12:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

41 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Sharkie, R. C. C. Taylor, A. J. 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. 94 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. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. 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. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:46 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the bill be read a second time.

The House divided. [12:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

94 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. Ryan, M. M. 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. 48 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail 37 12:47 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is the bill be agreed to. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the question now is the amendment circulated by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to. Member for Wentworth's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 19), at the end of the Schedule, add: 2 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table heading dealing with 2027-28 year of income) Omit "or a later year of income". 3 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (at the end of the table) Add: 12:47 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I have been fiercely advocating for tax reform since getting into this parliament. I believe strongly in reforms that ensure younger Australians get a fair go and the energy transition is as cheap as possible and that restore productivity. On personal income, my advocacy has always started with lowering income taxes, funded by reducing concessions. It has always been my firm view that tax reform should be budget neutral. Reforms to CGT and negative gearing might give younger people an edge back at the auction. I support that. I support reductions to the CGT rate and I support changes to negative gearing, but I've always believed that the best way to support younger working Australians is to let them keep more of what they earn. This budget fails at this task. Of the $100 billion it raises over the medium term, it keeps about $77 billion. It provides a $250 working tax offset for Australians annually from 2027-28 and rested justification on previous tax cuts already given under this government or tax cuts which may be given in the future. Those are welcome. But, after a period of high inflation, those tax cuts are shown by the average Australian marginal tax rate to be eaten up by bracket creep. The government has introduced a WATO. This is positive, but it doesn't do anything for our comparatively higher rates that kick in at relatively modest incomes. Cutting marginal tax rates would protect workers, drive aspiration and increase the trust in the community that the government's measures to increase taxes in certain areas or reduce tax concessions are about supporting younger people and not just about supporting government spending. That is why I am moving an additional amendment that would, in addition to the WATO, cut the marginal tax rates in line with the $77 billion raised over the medium term. This would, in the estimates we have done, involve cutting the 45 per cent rate to 44 per cent in 2029-30, cutting the 37 per cent rate to 36 per cent in 2030-31 and cutting the 30 per cent rate to 29 per cent in 2031-32. The lowest marginal tax rate has already been lowered under previous cuts, which I support, and will still substantially benefit from the WATO. An alternative proposal would be to introduce some form of indexing, as members of the crossbench suggested prior to the election, and the coalition has suggested this year. But I believe that this change represents an opportunity to lower rates before locking them in. Indexing is something that needs to be funded, particularly by spending restraint. This package would represent the sort of budget-neutral reforms that help all Australians by lowering marginal rates while also reducing concessions on asset income. This is, I think, the best way for the government to get support for what it is trying to do, which is I think reducing concessions on assets by reducing marginal tax rates. I think this is, economically, the right thing, and it's the right thing for the community. It is not inflationary, because it is put up in future years. I think this would be the right thing for the government to do, and I think they should support it. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment circulated by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

9 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Haines, H. M. Hawke, A. G. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Wilkie, A. D. 73 NOES Abdo, B. J. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. 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. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. 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. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. 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.

13:03 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

94 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. Ryan, M. M. 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. 48 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. 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. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.

Third Reading 40 13:07 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I move that this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. [13:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

94 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. 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. 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. 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. Ryan, M. M. 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. 48 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Taylor, A. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

BUSINESS 41 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 41 13:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Just to be able to get the appropriations bills back from the Federation Chamber, so that we can deal with them later in the day, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent paragraph (3) of the resolution agreed to on 28 May 2026 for the consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 and related Appropriation Bills being amended to read as follows: "(3) any questions necessary to complete consideration in the Federation Chamber of each of the bills being put immediately without debate, and if consideration of any of the bills has not been completed in the Federation Chamber by 1.30 pm on 4 June 2026, the bills standing referred to the House". 13:14 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon We support the motion, but we would note that we wouldn't be in this situation if we hadn't had this gigantic gagging through divisions going on. But we support it. Question agreed to, with an absolute majority. Rearrangement 42 BILLS 42 BILLS Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 42

Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026

Second Reading 42 13:15 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise to speak in support of the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. There are two key purposes at the heart of this bill. Firstly, it seeks to reframe the risk-to-reward calculation for organised criminal actors by increasing penalties for offences to ensure they are commensurate with the harms caused by the illicit tobacco trade and, secondly, seeks to make the Proceeds of Crime regime more effective to pursue the confiscation of the proceeds, instruments and benefits of crime to undermine the profitability of the illicit tobacco market, which is the main motivation of organised crime. Firstly, however, it's important to be clear about what exactly is meant by illicit tobacco. In this country, tobacco is illicit when it is grown, manufactured and/or produced in Australia or imported into the domestic market without the appropriate customs duty being paid. Products can include cigarettes, cigars, loose tobacco, tobacco leaf and plant matter, and also includes the unlicensed production of tobacco plant or leaf, the manufacture of tobacco products and tobacco sold without the payment of taxes. It's illegal to grow tobacco in Australia without an appropriate excise licence. Currently, no-one is licensed to grow or manufacture tobacco seed, plant or leaf for commercial sale or personal use. Organised crime syndicates do not care about this, of course, and are significantly engaged in running these growing operations, sometimes by targeting unsuspecting landowners by attempting to lease land to grow illicit tobacco. These operations are not run by genuine farmers or landowners but by criminals living and operating in local communities. Organised crime syndicates also target tobacco retailers across Australia to buy and sell illegally grown tobacco, also known as under-the-counter or black-market tobacco. Buying and selling illicit tobacco is a serious tax crime. Retailers who become involved in the illicit tobacco trade not only contribute to the loss of funding for essential community services, but they also gain an unfair advantage over honest businesses who are not participating in the illicit tobacco trade, so removing illicit tobacco from our streets helps to create a level playing field for all retailers. The statistics regarding illicit tobacco are grim. It's estimated that between 50 and 60 per cent—now increased up to 80 per cent, as of today—of all tobacco products sold on the domestic market in Australia are illicit. Vapes account for almost 96 per cent of e-cigarettes purchased in Australia, with almost every one of them being illicit. With vapes representing a market value of over $1.5 billion and organised crime syndicates estimated to be earning just under $7 billion, that is a serious problem. Billions of dollars of earnings going to organised crime syndicates from illicit tobacco enables them to channel those funds into other illegal enterprises, including illegal drugs, scams, trafficking and money laundering. Suggestions that it is just tobacco, plants or vapes sorely underestimate the scale of the consequential effect of this illicit trade. The trade of illicit tobacco can no longer be left as low risk and high reward, because of where the illegal revenue is directed. The tobacco tax gap, which is the difference between the estimated value of the excise or customs duty raised from tobacco according to the law, or the tobacco duty, the value actually raised for a financial year, was estimated in the 2023 financial year to be 14.3 per cent or $2.7 billion in lost excise revenue. That figure is increasing. The effect of this is that organised criminal activities are benefiting, to the tune of billions of dollars each year, to the detriment of the funding of essential community services. This is a huge challenge for government and for Australia's Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner—the first role of its kind in the world. Established in 2024, the purpose of the ITEC is to coordinate national efforts in the fight against illicit tobacco and e-cigarettes by reviewing and reporting on how well current actions are working. This will help provide government with evidence based advice covering policy, legal changes, new trends and future plans to combat illegal activity. The ITEC's remit is as follows: provide strategic leadership across all levels of government to improve cooperation and communication bring together key law enforcement and health agencies to use their combined expertise, resources and knowledge guide policy and operational decisions based on data-driven insights … … … adapt policies and strategies to respond to new challenges in the illegal market guide changes in laws and policies to handle the complex issues around illicit tobacco and e-cigarettes. This bill is an important step in beefing up Commonwealth laws by increasing penalties to make the consequences of participating in the illegal tobacco trade much greater for criminals. Amendments to the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Taxation Administration Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act will see penalties increase for offences relating to the importation, possession, buying, selling, supply, production or manufacture of illicit tobacco. Not only is this designed to operate as a deterrent; increasing penalties will enable more effective investigatory powers to be used on a broader range of illicit tobacco offences, including computer access and surveillance activities under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004. Additional amendments will also enable telecommunications interception powers to be used, by listing tobacco offences as serious offences under section 5D of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. This will enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to seek telecommunications interception warrants for the investigation of these offences, and it sends a strong signal that this government more than recognises that the illicit tobacco trade is a serious problem. It sends a strong signal that the government is committed to stamping it out. The signal is illustrated by a cursory read of the nature of the serious offences already listed in section 5D. This amendment therefore elevates the nature of illicit tobacco offences, meaning greater powers for law enforcement agencies to deal with them. More powers and information-gathering tools for law enforcement agencies improve the prospects that sufficient evidence will be gathered to successfully prosecute criminal actors committing illicit tobacco offences within our legal system, at the same time as protecting the important safeguards within that system. Offences for which penalties will increase are numerous. Under the Customs Act, penalties will be increased for 'importing tobacco with the intention to defraud the revenue and importing tobacco reckless as to whether doing so would defraud the revenue' and for 'moving or possessing tobacco knowing the tobacco was imported with intent to defraud the revenue, and moving or possessing tobacco reckless as to whether doing so would defraud the revenue.' Then, under the Excise Act, penalties will be increased for 'fault-based and strict liability offences relating to the dealing in, manufacture, storage and production of illicit tobacco' and 'fault-based and strict liability offences relating to the making or using counterfeit tobacco labels'. Then, under the Taxation Administration Act, penalties will be increased for 'the reasonable suspicion and fault-based offences for the possession, sale or buying of tobacco of various quantities where excise or customs duty has not been paid'. It will also 'extend the operation of offences for the sale of illicit tobacco to include the supply of the tobacco' and 'introduce an additional threshold quantity of 10kg or more for reasonable suspicion and fault-based tobacco offences'. It will also increase the penalties for offences regarding the possession of equipment for use in the illegal manufacture or production of tobacco and increase the civil penalty for the possession of tobacco without relevant documentation. With respect to the proceeds of crime, the reforms proposed in this bill seek to prevent offenders from benefiting from the criminal profits generated from illicit tobacco. This empowers law enforcement to confiscate from people convicted of a criminal offence the fruits of their illegal labours. Proceeds of crime may include cash or bank accounts with funds derived from crime; real estate purchased with criminal proceeds; things like vehicles, jewellery or other luxury items bought with illicit funds; and investment, shares or cryptocurrency connected to unlawful activities. In Australia the proceeds of crime framework is designed to confiscate proceeds of crime and allow for those confiscated funds to be used to benefit the community. Section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act provides that the proceeds of crime may be reinvested in programs directed at crime prevention and in law enforcement. First and foremost, of course, the intention is to deprive criminals of their unlawfully acquired assets in a punitive way and, in the process, to hopefully deter them from further offending and remove such assets from the pool available for further offending by them or others, which is particularly relevant to organised crime syndicates. The reforms in this bill will see information obtained through investigations conducted under the auspices of the Proceeds of Crime Act being shared with other Commonwealth regulators. This ensures that our regulatory bodies can identify and take action against professional facilitators that continue to assist criminal actors. Unexplained wealth will also be the subject of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act through this bill. Unexplained wealth is the value of a person's wealth less the value of their lawfully acquired wealth. Unexplained wealth orders require wealth deemed to be unexplained to be paid to the government. These laws have been put in place to target and disrupt the business model of serious and organised crime by removing the rewards connected to criminal activity. When implemented successfully, whilst also acting as a deterrent, unexplained wealth orders prevent crime by diminishing an offender's capacity to finance future criminal activity in which they might engage. Again, this is highly relevant for organised crime syndicates currently taking advantage of the low-risk high-reward illicit tobacco trade. In terms of how this will operate, part 5 of schedule 3 of the bill seeks to insert a new definition of 'non-referring signatory state' to enable a jurisdiction that has signed up to the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Cooperative Scheme on Unexplained Wealth to participate in equitable sharing arrangements already existing in the Proceeds of Crime Act. This amendment will further national efforts and cooperation to tackle serious and organised crime by enabling all signatories to the intergovernmental agreement to be involved in discussions on equitable sharing. Further, part 6 of schedule 3 of the bill seeks to remove the requirement for a competent court to make a preliminary unexplained wealth order prior to considering a proceeds of crime authority's application for an unexplained wealth order. This is duplicative and inefficient without materially advancing the objectives of the Proceeds of Crime Act. These amendments would enable unexplained wealth proceedings to progress more efficiently and more consistently with other Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation mechanisms. This bill continues Australia's fight to contain and reverse the growth of the illicit tobacco market, which is essentially taking funds out of essential community services—hospitals, schools, roads, infrastructure. Every criminal syndicate disrupted, every dollar derived from crime confiscated and every successful prosecution put the illicit market on notice. I commend the bill to the House. 13:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Up to four in five cigarettes smoked in Australia are illegal. This is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace. Between 2025-26 and 2029-30, the government expects to collect $15.4 billion in excise. That's compared to the $27.3 billion it had forecast for the same period in last year's budget. That is a shortfall of $11.9 billion in excise in money that could be spent in state hospitals, in money that could be spent keeping the lights on, in money that could be spent for hardworking taxpayers— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 295588 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 45 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Fowler Electorate: Italian Republic Day, BaytulHuda 45 13:30 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I'm really happy to stand here and to share some of the cultural activities that took place in my community in Fowler last Sunday. I joined Club Marconi in Bossley Park to mark the Italian Australian community's celebration of Italian Republic Day, which this year was the 80th anniversary of the Italian Republic. It was really great to be surrounded by Club Marconi's board, Mayor Frank Carbone and our community there as we marked this very important culture and tradition in our community. I also went to Chipping Norton to join in with the Alawite Muslim community for their market day, organised by the BaytulHuda house of guidance, a not-for-profit volunteer organisation supporting the Alawite families to practice their faith, preserve their Arabic language and their culture. It brought the young people together and small businesses together to showcase what the community are doing in Chipping Norton. As we all know, my electorate of Fowler is very multicultural, so organisations such as BaytulHuda play a very vital role in strengthening social cohesion and building understanding across different communities. They believe very much that their organisation is there to bridge their communities with the wider Australian community in the electorate of Fowler. I would like to thank the leaders, elders and teachers and stallholders and volunteers at the BaytulHuda house of guidance. Australian National Men's Football Team 45 13:31 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Australian multiculturalism is the backbone of modern Australia, and one of our most multicultural teams and one of our most multicultural sports is soon to pull on the green and gold for Australia at the FIFA World Cup. The Socceroos have always been great representatives of our country, and once again this year when they hit the field they'll represent Australia in its truest sense. We've got players with backgrounds from Burundi, Zimbabwe, Croatia and South Sudan and of course those born here. Many of the 26 players are migrants or descendants of them. The 2026 Socceroos are a microcosm of modern, multicultural Australia. They hold a special place in my heart because when I cheer them on I see a reflection of the diverse communities across this country, just like the one I grew up in. This diversity is integral to Australia's identity. We are home to people from so many cultures and backgrounds, and that is something we should all celebrate. One of our best Australian values is our ability to welcome those from abroad and to celebrate their culture and customs together. This value is something we can all be proud of. I'm so excited to watch Australia come together as we cheer on this fantastic team, who will trounce the Turkish, annihilate the Americans and prevail against the Paraguayans. To the 2026 Socceroos and head coach Tony Popovic, go well. Go the Socceroos! Taxation 45 13:33 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Labor members today had the chance to vote for bigger and better tax cuts by backing the coalition's tax-back guarantee. Instead, they voted to keep taking more of working Australian wages to fuel their spending addiction. How can those members opposite possibly go back to their electorates and face their constituents? How can they look Australians in the eye and tell them that Labor is helping them? How will members opposite break the news to their constituents that Labor is taxing them $80 billion more? Labor will deliver fewer houses, not more. Labor has abandoned small business, our tradies and our hairdressers. Labor has decided young people don't deserve the same opportunities as our prime minister had to get ahead to create a nest egg. What we've seen from Labor these past few weeks has been nothing but deceit and dishonesty. Not one person in Australia voted for the higher taxes that passed this lower house today. What we have is a gutless and weak prime minister who is loose with the truth. If you truly wanted lower taxes for all Australians, those opposite would have got on board and voted for the coalition's tax-back guarantee. Budget 45 13:34 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I am so thrilled, because the great Australian Labor Party is the party of tax cuts, and we are also the party of homeownership. I'm very conscious that we have some amazing students that are here watching the parliament live, and I want these students to know that what we are doing as the federal Australian Labor Party is trying to make the future better for your generation. That is what we are doing, and I'm thrilled that you're seeing democracy happening in real time. Today we wanted to make homeownership fairer for your generation because, back in 1999 when the capital gains tax was changed, we basically saw the property investment market on steroids. It made it harder for people starting their first job to actually own a home of their own. So I want you to know that we're doing this because we believe in a better Australia where people can actually own their own home. But also we want to back Australian workers. If you are contributing to our economy, then we want to back you when it comes to tax cuts. Why should taxpayers be subsidising property investors? We've seen demonstrated tax distortions in the market that have simply been not fair. We are doing this for the next generation, and I'm very proud to be a part of the great Australian Labor Party. Queensland: Electoral System 46 13:36 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy We have a redistribution going through in Queensland. I have seen some disgraceful performances in my life, but the Premier of Queensland has excelled himself. The member for Mount Isa is expected to look after Malanda and Millaa Millaa, which is the best part of three days drive in a car. The member for that area has already crashed in an aeroplane twice in the last four years, and he has no money to use the aeroplanes anyway—what little money he has. How could you include two towns 1,500 kilometres away? They have a 100 inch rainfall, whereas Mount Isa and Cloncurry, have virtually no rainfall at all. One is cattle and mining; the other is farming. There is absolutely no commonality of interest. This is being done to get rid of our tiny little party. Now for anyone who is the Premier of Queensland and has nothing better to do with his time than run around trying to rub out a tiny little party with two or three members in the parliament, I mean, there's got to be something seriously wrong with that Premier of Queensland—but we'll deal with him in due course. You shoot your mouth off and make promises; you want to be very careful— (Time expired) Budget 46 13:37 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton It doesn't matter how the opposition tries to spin this one; nothing will change the fact that those in the coalition have just voted against a tax cut for working Australians, again. Nothing will change the fact that the coalition have just voted against 75,000 Australians getting into their very first home. Nothing will change the fact that the coalition have just voted against a $1,000 instant tax write off. All in all, what this now means is that the coalition have made average working Australians $2,800 poorer. At a time when people are doing it tough, at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills, at a time when young people are trying to get into their first home, at a time when this country has a big challenge when it comes to cost of living, the opposition have today anointed themselves as the enemy of first home buyers. The opposition today have anointed themselves as the nemesis of young people across this nation. Today was a test for those in the coalition. I don't rejoice in their spectacular failure of that test, because we want Australians to get a better life and to have a home. Budget 46 13:39 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson Today Labor had a simple choice. They could have voted for the coalition's amendment to give working Australians bigger and better tax cuts through our tax back guarantee. Instead, they voted to keep their inflation tax. So the question is very simple: Why? Why did Labor vote against stopping bracket creep? Why did Labor vote against automatic tax cuts that get bigger every year? Why did Labor vote against a plan that means, when prices go up, tax thresholds go up too? Under Labor prices rise, wages try to catch up, and then the tax office quietly takes more and more of your hard earned money. It's very neat, very sneaky, very Labor. For a typical worker, the coalition's plan means around $250 back in year 1, $500 back in year 2, $750 back in year 3, and in year 4 it's $1,000. Labor's offer in year 4 is still $250. The Prime Minister ruled his toxic taxes out 50 times. Now Australians are facing $280 billion in higher taxes. So why did Labor vote against our amendment? Because Labor cannot manage money, and now they're coming after yours. The coalition will axe Labor's toxic taxes and deliver bigger, better tax cuts for Australians who are doing the right thing and trying to get ahead. Taxation 46 13:40 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane Today is a great day for working Australians and for young people because we passed, in this House, not that long ago, our aspirational tax reform package. This tax package will go down in history as one of the biggest reforms for our nation. It sits along other great Labor legacies. Why? Because it's always a Labor government that's prepared to make the big structural changes for the benefit of our country. Our reforms mean, starting from 1 July, every working Australian will receive a tax cut. That's more money in the back pockets of every working Australian. Another significant reform in this package is the rebalancing of the tax system so it's fairer for everybody, especially young people. I talk to people across the Brisbane electorate, and they tell me that they're working hard, that it's tough to get ahead and that the system's not working for them, and they're right. The status quo isn't working, especially when it comes to that big dream of owning your own home. When you work hard, when you save, you should be able to buy your own home. But, right now, first home buyers are being priced out by property investors, who have access to big tax breaks through negative gearing. And then there's also capital gains. This can't go on. A whole generation is being left behind. As leaders, we needed to do something. We needed to change a broken system, and that's why we're acting and why we're levelling the playing field for first home buyers. Those opposite want to keep Australians down, but on this side of the House we are doing everything we can to lift them up. Schools, Taxation 47 13:42 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey Only yesterday, the Mayor of Adelaide—sorry, the Premier of South Australia was spruiking the expansion of out-of-school-hours care, OSHC. At the same time, OSHC was closed down in Stirling North and Quorn. Despite operators working closely with the Department of Education, there was no meaningful intervention—no workers, no support, no solution. Regional Australia continues to be treated as an afterthought. Now, families who depend on these services have been left scrambling. In the regions, alternatives do not exist. People lean on grandparents, friends and family to fill the gap that government refused to. That's not a system; that's abandonment. State and federal Labor must do better and work with locals, councils and departments to find a solution to help these communities. Labor face a simple test: will they vote for our tax back guarantee, delivering bigger and better tax cuts for working Australians, or will they vote to keep taking more money from Australians? Australians are doing it tough. Power bills are up. Groceries cost more. Housing costs more. Families are working harder but too often feel like they're standing still. At a time like this, government shouldn't be benefiting from bracket creep and quietly taking a bigger share of people's pay packets. Our tax back guarantee is simple: if Australians work harder and earn more money, they should keep more of what they earn. Taxation 47 13:44 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Today, the Albanese government has passed our tax reform bills, delivering tax cuts for every working Australian. It's about ensuring that our tax system better reflects modern Australia, and that means fairly taxing income, whether it comes from wages, shares or the sale of a property. This is practical reform from a reforming Albanese government. It will make a real difference to people right across our nation—to workers who are doing their best to get ahead, to raise a family and plan for the future. But this reform is not just about tax settings; it is about what kind of country we are building together. It is about backing aspiration and making sure young Australians can see a path to homeownership in the communities they grew up in. It is about increasing housing supply, so we can build more homes, and so that more people can get a fair go at owning one. And it's about strengthening Medicare, investing in bulk-billing and urgent care clinics, like the one in Torquay in my electorate, and making sure health care is affordable and accessible no matter where you live. Unlike the coalition, who today voted against tax cuts, the Albanese government is delivering practical, real-world changes that respond to the pressures people are facing today while building for the long term. Taxation 47 13:45 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest Today, the Albanese Labor government had the chance to vote for our tax-back guarantee for bigger and better tax cuts for every working Australian. But, instead, every single member of the Labor Party decided to vote to take more tax from hardworking Australians. They promised no new taxes 50 times in the Prime Minister's own words, and now Australians are faced with more tax than ever before. Labor's broken promises include taxes on housing, small businesses and savings. They've raided Australians to tune of $80 billion, but their secret inflation tax will take more than $200 billion from Australians. Our tax-back guarantee is an automatic tax cut that gets bigger every year. It means that tax thresholds rise with inflation. As much as this Prime Minister promises to give a little, he's taking a lot. We all know someone like this—someone who comes to a barbecue, brings a six pack, drinks 12 and takes a carton home. We won't stand for it. We are proposing a tax-back guarantee. Instead, this mob have voted for higher taxes on every Australian, every year. They should hang their heads in shame or perhaps turn on the comments on social media and see what Aussies really think of their sneaky taxes. Taxation 47 13:46 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith What a day to be a member of this parliament. Today, this House has passed the tax reform bills, delivering tax cuts for every worker and a fair go for first home buyers. Across Griffith, I meet young Australians working hard, saving carefully and hoping for a home where they can put down roots. But, for too many, that hope is moving too far away. Since the capital gains discount was introduced in 1999, house prices have risen by more than 400 per cent, more than twice the rate of the average full-time earnings. It will always be harder for a young Australian to buy their first home when the tax system makes it easier for someone else to buy their 10th. This is the unfairness these reforms address. A first home buyer saving from their wages is paying rent while trying to build a deposit, but they are competing at inspections and auctions with investors who already have property equity and tax concessions on their side. There is nothing wrong with investing or owning property, but a tax system should not make the front door of homeownership harder to open for the next generation. From 2027-28, negative gearing for future residential investment will be directed towards building of new homes that we desperately need, while existing investments are protected. And, from 27 July, the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount will be replaced with inflation adjusted indexation, so investors are taxed on real gains, not inflations. It would be easier to do nothing, but Australians deserve a government that acts. Labor is backing work, building homes and giving younger Australians a better opportunity to secure homeownership in the communities that they call home. Taxation 48 13:48 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert 'No. How hard is it?' For the 50th time, that's what the Prime Minister said when he was asked if he was going to be bringing in any more taxes on homes. He also said, 'My word is my bond.' We now know that's another Labor mistruth. This Labor government is obsessed with taxing everyday Australians. This Labor government is obsessed with punching down. We're going to see $80 billion in extra taxes under this Labor government. But is the money being spent where it should be? Everything's going up. Prices are going up everywhere—at the shopping centre and in your power bills. But there's one group who continually gets punished by this Labor government, and that is the veteran community. A $5,000 cap on allied health services has been placed by this Labor government. How can you justify telling veterans that they can't get services that they need? We thank them for their service. Labor Party members run to the closest veteran on Anzac Day and get a photo with a veteran or a still-serving member with medals on their chest, and they post about it, but then they cut their services. Paul Warren, missing his leg due to his service in Afghanistan, told me that in two months he'd run out of that $5,000. How is he supposed to get the support that he deserves and needs? He fought for this country. We should fight for him. Budget 48 13:50 Ms URQUHART 231199 Braddon The Albanese Labor government's landmark tax reforms mean Australians will be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and more people will be able to buy their own homes. Our reforms go to the heart of what Labor governments are about: fairness, opportunity and making sure the next generation, like the ones in the gallery up there, get a fair go. We've also seen what the opposition is about: running a protection racket for vested interests and leaving ordinary Australians behind. As the party of working Australians, Labor is cutting income tax five times in three different ways. We've already brought tax rates down and pushed thresholds up. Another tax cut was done on 1 July this year, and another will happen on 1 July next year. This, together with the tax relief in today's bill, means the average Australian worker will receive a combined benefit of around $2,800 in 2028. We're also helping first home buyers achieve the dream of homeownership. In my electorate of Braddon, I hear every day from people who want to buy their own homes but have been locked out of the market. For too long, the tax system designed by the Liberals has driven property prices beyond the reach of ordinary Australians. Our reforms remove the distortions in the system that have warped our housing market. This means 75,000 more first home owners will enter the housing market over the next 10 years. Labor's reforms are about rewarding hard work, strengthening opportunity and building a fairer future for all Australians. Budget 48 13:51 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The big question today is: will Labor vote for our tax-back guarantee for bigger and better tax cuts for working Australians, or will they keep taxing Australians into the Stone Age? There is white-hot anger in the community about Labor's toxic taxes. Let me quote Philip, from Dural. He says: … the utter dishonesty and deceit of Albanese and Chalmers in not first taking these extreme changes to an election. This egregious dishonesty is compounded by the Government's refusal to even acknowledge these are broken promises and their attempts to pass them off as merely changed positions. Even Whitlam, for all his superciliousness, would not have actively lied and broken solemn pre-election promises like Albanese … has done with this budget. Nailia, from Hornsby, has two kids, a mortgage and a family business. She says life's been much harder over the past four years. Inflation swallowed any relief that came from tax rate cuts. Her family's weekly grocery bill has gone up by 100 bucks, and her electricity bills are now 40 per cent higher. Before the budget, she said, there was still some hope. She said: Things were difficult but we believed if we kept working hard we could eventually come out the other side—grow the business, perhaps sell it one day, buy a second … home where ageing parents could live and continue doing the right thing by our family and our community. But this Budget feels like that hope has been taken away. Labor did not just take 'Today' from me. They took 'Tomorrow' too. To every Australian: you didn't vote for this. You deserve better, and the coalition has your back. Labor Government 49 13:53 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Australia is the country of the fair go. An important part of the deal is that, if you work hard, you should be able to build a good life, knowing you're building our country at the same time. What we do as a Labor government is grounded in those Australian values of a good life and a fair go: fully funding public schools, because everyone should be able to get a good education no matter where they live, and strengthening Medicare so you can get the care you need when you need it. Underpinning the Australian dream of a good life is homeownership. For so many, for too long, this has been an unaffordable dream. Almost 30 years ago, the Howard government introduced changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing that have proven catastrophic to housing affordability in this country. The average cost of a house went from three times average wage to up to 16 times average wage. Well, that stops now. This government wants people to have a fair go at owning their own home. This is a government that wants people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We want wage earners to also have a fair go, and so we've locked in tax cuts. Never forget that those opposite voted against housing affordability and they voted against tax cuts for every worker. This Albanese government backs Australian workers, this Albanese government backs the Australian dream and this Albanese government backs the Australian value of a fair go. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I just remind everybody interjections are disorderly. Budget 49 13:54 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Who said this: 'My word is my bond. I'm a Prime Minister who will promise to do things and then go and do them. I think that's how you restore faith in politics'? And who said this beauty: 'I don't lie to them'? He's sitting right there! And what did he do? We've just seen the greatest act of betrayal that this parliament has seen in 20 years. You are all party to it— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon, direct your comments through the chair. Mr TEHAN 210911 and at the next election you will pay the price. Now— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon, I don't think you heard me. I was asking you to direct your comments through the chair. Mr TEHAN 210911 Thanks, Deputy Speaker. Can I say, there are three things that are very problematic with what you have done. There's $77 billion in new taxes. You have killed enterprise in this country, especially when it comes to small business and to farmers. The last thing you have done is you have betrayed the very oath— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon, I would ask you to direct your comments through the chair. Mr TEHAN 210911 The Labor Party have betrayed their oath to the Australian people. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm just going to say this one more time: robust debate is welcome in this place, but those kinds of personal attacks are not okay. You will direct your comments through me. Everyone's going to start getting their time clipped because of this. Taxation 49 13:56 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Deputy Speaker Claydon, the Manager of Opposition Business is new here; He's still learning the ropes here! We have just passed tax reform through the House of Representatives that will make housing more affordable for younger Australians. The bill will now be sent over to the Senate, and I am reminded that, at the last election Australians voted for builders not blockers. Australians voted for making housing more affordable not playing games with housing. If you wanted evidence of what their games and what their blocking did, you only have to look at where their housing spokespeople are right now. The Liberals own spokesperson is not in this chamber anymore because of the blocking that they did under the last parliament. Of course, I was quite surprise to open the Australian Fin Review last night and see this headline: 'Greens and Liberals in fresh talks to delay legislation'. The Liberals and the Greens are teaming up together to block tax reform. They're teaming up together to stop young people being able to buy their first home. This new collection of ragtags are denying young Australians the dream of homeownership, but we are going to pursue this because we know that young Australians deserve to buy their own home in this great country of ours. Budget 50 13:57 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Today, the Albanese Labor government voted 11 times against lower income taxes for Australians. Labor stands condemned. The Prime Minister promised there would be no changes to negative gearing and no changes to capital gains tax. He ruled out changes, in his own words, for the 50th time. No Australian can trust another word that comes out of his mouth. This budget isn't about addressing intergenerational equity. It isn't pro supply. Australians know weasel words when they hear them. They know they're being gaslighted. Behind the Orwellian doublespeak, it's a massive con job—a budget of toxic taxes from this government. That's why this government is rushing this rotten legislation that they didn't take to an election through the parliament this week, with discretion all left to this treasurer. Now, of course, we support the $250 annual income tax cut. We support the $1,000 deduction for work related expenses, but we do not support Labor's toxic tax hikes. This much is clear: Labor is for imposing higher aspiration-killing toxic taxes on Australians. We stand for lower income taxes for Australians year after year after year. Taxation 50 13:59 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong The nurse, the tradie, the early childhood worker—this country couldn't run without them. Right now, too many of them are working harder than ever and feeling like they can't get ahead. Well, in our government, we see them; we hear them. And today I was proud to support our tax reforms. They will deliver another tax cut to every tradie, every hospo worker, every early childhood educator— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Ms BRISKEY 263427 across my electorate and across— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! No, the member for Maribyrnong will pause. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No, we're not having this as a yelling match. This is ridiculous! I don't know what I've walked into, but everyone's going to remain silent for the remainder of this speech. That is completely unbecoming. People screaming and yelling—what do you think this is? The member for Maribyrnong will also temper her language, and she will continue. Ms BRISKEY 263427 We believe working people deserve better than grievance, outrage and cheap politics—the shift-worker at Tullamarine; the aged-care worker in Glenroy; the families across Maribyrnong watching every dollar. And they're not just getting a tax cut. Today, we're also delivering a $1,000 instant tax deduction, putting more money into their pockets. But here's what my community knows: today, those opposite voted against these tax cuts. It's not the first time they've done it. They've done it before, and they did it again today. But this Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job and delivering them anyway. We are lowering taxes, giving higher wages and giving more people the opportunity to get into their own home. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 50 14:01 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Australian taxpayers will pay $77 billion extra because of Labor's toxic taxes. Prime Minister, why did your government vote against lower income taxes 11 times, including the coalition's plan for bigger and better income tax cuts year after year after year? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm actually asked about the coalition's tax policy! And I welcome that opportunity, because, on 1 July, every Australian worker will receive a tax cut this year. On 1 July next year, every Australian will receive another tax cut. Both of those tax cuts were voted against by those opposite, and they said if they were elected and he was the Treasurer then they would reverse it. Today, of course, we've seen that error repeated. We saw them vote against the working Australian tax offset of $250 for every Australian worker, and we saw them vote against the tax cut that's also reform—the $1,000 automatic tax deduction. But it shouldn't be surprising, given the history which is there, because we know that the costings that the coalition released, when the member for Hume was the shadow treasurer, just two days before the last election— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Forrest will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Forrest then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 We're just going to set the set the scene— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! And members on my right aren't helping the situation. The member for Bennelong and the member for Spence are on thin warnings as well. You may sit a long way from me, but I can hear every word you're saying. So can everyone just take a breath. The Leader of the Opposition was entitled to ask his question. I'm going to listen to the Prime Minister to make sure he is being directly relevant. Show him some respect. Mr ALBANESE R36 The coalition went to the last election arguing for $75 billion in higher personal income taxes. They've argued for $14 billion of higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sectors, by abolishing production tax credits; higher taxes on motorists, by abolishing the EV concession; higher taxes on the housing construction industry, by abolishing build to rent, abolishing Help to Buy and abolishing the Housing Australia Future Fund; bigger mortgages, of course, by abolishing Help to Buy—you asked about your policies. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Taylor 231027 On relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was about the government voting against lower income taxes 11 times today. The SPEAKER 53517 This was opened a little bit differently. I know the question, but there was an element in there about the opposition's policy that was— The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations can sit there and listen to this answer. If you're going to ask about why he didn't support the coalition's policy, the Prime Minister is, I assume, going to give answers as to why he disagrees or agrees with that. I'll listen to him carefully. Mr ALBANESE R36 Certainly, it's not surprising that they actually don't want to talk about what their agenda has been. They voted for and support higher power bills by abolishing the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. They want more expensive TAFE courses by abolishing free TAFE. Today, of course, they voted against the legislated five rounds of income tax cuts that we put forward. No wonder they've brought Tony Abbott back to run the Liberal Party—a bloke who was dumped by his own party and then dumped by his own electorate. They've made him party president. At least when they resurrected the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park they chose a species that had been successful. Cost of Living 51 14:06 Mr NG 316052 Menzies My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real, lasting cost-of-living relief for Australians while helping with the aspiration of homeownership? What other approaches is the government being asked to consider? 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Menzies for his question, which is not something I thought I'd ever have to say in this House, I've got to say. Today, every Labor member in this House voted to deliver another two income tax cuts—$250 for every worker plus a $1,000 automatic tax deduction, making sure that there's reform there as well. Every Labor member voted for aspiration for all, not just for some, and we did that by making sure that Australians can have a crack at owning their first home. Every Labor member voted for Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, which is why, on Monday, we welcomed the fact that those on the poorest pay—those people on the minimum wage, the people who clean our offices here in Parliament House, the people who do that hard yakka going to work each and every day to make a difference for their family—could get a decent pay increase. Those opposite never supported that. Every Labor member today voted to deliver an economy that works for people, not the other way around—not people just working for an economy. Every Labor member voted to deliver the real change that Australia needs, and every single member of the three right-wing parties, the 'Liberal One National Party', voted against these changes. They voted against cutting income taxes. They voted against a future with intergenerational equity at its heart. They voted to keep a housing system that everyone knows is broken. But they want to go further. If they get the chance, they'll increase income taxes for every single Australian worker. They promised, at the last election, higher debt, bigger deficits and higher taxes, and they promised to rebreak the system. They promised to go back to a housing system that simply is not working. We on this side of the House stand for aspiration, and we stand for opportunity. Labor stands for opportunity and the fair go. We're delivering real change, and today's legislation did just that. Taxation 52 14:09 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Albanese Labor government voted 11 times against lower taxes. By voting against the coalition's tax-back guarantee, Labor is locking in higher taxes for Australian workers year after year. Will the Prime Minister be up-front with Australians and admit that his government voted to steal hundreds of billions of dollars in extra taxes from hardworking Australians? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 Yeah, I've got some problems with this one. We'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW There's clear unparliamentary language towards the end of that question, Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, so we'll just withdraw that part of the question. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Withdraw. Take without election mandate. The SPEAKER 53517 Alright. We got there in the end. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Calwell will leave the chamber under 94(a). That is highly disorderly. The member for Calwell then left the chamber. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I don't care whose birthday it is. And the member for Bruce can put down his hand. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bruce will leave the chamber under 94(a). Honestly! The member for Bruce then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has the call. 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Thanks, Mr Speaker. One thing you can say about the shadow Treasurer is that he never lets facts get in the way. We just passed legislation through the House of Representatives today to lower taxes. That is what we just did, and those opposite voted against it. To be fair to the member for Goldstein, he didn't vote against it, because he wasn't here, but all the rest of them did. They voted against the tax cuts that will come in on 1 July. They voted against the tax cuts that will come in on 1 July next year. And today they voted against the Working Australians Tax Offset, and they voted against the $1,000 automatic tax deduction. It takes some capacity to go to an election arguing for higher taxes and at the same time delivering higher deficits, but that's what this bloke did at the last election. Taxation 52 14:12 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help workers? And how will the government's tax reforms help first home buyers and home buyers? How does this compare with other approaches? 14:13 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin A big thanks to the member for Bullwinkel for her great question and also for voting for tax cuts today, including for many of Australia's nurses, and the member for Bullwinkel was a nurse herself. This government and this week are all about higher wages and lower taxes for workers and a fair go for first home buyers. The legislation that we passed through the House today will cut taxes for more than 13 million Australian workers. It will make tax time simpler for Australia's workers and it will help more first home buyers into housing. Our tax reforms are the most significant in more than a quarter of a century. They will help tens of thousands of Australians into homes. These are the Australians who would otherwise have been locked out of housing if those opposite had had their way but will now be able to find and buy a home of their own, thanks to the legislation proudly supported by this side of the House. And the Working Australians Tax Offset is the most meaningful permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since Labor last increased it, more than a decade ago. As I said, more than 13 million Australian workers will benefit. We're funding these tax cuts for workers through our reforms to make Australia's tax system fairer. That's why the four elements were presented in one bill today. Because of this government, the average worker will be better off by up to $2,816 a year. If those opposite had their way, every one of those workers would be paying higher taxes. Today was a very big test for the coalition, and they failed it once again. One of the reasons why there are fewer of them over there in this term of parliament than in the last term of parliament is because, in the last term of the parliament, they listened to the member for Hume when he told them all to vote against tax cuts. Today they have repeated the same mistake once again. They have voted against tax cuts before, and today they have voted against tax cuts once again. This side of the House is proud to support the working people of this country. Those opposite voted against them. We are proud to support first home buyers in this country. Those opposite voted against them. We take our intergenerational responsibilities to young people seriously, even if those opposite do not. This side of the House doesn't just acknowledge that there are issues in the housing market and in the tax system; we're prepared to take difficult decisions to address those challenges, not just try and benefit from them politically, like the three right-wing parties do. Labor is delivering tax cuts. We're helping first home buyers into homes. Those opposite voted for higher taxes and to lock tens of thousands of Australians out of the housing market. That's what the vote earlier today was all about. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 53 14:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to do a few acknowledgements, if I may. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Mr John Haslem, former member for Canberra and current president of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia. I'd also like to welcome World Vision representatives Simon Mane and Lilian Dodzo, who are in Canberra this week to brief representatives on the Sudan crisis now entering its third devastating year. Welcome to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 53 14:16 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The government handed out $622 million in diesel tax credits to BHP last financial year, and BHP's after-tax profits were over $15½ billion. Can you explain to Australians why one of Australia's most profitable companies needs a $622 million taxpayer subsidy for diesel use, especially in the middle of a fuel crisis, when regular Aussies are feeling the crunch at the bowser? 14:17 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question. The government's focus has been on securing fuel supply in the middle of a fuel crisis internationally—that would be the first point I'd make. Secondly, the point I'd make is that the government has chosen to focus on reducing emissions in heavy industry, including mining, through reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism. Those reforms have now been operating for two years and have resulted in 5.8 million tonnes of avoided emissions. Importantly, we are projected to avoid 17 billion litres of diesel being used between now and 2035 because we are putting in place the settings that will encourage those big emitters and big facilities to reduce their fuel use in a careful, methodical and properly designed fashion. Housing 53 14:18 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing with its commitment to deliver 55,000 new social and affordable homes? Why is this approach better for Australians than other approaches? 14:18 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I want to thank the member for Dickson for her question, and I know I speak for all of my Labor colleagues when I say how privileged we are to work with her. The housing debate in the parliament in recent weeks has been focused on the tax changes that passed the lower house earlier. We've got a broken housing system in this country, and today our Labor government stood up and did something big about this. Our law, for the first time, puts first home buyers on a level playing field. It'll help 75,000 Australians get out of renting and into a home of their own. Also, don't forget the tax cut for every single one of Australia's 13 million workers. The changes that were in the bill before the parliament this morning are part of a much more huge, ambitious and nation-shaping plan for housing—our Homes for Australia plan. This was a plan that we started in 2022 when our government was elected. We've built on it each budget and each election, and we're going to continue to do that. Social and affordable housing sits right at the heart of our agenda. For Australians who are escaping family violence, for older women who are at risk of homelessness, for families who are doing it tough, a safe home changes their life. It changes everything. Our goal is 55,000 homes. We've completed more than 7,000. We've got 23,000 today in planning or construction. I want to give the parliament a little bit of a flavour of some of the things that have happened on this front just in the last six weeks. The member for Petrie and Senator Mulholland kicked off construction on 36 new homes in Deception Bay. Twenty-eight new homes started construction in the member for Parramatta's electorate. The member for Hasluck kicked off construction of 56 new homes in her electorate. The member for Canberra kicked off construction of 55 new homes in her electorate. The member for Swan kicked off construction on 15 new homes in Victoria Park and, just this morning, the member for Bean and I kicked off construction on 140 homes. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The members for Maranoa and Casey continually saying the same thing over and over and over again is highly disorderly and it's annoying. For the remainder of this answer—and if you say one more thing during this answer, you will have to leave the chamber, because it is not fair on the minister and it's not fair on the rest of the chamber for that behaviour to continue. Everyone, there are consequences for actions. I ask the minister to return to the question. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I am getting a little bit of backchat, as I often do when I start talking about social and affordable housing. If you've been adding up the numbers as I go there, Speaker, you might have noticed that in the last six weeks alone, our government started construction on more social and affordable homes than the coalition built in a decade. I'm asked about alternatives. Well, we saw it. It was nine years of neglect. Nine years of sitting on these government benches, seeing Australians in pain on housing, and choosing to do absolutely nothing about it. We can't forget the Nationals in here. I don't like to leave them out of the debate. I want the parliament to remember that in the entire nine years the coalition were in government, they built not a single social and affordable home across the entirety of regional and rural Australia. Those opposite occasionally talk about housing. Our Labor government is standing up and building it, and, despite those opposite, we're going to keep working for Australians. (Time expired) Budget 54 14:22 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Prime Minister. On 26 May, the Prime Minister said, 'We are also changing the capital gains tax regime to go back to 1999.' Today, at Senate estimates, Secretary to the Treasury Jenny Wilkinson rejected the Prime Minister's assertion by confirming a minimum 30 per cent tax rate was not part of the pre-1999 system. Will the Prime Minister correct the Hansard and admit his assault on hardworking Australians is much more punitive than the pre-1999 system? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Canning for his question. I also thank him for his support, because on 23 March he said, 'I want to fight for my generation and the generations below'. They see the housing market, particularly, as rigged against them, so there's a policy debate to be had. But the politics has already bolted. Young Australians— Mr ALBANESE R36 Just listen to him! Listen to him behind you. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Canning on a point of order? Mr Hastie 260805 It was a forensic question. I ask that you bring the Prime Minister back. And, while we're at it, can I please table the Hansard from 26 May and today? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. The Hansard is available. People are entitled to table anything. The Prime Minister was talking about the person that had asked him the question. He won't be able to do that for the remainder of the question, but he's 40 seconds in. Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes, I'm speaking about the member for Canning and what he said about capital gains and negative gearing changes. That is what he said. He said this: Young Australians want to tear down the system because it doesn't work for them, and if we're not responsive to that as a party, we may well become extinct… Perhaps that explains the return of the great dinosaur, Tony Abbott. Perhaps there's a link there. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? We've already had one point of order on relevance. Mr Tehan 210911 I just want to help you, Speaker. The Prime Minister is defying your ruling. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, and, as I said to the Prime Minister, he won't be able to continue on with that. I'll ask him to move on from the member for Canning. He's asked that question. An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Can everyone just show some self-control? The Prime Minister will continue and be directly relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm talking about capital gains. I'm talking about the view held not just by me and those on this side but helpfully by the member for Canning that the system is broken and that there needed to be change. What we've moved from is a discount of 50 per cent to the discount system that was in place prior to 1999, which was a discount system based upon real gains. That was what was in place. That is the fundamental difference between the two. Mr Taylor 231027 Just levy the Australian people! Mr ALBANESE R36 He yabbers away non-stop. Even if he won't listen to people on this side of the House, he can listen to the people behind him. Soon enough, you might have to. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition to take a break so I can hear from the honourable member for Richmond. Budget 55 14:27 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring that young people in regional communities can get into the housing market and own a home of their own, and what's standing in the way? The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport— Ms Bell 282981 Speak to young people! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moncrieff, I've been pretty clear about interjecting while I'm calling a minister. I'm going to warn you and make sure there are no more interjections. I'll call the minister again. That's not respectful or the way the House should work in my opinion. I give the call to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. 14:27 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I thank the member for Richmond for her question. Like many of us who live in regional areas, her community in the New South Wales North Coast and mine in western Victoria are feeling the effects of a broken housing system. As housing has got more expensive in the capital cities, many city investors have looked to the regions for investment. We welcome that investment, but, as a result, young people trying to buy their first home are being pushed to the back of the queue in our regional areas—young people that want to stay in their hometowns of Ballina or Ballarat but found that they could no longer afford to do so. Since coming into government, we have been working hard to fix this. Already, under the five per cent deposit scheme introduced by this government, more than 250,000 Australians have bought their own home. That includes 1,600 in my own hometown of Ballarat. Our new $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund introduced in this budget will support local councils to unlock much needed housing development. This fund will be open to local government and state utility companies to apply for and will build the critical last-mile infrastructure like water, power and sewerage needed to support housing developments. We're upskilling regional Australians through free TAFE. Today we have taken that next step to reform our tax system and make it easier to get first home buyers into the housing market. The legislation that has just passed this House will help more than 75,000 Australians into their first home. The problem we face in the housing market in the cities and in the regions has been decades in the making. For too long, first home buyers have had a housing system stacked against them. On this side, we are making those vital investments and introducing important reforms to get young people in the cities and particularly in our regions into homes. We are already seeing that change. A home in North Ballarat a couple of weekends ago sold to a first home buyer in his early 30s and every other single registered bidder at that auction was an owner-occupier. That has not been happening in our regions for a long, long time. This was one of the first homes under the hammer since we announced these reforms, and already the difference is noticeable at auctions in our regions. But, over there, they call these changes absolutely a gimmick. There's a reason they didn't have a housing minister when they were in government. There's a reason that they did not back these reforms and voted against them. Fundamentally, they believe we should just leave things as they are and that everything is going perfectly okay and we should make no changes at all, help no young people, let the problem just rot and get worse. The grand coalition of inaction would only deepen Australia's housing crisis, particularly for young people in our regions. Budget 56 14:31 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Treasurer. Experts are warning that the government's broken promises will give the Treasurer sweeping, extraordinary powers, including the power to scrap the tax offset. After repeatedly assuring Australians these tax changes were not on the table, why would small businesses and farming families trust the Treasurer with sweeping, extraordinary powers? 14:31 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin If the honourable member knew anything about tax legislation, he would know that these are not extraordinary powers, and the legislative instruments that are used to determine definitions in the tax system are disallowable by the parliament in the usual way. I don't remember hearing any of this from any of those opposite when governments of the opposite political persuasion had exactly the same kind of system. Now, if any of those opposite knew anything about tax legislation, they would know that big tax reform is done in tranches of legislation and that the definitions are settled in legislative instruments, which can be disallowed by the parliament. The problem that the member opposite asking the question has is just because you can get someone to write this rubbish doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it true. There is nothing extraordinary about treasurers of either political persuasion settling definitions in this manner. I've finished my answer. Biosecurity 56 14:32 Ms URQUHART 231199 Braddon My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What actions is the Albanese Labor government taking to strengthen our biosecurity system and get more fertiliser to our farms? What has been the response to these measures? 14:33 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank our fabulous member for Braddon. It's been a real privilege to be up in her electorate with her and talk to farmers and, of course, taste some of Australia's best produce in her electorate too. Of course, we are supporting our farmers because we understand the importance of keeping our farmers farming during this difficult time for them. Just yesterday, I was pleased to advise that more than one million tonnes of imported urea has now been cleared through Australia's strict biosecurity system since the escalation of the war in the Middle East in February—one million tonnes cleared through our biosecurity system that, let's not forget, those on the other side left underfunded when they left office. It's a system now that we've had to strengthen with over $2 billion in additional funding. While our government will never compromise on biosecurity, we have introduced a streamlined process to get our fertiliser to our farmers faster. This has been welcomed by Fertilizer Australia, with their chief executive, Stephen Annells, saying they're 'committed to working alongside the government, ensuring that our collaborative efforts lead to sound biosecurity systems and timely access to fertiliser for Australian farmers'. As I've said many times, we do have enough fertiliser in the country or on the water, in terms of the current planting season, but we are adding to this. We want to provide as much certainty in uncertain times for our farmers as we possibly can. We've now secured six cargoes of around 209,000 tonnes of additional urea through our $7.5 billion fuel and fertiliser security facility, with our work to underwrite this fertiliser being called for and welcomed by the industry. The National Farmers' Federation said they're 'pleased to hear more fertiliser is on its way to Australian farmers' and 'every bit counts'. But, of course, we haven't had any clarity from those on the other side. The three parties over there of opposition have been saying, on one hand, they're welcoming the fact that we're getting more fertiliser. Some of them are saying we're not getting enough. Some of them are saying we shouldn't interfere in the market. They can't make up their minds whether getting more fertiliser for our farmers is a good thing or not. Well, we make no apologies for getting more fertiliser into Australia for our farmers. We want to make sure that our farmers have access— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll just get the minister to pause. Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 On relevance, this is a critically important issue for a lot of people, and it didn't talk about the opposition. Ms Plibersek 83M We asked a question about it when you could have. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Social Services is warned. The minister was talking about alternative policies. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The minister was specifically asked what the response to these measures has been, and that's what she's directing to now. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister should make sure her answer doesn't consist of opposition policy, and the manager should make sure he is listening alongside me. Ms COLLINS HWM I think my point is they don't have a policy or a view that's coherent. They can't decide whether enough fertiliser for our farmers is a good thing or not. We make no apologies for getting more fertiliser for our farmers or more fuel for our farmers. We're going to continue that hard work with our international trading partners, with Fertiliser Australia and with our farmers to make sure that we do everything that we can do to get as much fertiliser into this country as we possibly can, clearing a million tonnes of fertiliser since the war, and we'll continue to work for our farmers. Budget 57 14:37 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Minister for Housing. Does the minister count detached granny flats towards Labor's housing targets? If so, why won't Labor allow Australians who build them to access negative gearing? Isn't this just another example of Labor making up the rules as it goes, with toxic taxes that will mean fewer homes and higher rents? 14:37 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I'll just start with the why. We're a pro-supply government. We've got a challenge facing our country because, for 40 years, we haven't been building enough homes, and that's why we're building a better housing system. That includes the government building homes, something that was not done at all when those opposite were in office. I'm asked about the definition under the legislation of what is a new build. That is how the legislation works. I'll take the member to the budget papers. They're very clear on what does and doesn't satisfy the definition. Page 6 of the relevant— Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 I don't know what the interjections are. I'm answering the exact question I was asked. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister was asked a question of the budget. She's referring to budget papers. I ask everyone to calm down and just listen. If she's getting an answer, the member will want to hear the answer as well. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I take you to page 6 of the relevant budget fact sheet, which gives very clear examples of what is and isn't a new build. A 'newly constructed apartment bought off the plan' is a new build, a 'duplex constructed through a knockdown rebuild replacing a single freestanding house' is a new build; and a 'residential construction on previously vacant land' is a new build. It's also very clear about what doesn't meet the threshold: an 'established property that has recently been extended', a 'freestanding house constructed through a knockdown rebuild replacing an older, smaller freestanding house', a 'granny flat built adjacent to an established property that is not eligible for negative gearing'— Honourable members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 I could go on. It's actually in the budget papers, which, hopefully, those members have managed to familiarise themselves with. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Just pause for a moment. The minister is referring to budget papers for a direct question she was asked, and everyone is just yelling and screaming. You can't have it both ways if you ask a specific question and the minister is giving specific answers to the member who was entitled to ask her question and you don't like that answer. Everyone has just got to show some more restraint. I hope I've made myself clear. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Thank you, Speaker. I'm respectful of the member opposite who's asked this question and the question that she has brought before the parliament. But I think it is also fairly obvious, to all of us, the politics that are being played here. Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 Those opposite are doing everything that they can not to engage in the deep meaning of what our parliament has done this morning, and that is take a broken housing system— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Maranoa was on a warning. He'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Casey and the member for Moncrieff are also on warnings. The member for Maranoa then left the chamber. Ms O'NEIL 140590 The bill that the lower house passed this morning is about something really important not just to the people I represent and not just to the people that we represent but to the people that those opposite represent in parliament. Instead of coming into this parliament and engaging in the new opportunities that we are opening up for first home buyers around this country, they are trying to engage with everything but that. Now, they can play political parlour games. I've been in opposition. It's very frustrating. I understand. But I can tell the Australian people that, no matter what they say opposite, we will not be deterred from the task that is in front of us, and that is a housing market that has been breaking slowly but surely over a 40-year period. We have got homeownership rates around this country falling through the floor, yet those opposite will not come into the parliament and properly engage on what to do about it. Well, we are proud of the bill that has passed the parliament this morning—not just a level playing field for first home buyers but 75,000 rental households into a home of their own, and that's the opportunity they deserve. Fuel Security 58 14:42 Mr GREGG 315154 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How has the Albanese Labor government helped to ensure Australia's fuel security, and what policies will ensure fuel security into the future, and what policies would leave Australia more vulnerable to fuel shocks? 14:42 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question and for his work in the House, and I'm happy to tell the honourable member and the House that we currently have 48 days worth of petrol in Australia. On the day that Iran was bombed, we had 36 days, so we have increased the supply of petrol by 12 days. We have 36 days worth of diesel and 30 days worth of jet fuel, which are both more than we had on the day Iran was bombed. In fact, as we speak, across all fuel types we have 6.2 billion litres, which is just under one billion litres more than when Iran was first bombed. This has been achieved by the government working closely with industry, working with our trading partners in South-East Asia through the Prime Minister and Foreign minister and working closely across the board. Part of that work to ensure fuel supply and fuel security has been to provide factual, calm updates to the Australian people on a regular basis about our fuel situation. The honourable member asked me what policies would hurt that. Well, policies which didn't involve that calm, factual update to the Australian people would do that. The approach taken by all honourable members has not been the same as that of the government. For example, my shadow minister, the member for Wannon, said on 19 March: The deep concern we have now is that, come early April, mid-April, that's when we're really going to be looking at shortages. Concerning the Australian people, on 25 March, he said, 'Towards the end of April, we are likely to be looking at serious, serious shortages.' Not to be outdone, with April having come and gone with no shortages and no rationing, just a couple of weeks ago, on 20 April, he moved on and said: My deep concern … is … what it looks like for us in June … Moving on, no shortages, just putting the goalposts out further—I now rely on the member for Deakin to ask me a serious question about fuel supply because, when the news is good, the opposition is not interested. They are not patriots. They are partisans more interested in pointscoring than in constructive engagement. Our approach is to continue to work on fuel supply with our trading partners and to build in the budget a strategic reserve of fuel owned by the Australian people for the Australian people. That is opposed by those opposite. Also, we believe it's important to give Australians choices to diversify their transport so they can use electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles, because, for every 100,000 EVs in Australia, we avoid three days' worth of petrol use and diesel use. We are pleased that, for example, yesterday the sales figures showed 30 per cent of cars sold in May were electric or plug-in hybrid. This is huge and is supported by the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, which they would abolish, and by the electric vehicle tax cut, which they would abolish. In many cases, those EVs will be powered by home batteries—426,973 of them—which they would abolish. Cybersafety 58 14:45 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin My question is to the. Minister for Communications. It took 15 years to act on social media's harm to children. Parents are now worried about a new threat, attachment hacking. Children are increasingly spending their formative years talking to AI chatbots that simulate emotional intimacy, which can cause deep psychological harm and erode critical thinking. Will this be covered by the proposed digital duty of care or will the government extend its under-16 social media ban to sycophantic AI chatbots and companion apps? 14:46 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for her question and for her ongoing interest in and commitment to advocating in this really important space. Australian parents are understandably worried about the rise of AI and what it means for their kids and, in particular, for their teenagers. Chatbots and nudify apps are things that we just never had to deal with when we were growing up. Right now, all digital platforms—and that includes AI chatbots—must protect young Australians from online harm, and, if they don't, they face a fine of up to $49.5 million from the eSafety Commissioner. On top of that, we are restricting AI nudify apps and nudify tools, because there is absolutely no place for these abhorrent tools in Australia. I hope we can all agree with that. We have already seen one chatbot provider leave the country since we did this because of the high bar that we have set. The digital duty of care builds on our world-leading online safety work to minimise online harms and to hold big tech accountable. Last year, we delayed access to social media, as you mentioned, until the age of 16, with five million accounts deactivated so far. We've quadrupled the eSafety Commissioner's funding to ensure that they can enforce the law and to help Australians who face serious abuse online. The social media minimum age law deals with really specific harms that come from social media—in particular the big four. That's algorithms, disappearing messages, popularity metrics and endless feeds. Chatbots aren't social media. They're really antisocial media in that there's nothing social about them. So we're creating the minimum age for social media, and then the next step is to legislate the digital duty of care. Under the digital duty of care, AI chatbots will have to adopt safety-by-design principles in how they develop their tools from the start, and they will have to continue to have systems in place to protect young Australians from harm. So the short answer to your question is yes. If big tech companies want to do business in Australia, they will have to abide by our world-leading online safety laws. Workplace Relations 59 14:48 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for workers, and what are the threats to this progress? 14:48 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Adelaide for his question and his ongoing advocacy for Australian workers. Of course, this Labor government is absolutely committed to supporting Australian workers, and we have introduced significant reforms to get wages moving. Our government introduced same job, same pay laws so that workers' wages would not be undercut by labour hire. Because of these laws, more than 8,000 workers are receiving pay rises that they deserve for the work that they do. This government has also introduced new standards that ensure gig workers don't have to rely on tips to survive. The Albanese government has reinvigorated enterprise bargaining in a way that has seen millions of workers get decent pay increases, and we've legislated to protect penalty rates and overtime rates in the modern award safety net, ensuring that these workers' pay packets would not go backwards. We've advocated for a wage increase to the minimum award wages each and every year that we have been in government. Just this week we saw the Fair Work Commission hand down its decision, delivering a 4.75 per cent wage increase for modern-award-reliant workers. Importantly, there has been a six per cent boost to the national minimum wage. This means that the minimum wage has increased by 30 per cent since we came to office. This government is not only backing workers by getting wages moving; we're also backing them with a fairer tax system. The combination of our government's tax cuts in the budget means the average worker will benefit by up to $2,800 a year. I am asked about whether there are any threats to this progress. And, of course, there are. Not only did those on the opposite side vote against every single measure we brought into this parliament to get wages moving. We all remember, on the eve of the last election, when they came in here and voted against tax cuts for workers. They then took that policy to an election, saying that they wanted to increase taxes for those workers. Well, they never learn anything. They came into this parliament today, and they voted again against tax cuts for workers. They will not learn anything. It's only this Labor government that will stand up for workers, fight for their wages and reduce their taxes. Housing 59 14:51 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman My question is to the minister for Housing. Can the minister confirm the Albanese Labor government has acted as a guarantor for 51,000 noncitizens to buy their first home? 14:51 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham The five per cent deposit program is a program our government is incredibly proud of; 250,000 people around this country have the keys to their first home because our government backed in their aspiration. The member opposite asks about the role of migrants in this. Let me be really clear: temporary migrants to Australia are not eligible for this program. I just want to be really clear for the parliament about who is eligible: Australian citizens and permanent residents of our country. I don't want to be personal about the honourable member opposite, because I understand how tactics committees work, and I understand how that piece of paper ended up in his hands. But I just want to be really clear for Australians: permanent residents are not the cause of the challenges facing our country on housing, and any attempt to assert that they are is wrong. Those opposite can continue racing to the bottom against One Nation. But I'll tell you what: you can't 'out-One Nation' One Nation. You're never going to be Pauline Hanson. I think it's time that you accept it. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Bowman? Mr Pike 300120 Just on relevance—we weren't asking for a commentary around opposition political parties. We're asking for a yes or no. Is that figure correct? The SPEAKER 53517 Minister was asked a question about the home guarantee for 51,000 noncitizens and if that figure was accurate. She has been absolutely, directly relevant in talking about who is eligible. She did specify—and I think it's for every member to know—that she went through the categories of who's eligible and who's not and the type of person eligible. So she's answering your question and being directly relevant. I'll just ask her to return to the question, but I'm giving the minister a fair go and giving the member for Bowman a fair go as well. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I think we've clarified here that the people that the member opposite is talking about are permanent residents of our country. So let me say again that those opposite can point the finger and blame the problems facing our country on permanent residents. That is not the position of those of us on this side of the chamber. What we see is communities of people, many of whom have lived in our country for decades, who have paid into our healthcare system and who have paid into our aged-care system. You know who's got the problem here? It's those opposite, who want to take away the ability for these people to live as they should in our country. I want people to understand, especially our loved Chinese communities and our loved Indian communities around Australia, that what those opposite are talking about is a group of people who might have lived here for 30 years, and they are saying that they should not be eligible for aged care in our country. I want to just say one more thing, and then I'm going to come back to housing. Those opposite need to learn that what's heard in this chamber is not just heard in the electorate of Farrer. It's heard in the electorate of Chisholm. It's heard in the electorate of Hotham. It's heard in the electorate of Reid. I'd encourage them to be honest with the Australian people about where the challenges facing our country come from. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're just going to stop the yelling while the minister is on her feet. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Leader of the Opposition! This non-stop commentary is not helpful to the chamber. The minister has 10 seconds. Ms O'NEIL 140590 This is nothing but an embarrassing shroud for the fact that those opposite have not a single sensible thing to say about housing policy in our country, but it won't hold us back from providing more opportunity to the people we came here to represent. Early Childhood Education and Care 60 14:56 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening safety in early childhood education and care? 14:56 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the mellifluous member for. Moreton for her question—also known as the best singer in the Australian parliament, I'm informed, as well. There is nothing more important than the safety of our children. Over the last year, I've been very blunt that not enough has been done by governments, whether it's Labor governments or Liberal governments or state or federal governments, to keep our children safe in early education and care. A lot has happened in the last 12 months. Personal mobile phones are now banned in every centre across the country. CCTV is now being trialled in centres across the country. The Attorney-General is working with states and territories to strengthen working-with-children checks. A national register of every childcare worker is now up and running. Mandatory child safety training is now rolling out, and every childcare worker across the country has six months to do that training. I can inform the House that after three months 90 per cent of childcare workers have already done that training, and that's a good sign. Our childcare workers, our educators and our teachers are the best asset that we've got to keep our kids safe, and they are just as hurt, just as angry, just as sickened and just as broken as the rest of us by the revelations from last year, and the fact that 90 per cent have done that training within three months, I think, shows how seriously they're taking this. And it's not the end; it's just the start. The next tranche of safety training rolls out in August. I can also inform you that the legislation that we passed through this place last year is being used, and it's working. This is the legislation that gives us the power to cut funding off to centres that aren't up to scratch. I can inform the House now that six centres have shut, that 44 centres have suddenly fixed the safety and quality problems at those centres that existed for years but that they had refused to act to fix until this legislation was passed, and that others have now hit the deadline and, if they haven't hit the standard, have been issued with notices of intent by my department to suspend or to cancel their funding. I can also advise the House of more encouraging information. The percentage of childcare centres meeting the national quality and safety standards is now at the highest level ever, and the number of inspections by state regulators of childcare centres in the last 12 months is the highest it's ever been, and this is a good sign. It's an indication that things are changing for the better. But we're not done yet. There is a lot more work that needs to be done. The truth is that this work will never be fully completed, and I'll have more to say on that in the next few weeks. Defence: Water 61 14:59 Mr FARLEY 62329 Farrer My question is to the Minister for Defence. Secure and reliable water resources are fundamental to Australia's food security and our national defence capability. Has the Department of Defence provided any formal input into the review of the Water Act 2007, the 2026 Murray-Darling Basin Plan review and contributed to the development of the Australian national food security strategy, and does the minister consider water security a core defence capability for this nation? 15:00 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his inaugural question, and it is a very good question in terms of looking at those aspects of our nation which go to our national resilience, such as water security, seen through the lens of our national defence. The Defence Strategic Review that was released by the government in 2023 made clear that what we must do, in a way that we have really not done since the end of the Second World War, is look at the connection between our civil economy and our national security and look at ways in which those elements which go to our national resilience contribute to our national security. The point that the honourable member is making is a good one in the sense that, in any given scenario or contingency—water security, food security—how our civil economy works in the context of that contingency is completely fundamental to whether or not we are able to make our way through that contingency. To go back to the Second World War, this was an idea which was deeply understood, but the Defence Strategic Review made it clear that we really need to be exercising those national muscles again in terms of thinking about the future. That does go to the question of thinking about water security in the context of our national security, as it does in relation to food security. It is about, in a sense, thinking about defence as a whole-of-government effort. Again, that is an idea which is repeated in the National Defence Strategy that we released a month ago. We continue to work with all the departments and all the agencies around our government to look at the way in which they contribute to national defence, and that includes the departments responsible for water security. Medicare 61 15:02 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering more bulk-billing for Australians after a decade of cuts and neglect? 15:03 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh It is hard to find someone in this place who works harder than the member for Bendigo to ensure that her community gets the fullest benefit of our investments in a stronger Medicare. She campaigned for a Medicare urgent care clinic that has already seen 20,000 people in Bendigo, every single one of whom was fully bulk-billed. The year before that an endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic was opened in Bendigo, which has expanded and improved care options for women in that region. The longstanding Bendigo headspace will soon be upgraded to a better headspace Plus service so it can expand the range and the number of young people it can support. People in Bendigo have already filled three million cheaper medicines scripts because of our policies, including an additional 750,000 scripts that were completely free of charge. These investments are making a real difference, not just in Bendigo but across regional Australia, and the biggest difference is in bulk-billing. As the member said, bulk-billing was in freefall when we came to government because of a decade of cuts to Medicare, and that is why we tripled the bulk-billing incentive paid to GPs in 2023 for pensioners and concession card holders. It's why, last November, we extended bulk-billing incentives for the first time ever to all Australians. Those incentives paid to GPs are much higher in regional Australia than in the major cities—50 per cent higher, for example, in a city like Bendigo. So I'm delighted to say that our bulk-billing investments, backed in so hard by the member for Bendigo, have utterly transformed bulk-billing in her community. Before November, only two out of every 10 general practices in Bendigo were fully bulk-billing. That's now seven in 10—from two in 10 to seven in 10, in just a few months. The general bulk-billing rate in Bendigo is up more than 21 per cent since our first investments in 2023—from 68 per cent to 89 per cent. For people who don't have the benefit of a concession card, the increase in bulk-billing in Bendigo has been more than 30 per cent, thanks to our investment. More bulk-billing and cheaper medicines, at a time of real cost-of-living pressure, are obviously good for the hip pocket and obviously good for household budgets. But they also mean that more people in Bendigo are going to the doctor and filling their scripts when they need to, rather than when they feel they can afford to. And that is building a healthier Bendigo and a healthier Australia. Economy 62 15:06 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in a rare moment of honesty from the Albanese Labor government, the member for Forde confirmed Australians are worse off after four years of Labor, confirming: 'living standards have gone backwards in this country'. When will the Prime Minister show the same honesty and admit that his economic strategy has failed all Australians? 15:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. Our budget was aimed, clearly, at providing tax cuts for people, together with the wage increase that happened at the beginning of this week. That is how you lift living standards: by people being paid more and keeping more of what they earn. In addition to that, we are making a difference for people already, through the housing policies that we've put forward. Indeed, just last weekend, in the electorate of Dickson, Kathleen, a 65-year-old single mum from Arana Hills, who'd spent a year looking for a home and had been outbid, time and time again—this is what she said: 'It was really depressing to see a house you had your heart set on sell way over budget, only to reappear weeks later on the rental market.' But, last weekend, she finally got into her own home. In Ballarat North, Mark Williams, an auctioneer, spoke about an auction of a Ballarat North home that drew more than 50 people to the auction last weekend but not one investor put their hand up. Mark Williams, the auctioneer, said this: 'All the interested parties were owner-occupiers.' The home was sold to a first home buyer in his 30s. Mr Willcox 286535 Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 No. Order! The Prime Minister will pause. I'm not taking the member's point of order. Resume your seat. The question was barely within order. You were reflecting on a member pretty grievously. So resume your seat. By saying of someone 'a rare moment of honesty'—it's a deep reflection on members, which is unparliamentary. I allowed the question. Order! Reflecting on members is unparliamentary. The Prime Minister will continue. It was a broad question. Mr ALBANESE R36 They're against first home buyers. But I'll continue to give some examples. In Newcastle, in Tighes Hill— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Jesse Wilton, the listing agent, said this: 'We had a first home buyer, a young family and a young couple bidding on it, and it went to the first home buyer.' In Geelong it happened as well. Adam Natonewski, the selling agent, said this: The first-home buyer did win it by a knife's edge at the end. They just threw an extra $500 bid on top, and were the eventual purchasers. Guess what? If they were bidding versus an investor, the investor would know that they could go more than $500 more, because they'd have a taxpayer onside. That is the difference that it makes—the difference that we are already making to people getting an opportunity in life. The quote, of course—always worry about what they actually say, because the member for Forde's, who I was asked about, question was about the Liberals closing of the car industry. That is what his comment was about, because those opposite are against jobs, they're against living standards being improved, and they're against first home buyers. Taxation 62 15:10 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How will the Albanese Labor government's new tax reform package help more Australians achieve the dream of homeownership for future generations, and are there any impediments to this? 15:10 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I thank the honourable member for the question. He has been a longstanding champion for more investment in housing and better outcomes for housing, particularly for young people. This government believes that, if they work hard, all Australians should be able to save for and ultimately buy their own home. As former Liberal prime minister Robert Menzies clearly put it, a home provides one little piece of earth, with a house and a garden, which is ours, to which we can withdraw, in which we can be among friends and into which no stranger may come against our will. Unfortunately the tax system as it stands is not working for young people, and too many young Australians are locked out. I think it's fair to say that, for today's Liberals, young people truly are the forgotten Australians. I don't want to live in a country where our children can't afford to buy a home, and I know that the overwhelming number of Australians don't want to either. That's why the legislation that passed through the House today is so important. It tilts the tax system back in favour of young people, because when a first home buyer bids for a home, they shouldn't be bidding against an investor who is backed by the entire Australian tax system. We've placed changes to negative gearing and capital gains at the centre of this budget. We are abolishing negative gearing for established properties and replacing the 50 per cent capital gains exemption on nominal with taxing real gains, the original design of the system, because we know that government should not provide more support to someone buying their second, third or fifth house than someone buying their first. Treasury modelling suggests these changes will result in a shift in ownership from investors to owner-occupiers. Our changes will support around 75,000 Australians into homeownership over the next decade, and we can see that this is already working. First home buyers and owner-occupiers are already getting a leg up. Those on the other side of the chamber are the only people who seem to 'realise' there's a problem. They want to keep the disastrous Howard-Costello changes of 1999. These changes created deep structural flaws in our housing system that shut too many Australian families out of the market. When these changes were made, the cost of a house was roughly four times the average household income. It is now closer to eight, and it's time to act. As a result, the rates of homeownership of young people have plummeted. We're fixing the mistakes of the past. Those opposite can't let them go. The Liberal Party are the problem when it comes to unaffordable housing. They created the problem, and now they defend it. I encourage them, for once, to put aside the confected outrage, put the interests of Australian first and do the right thing. Support our budget and help Australians. Help thousands of Australians to realise the dream of owning their own home. Gambling Advertising 63 15:13 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah To the Prime Minister: following on from the member for Wentworth's question on Tuesday and the very vague answer received from the minister, to be very clear, will the government ban be true to the Murphy report and ban all inducements in gambling and gambling advertising to protect Australians from the predatory gambling industry? 15:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I refer to the minister's answer of this week, and I refer also to the measures that we've put before the Australian people. I went to the National Press Club and announced what our policies were, and I note that people then, when we came back into parliament, said that somehow that was hidden. It's a strange way to hide it—going to the National Press Club! That's what being accountable is all about. We're taking action. We're taking action when it comes to problem gambling, more than any government in Australian history has. With the next comprehensive level of reforms, we'll continue to engage, and I'll continue to engage with people on the crossbenches and across the parliament, as we have. Budget 63 15:14 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australians? Is there anything standing in the way? 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. Indeed, this has been a fortnight where the Labor government has once again been delivering real change, real change in the interests of Australians, identifying issues which are there and then coming up with real solutions to deal with them, such as strengthening Medicare after the decade of undermining from those opposite. This Sunday, I will have the opportunity to open in Queensland the 137th Medicare urgent care clinic. Those opposite called them a sugar hit. They opposed them. We will have 137 after this weekend all up and running. We've delivered cheaper medicines—the lowest prices since 2004. We've delivered, as well, the largest ever increase over the period of time that we have of bulk-billing right across the nation. On free TAFE, we're now well above 750,000 free TAFE places, which those opposite say is a waste. We backed—and we saw it this week—the fifth consecutive increase in the minimum wage, so that those battlers out there who need the minimum wage to be increased will get it. Workers— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moncrieff is on a warning. She's been yelling non-stop through this answer. So there are consequences for actions. She'll leave the chamber under 94(a). It doesn't matter what time in question time it is, if you're interjecting and you're on a warning, trust me, I will hear it. The member f or Moncrieff then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 They yell loudly when you speak about workers on the minimum wage getting a 4.75 per cent increase. Workers have received over $12,000—those people on the minimum wage—since we came to office. There has been over a 12 per cent real wage increase for Australia's lowest paid workers. Those opposite said low wages were a key feature of their economic architecture. We've delivered five now—five income tax cuts. Those opposite have opposed all of them, and they did it again today. There's nowhere where the differences between the two sides of this chamber are more exemplified than with our $47 billion Homes for Australia plan. We have a plan of reform. The large tax reform takes account of the fact that young people are simply being priced out of the housing market and gives them a fair crack at owning their own home. Those opposite want to abolish the HAFF, abolish Help to Buy, reintroduce tax incentives— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 for property investors rather than homeowners. We on this side stand for delivering real change. Those opposite are just defined by what they are against. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 64 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 36 of 2025-26 64 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's report No. 36 of 2025-26 entitled Australian National University financial management: Australian National University. Document made a parliamentary paper. COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations Select Committee 64 Appointment 64 15:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That the amended resolution of appointment for the House Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations be further amended to replace paragraph (16) with the following: "(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders." Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Presentation 64 15:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 64 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 64 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The impact of the government's budget of broken promises and toxic taxes on small businesses and Australian farmers. 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— 15:20 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It's now official. Our country is being run by a jellyfish caucus. The modern Labor Party has become a blubbering mess and is a political party which has simply lost its spine. Jellyfish are defined by their lack of brains, their lack of bones and their lack of heart. They are spineless and they are gutless, without the brains to think for themselves, drifting along on the ocean currents. Now, does that sound familiar? We have a jellyfish caucus drifting along the opinion polls, focus groups and the will of an untrustworthy prime minister. They don't even have the guts to be upfront with the Australian people. Today the Labor Party guillotined debate on its budget of broken promises after only 24 members of the jellyfish caucus actually spoke on the second reading of the bill. Government members interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ You can speak now! You could have spoken earlier. You gagged your own debate. Twenty-four members of the jellyfish caucus spoke on their own bill. Where were the rest of them? If these changes were that good, if they were so good, you'd think they'd all be lining up to come and talk about them. They'd be making these bold statements about their changes, and they'd cut them up into little Instagram posts and be promoting them on social media. But only 24 turned up. The jellyfish caucus went missing in action. They were hiding in their offices. But they can't hide from the Australian people forever. There's another thing the modern Labor Party, this jellyfish caucus, has in common with its spineless ocean soulmates. Jellyfish have long tentacles, and they can sting without warning. That sums up this budget—sneaking up on small-business owners, sneaking up on farmers, sneaking up on retirees, sneaking up on veterans and stinging them with more taxes. The jellyfish caucus didn't have the spine, the brains or the guts to take these changes to the Australian people at an election. This goes to the very core of why 66 per cent of Australians believe the country is heading the wrong direction. The latest mood-of-the-nation survey is a damning indictment of this government. After four years of the Albanese government, Australians are worse off, and they know our country is heading the wrong direction. The most common thing I'm hearing on the ground is this very simple message: Australians want their country back. They are angry, they are frustrated and they have been left behind by a prime minister who promised to govern for all Australians. This prime minister, as we know, is big on promises but very short on delivery. Unlike the Prime Minister, I actually get out and talk to a lot of people in regional Australia. More importantly, I listen to their concerns. I listen to our farmers. Our farmers are world class. One of the reasons our farmers are world class is they know how to manage risk. They manage risk, like seasonal conditions. They manage risk, like commodity prices. More recently, they manage risk around fuel and fertiliser prices. But how on earth are our world-class Australian farming families meant to manage the risk of a deceptive Labor Party—a party that misleads constantly, is loose with the truth, fabricates facts and breaks its promises? In each electorate, how are farmers meant to manage the risk of Labor candidates who are simply allergic to telling the truth, who can't be honest with the Australian people and a prime minister who says 12 months after the election that he simply changed his mind? He just changed his mind about the taxes he promised he wouldn't introduce. He promised not once, not twice, not three or four times. In his own words, he promised 50 times no changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax and trusts. That is not how this great Australian democracy is meant to work. The Prime Minister has simply trashed our democracy with his catalogue of broken promises in this budget. I've had the good fortune of being through several elections to come to this place. Let me just explain to some of the class of 2025 opposite how it normally works. What happens in an election campaign, normally, is that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals, the Greens and Independents have policies. They make commitments. They make promises, and then the Australian people vote on them. That's how our democracy has traditionally worked. Call me old-fashioned, but that is how democracies have tended to work in this place in recent years—until this election. Who could possibly believe another word from this Prime Minister as we lead up to next election? The budget confirmed the great deceit at the heart of this government. This is a government which was simply elected on a foundation of deceit, broken promises and trickery. After the federal election in May last year, the Prime Minister said: We have a mandate for what we took to the Australian people. That is our mandate. I agree with him. I agree with the Prime Minister. He had a mandate for what he took to the Australian people. He's admitted in his own words that he doesn't have a mandate for the broken promises in this budget. And every one of those members opposite knows it. Every member opposite knows it. We watch them in question time and, as soon as the Prime Minister starts to stumble on the details and doesn't know his own budget, the heads go down, the phones come out and they say, 'My God, I wish he'd just stop talking.' And that's what the Australian people are saying. The Australian people are saying, 'My God, I wish he'd just stop talking.' Every time he talks, he breaks another promise. The Prime Minister admitted in his own words he does not have a mandate for the broken promises and higher taxes announced in this federal budget. Now the Prime Minister also told Australians—these words will hang around this prime minister's neck like an albatross all the way to next election. Mr CHESTER IPZ I didn't even mean that one. I didn't even mean that as a dad joke. An albatross! The interjections are disorderly, Deputy Speaker Claydon. The Prime Minister told Australians: My word is my bond. And it gets better: 'I believe when you go to an election and you make commitments you should stick to them. My word is my bond.' Wow, Prime Minister! He also said, 'I will lead a government that keeps its promises.' Ms Mascarenhas interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ Louder! I can't hear you. Get excited. Let me know what you're really saying. Why would any Australian believe a single word he says after a budget of broken promises and higher taxes? Why would any Australian believe your prime minister when he's just delivered a budget of broken promises and higher taxes and every member opposite campaigned on the same broken promises? I don't recall any one of you opposite coming out and saying— Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Enough interjections from members on my right. I've had enough. Member for Gippsland, direct your comments through the chair and don't engage with that, please. I asked them to stop. I don't expect any more. Mr CHESTER IPZ I'm fine, thank you, Deputy Speaker Claydon. I appreciate the encouragement. Thank you. Why would any of those opposite think they can go back to their constituency at the next election and say: 'Trust the Prime Minister. He's a man of his word. His word is his bond.' You have fundamentally broken the trust of the Australian people. Those opposite have fundamentally broken the trust of the Australian people and they know it. They are waiting out there for every one of you with baseball bats, and they can't wait to have the opportunity to let you know what they think of this prime minister and his broken promises. Why can't this prime minister just do the honest thing with the Australian people and take his proposed changes to the next election, like every other prime minister in history has done? I'm going to finish where I started, because it's now obvious to every Australian that this prime minister never had any intention of keeping that promise, and it's because he leads a spineless, jellyfish caucus that doesn't have the guts to tell the truth to the Australian people. They do not have the guts to tell the truth to the Australian people before an election and stand on their record and try and get elected. They think Australians will forget about those broken promises and toxic taxes. But they are wrong, because on this side of the House we'll continue to stand up for the rights of small business owners, we'll back our farmers and we'll support aspiration among young people and Australian families. Only a coalition will deliver the policies that will improve our standard of living and restore our way of life, because Australia is worth fighting for. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm just going to remind everybody in this House that words matter. Robust debate is very welcome in this chamber, but you should think very carefully about the words you use, particularly when directed towards each other. There is a code of conduct in this House, and I think we all should reflect on that a little bit. 15:31 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I rise today because I am proud to speak about the Albanese Labor government and I'm proud to speak about the work that our small businesses and our farmers do across this country. I know the member for Gippsland well. Our electorates border each other. We both live in coastal communities. And I understand his reference to jellyfish. But perhaps those opposite need to have a think about what their analogy looks like. For me, it's sunfish: no, drive, no direction and completely dense—no idea, because so many of them don't actually come from small business backgrounds. My parents run a main street business. My husband and I run a small trade business, and we service our local community, like the member for Macquarie, the member for Paterson, the member for Parramatta and many more across this caucus who have all run their own small businesses. I am a representative of a regional electorate, and I get out and I talk to my small businesses. I've just attended four small business awards nights, recognising small businesses across my large regional communities. All of them are innovative. They do amazing things in our local communities, and the most important thing they do is employ local people and back community groups and events, each and every single day. I know how important farming is to our regional communities. I know that each and every day we sit here we think about how we can support small businesses, how we can do that with our own dollars and how we can do that with policy as well. On this side of the House we're not just about announcements. We want to see what the outcomes are. We're not about the headlines. We want to know what the delivery is, and that's exactly what we're doing. We're delivering for businesses, for farmers, for regional Australia, because we want our small businesses and our farms to thrive. We want to help with cost-of-living challenges. We want young Australians to be able to own their own home. We want young Australians in particular to grow up in the regions, to stay in the regions they grew up with, to raise their own families in the regions they grew up with and to actually get tertiary education, whether through TAFE or universities, in the regional communities they know and love. That's what we on this side of the House are delivering. If those opposite really cared they would stop with scare campaigns and focus on the facts here: the fact that CGT changes start from 1 July 2027 and apply only to gains made after that date, not historic gains; the fact that there are existing generous exemptions for small businesses and farms in our CGT legislation; and the fact that our ABS data shows that nine out of 10 businesses in ag, forestry, fishing and across our small business sector will not be impacted by any of the changes in our CGT legislation. These concessions now mean that the capital gain from selling an eligible small business or farm can be further reduced by half or even disregarded altogether, because there are four very generous existing small-business CGT exemptions. If those opposite were serious about talking with small businesses, they would know that there are already four very generous existing CGT exemptions because we want small businesses to thrive. They exist in our current tax legislation because we want to see more people getting into small businesses. We're maintaining those exemptions. We're supporting small businesses while still making the necessary reforms to rebalance our housing markets. We want to see the next generation enjoy the same dream of homeownership that many generations before them experienced. Those opposite would have farmers believe that we are coming after their trusts. In reality, our government has already recognised the importance of that and clearly exempted them from this policy. Farm income earned by trust is an exemption under this legislation. The government has proved time and time again that we are the party that supports farmers and small businesses and, not only that, but that listens. We understand and we will make the changes necessary to make sure our policy is right. We're delivering tax cuts for 13 million Australians. We're delivering a simpler system, a fairer system, that is pro worker, pro aspiration, pro investment. We want to look after our Australians who take that risk every single day and back them and their ingenuity. Our farmers, as I said, are the backbone of our country. They're resilient. They're productive. They are absolutely world class. Under this government, agriculture is going from strength to strength. Since we came to government, we've delivered record investments in ag, and we are continuing to back people who produce our food while making our tax system fairer and more sustainable. Since July 2022, we've invested over $1.3 billion in rural support and resilience funding, with $980 million spent to directly support producers, underscoring our government's commitment to supporting farmers, particularly as they face challenges. This is year-round support to help farmers who face hardship, including concessional loans. We've added $1 billion to the Regional Investment Corporation. Earlier this year, our government opened the new drought hardship loan for farmers impacted by prolonged drought. Australian ag has achieved record results under our government—more jobs and more are happening across regional economies in the country. We've boosted biosecurity frontline workers because we need to be able to engage swiftly with new and emerging threats. We've expanded opportunities for farmers and producers to export world-class products on the international stage. We've delivered practical investments to ensure our farmers and producers can confidently face the changing climate we have. Forecasts show our farm gate production value remains on track to exceed $100 billion this financial year, which is four years ahead of the industry's 2030 target. When we combine that with fisheries and forestry, the value is forecast to reach $110 billion in the 2025-26 year. We've been upfront that this year's budget would have a focus on addressing inflation, productivity and global uncertainty. We know each of these challenges has an impact on farmers and producers, which is why it is so important to do something. We've taken steps to shield our farmers and producers from the impact of challenges from the conflict in the Middle East, and the budget will help farmers and producers through our $7.5 billion establishment of the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility and $3 billion to establish a government owned fuel security reserve of around a billion litres. We're making the instant asset write-off permanent. We're permanently introducing a two-year loss carry back for businesses with up to $1 billion in turnover, we're funding the CSIRO and the Australian centre for disease protection, which supports important biosecurity testing capability. Our government will not stop backing farmers and producers, and this budget demonstrates that once again. We're delivering for small businesses too, because, as I said, we know that they're the heart of so many of our regional communities. They're even the heart of our metropolitan communities. From Sydney to Perth and Bundy to Bega, Australian small businesses create jobs. They support families and they help shape our regions and our cities. That's why our government is backing it with a record-high 2.7 million small businesses who are now off the ground and thriving around the country. Even with global challenges in recent years, Australian small businesses continue to show strength and resilience, with more than 180,000 additional small businesses in operation since July 2022. These small businesses employ 5.2 million people and contribute around $600 billion to our nation's economy every single year. We're focused on continuing to back them, to start to grow and to build resilience, and we're doing this through a range of measures: making that instant asset write-off permanent; making the two-year-loss carry back permanent; introducing loss refundability for start-ups; having tax cuts for sole traders; and having the new $250 working Australians tax offset. We're supporting small-business owners with additional funding through mental health and wellbeing support and targeted temporary relief for fuel pressures on small businesses. We're making it easier for start-ups to access funding and we're incentivising research and development investments. We're cutting red tape, we're simplifying rules, we're lowering compliance costs, we're supporting the uptake of digital technologies and we're making it easier for small business to access workers with the right skills. And we're doing all of this because our story—the Australian story—is a story of a nation building, of aspiration and of giving back. They say we're hurting farmers and small businesses. They say we're taxing farms. None of that is true. Our government is delivering tax cuts, helping more Australians realise the dream of homeownership, supporting investment and innovation through the most significant tax reforms in more than a quarter of a century. I know it's radical, but where I live people support small businesses, and we are going to continue to do that. Those opposite talk a big game, but do you know what? When it comes to it, none of them know how to run small businesses. That's what this side of the house do, and we'll continue to back them. 15:41 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee With the greatest respect to my colleague the member for Gippsland, I think the text of this motion might be a little too kind to the Albanese Labor government. Labor's budget is worse than broken promises and toxic taxes. It exposes the 25 May election as a hoax, a sham. Small businesses and farmers are the primary victims of Labor's election hoax. You see, since federation, the Nationals and Liberals have been the natural parties of government in coalition. That is a statistical fact. The Prime Minister knows it because he and his Labor colleagues covet the mantle of Labor being the natural party of government. Labor, on the other hand, are a fraud on the Australian people, taking a policy platform to the May 2025 election that had nothing to do with the real policy platform of socialism that we, small businesses and farmers have seen in the May budget. Labor's shock budget hits capital gains, negative gearing and trusts in ways they promised fervently before the election they would not do. I think it was 50 times. How many times do you need to be told, media? Labor have done more than rewrite the electoral playbook—they have thrown it out, burnt it on a pyre of all their other broken promises. Labor went to an election with a policy platform that was a complete fabrication, and small-business owners, farmers, self-funded retirees and young Australians are feeling the brunt. Let me focus on regional Australians. Take, for instance, Rewiring the Nation. We saw the factual gymnastics before the budget that climate related spending would reduce, yet spending in net zero continues at speed in the budget papers and the cost of transmission line projects keeps going up and up. Consequently, so will every Australian's power bill—everybody in this chamber, everybody across Australia. This is one big reason communities like Mallee don't want transmission lines, yet Labor would prefer foisting transmission lines and associated energy eyesores in coalition electorates rather than their own. I know that may shock this side of the House, but it just appears to be the facts. The recent renewable energy zone—so-called—issued by the Victorian Labor government, recently fastidiously went out of its way to exclude the federal electorates of Bendigo and Ballarat. I wonder why that would be! It is plain as the nose on your face—another sham. Meanwhile, they're ripping the funding for Mallee communities out of the budget papers. It is shameful. But the other big reasons these projects are blowing out, these 'big builds', as they're called in Victoria, is Labor's cosy relationship with the CFMEU. Labor's plan to be the natural party of government is because they would be the only form of government possible, a bit like China—eliminate all the competition, tell fairytales at elections and in budgets, portray your opponents as holding positions they actually don't and blabber nonsense in the House in front of TV cameras on social media and hoodwink the electorate. It's called gaslighting the good people of Australia. In Prime Minister Albanese's natural-party-of-government dystopia, unions have their fingers in all the pies. Nothing progresses without their say so and a heavy amount of government subsidies to boot. Small businesses will go by the wayside because the union movement perceives small businesses as enemies—they won't unionise a small-business workforce. It's much easier to crush small businesses and have big, unionised business take its place and get a sweetheart union deal that supports the Labor Party all the way to the bank. Sorry, I mean all the way to the election. Take the construction code, for instance, making it hard for aspiring homeowners and small businesses alike to establish and grow. The construction code now runs to 2,000 pages. We on this side of the house have pledged to slash it back to 200 pages. That is called cutting red tape. Consider Labor's $77 billion tax grab, which they claim in large part is to help young people buy a house. What a load of terminological inexactitude. 15:46 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie I am glad that the member for Gippsland has given me the opportunity to talk about the two backbones of not only our economy but our country—small business and farmers. The government knows just how important small business and Australian farmers to our economy, our communities and our national success. Ms COMER 316551 I'd also ask the member for Gippsland to stop interjecting at me, considering I didn't do it to him during his direction. The reality is that this government is focused on helping Australians with the cost of living while building a stronger economy for our future, and our budget proves it. The government understands just how vital it is that we back small businesses that employ millions of Australians and support the industries that keep our nation moving. In Petrie, I speak with small-business owners every week. They tell me about the rising costs, workforce shortages, energy prices and challenges of operating in a changing economy. They want practical support, and that is exactly what this government is delivering. This budget provides tax relief for every Australian taxpayer. That means more money in peoples' pockets and more customers walking through the doors of local businesses. It continues our investments into skills and training, ensuring businesses can find the workers they need. It supports apprentices with free TAFE, which is encouraging workforce participation, and it is helping address one of the biggest concerns raised by employers across the country. Importantly, it continues our work to ease cost-of-living pressures through cheaper medicines, energy bill relief and a stronger Medicare system. When families have more financial stability, local businesses benefit too. This government is also directly supporting small businesses by making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent from next year so small businesses have the confidence to invest in themselves. This will make a world of difference for the thousands of small businesses in my community. It means more certainty, more cashflow and less compliance costs. Small businesses are the engine room of our economy. They sponsor our local sporting clubs, employ local people and help build the character of our communities. Whether it's a family owned cafe, a local tradie, a retailer or a manufacturer, they need a government that is focused on helping them grow and succeed, and that is exactly what we're doing through our investments in skills, infrastructure and economic opportunity. Australian agriculture is one of our nation's great success stories. Whilst we don't have many farmers in the electorate of Petrie, the vital work our Aussie farmers do benefits every member of the community. Our farmers feed our nation, contribute billions to exports and support regional communities right across the country. This government recognises that, and we'll continue to always support our farmers. We continue to invest in agricultural productivity, biosecurity and export opportunities. This government, led by the amazing work of the trade minister, Senator Farrell, has opened Australia's export markets across the world, including the new European Union trade agreement, which means consumers all across the globe will be able to enjoy some of the best-quality produce in the world provided by our farmers—including Tasmanian farmers. We understand that farmers face real challenges, from natural disasters to global market volatility. That is why our focus is on practical support and long-term resilience rather than cheap political point scoring. Strong agriculture requires strong infrastructure, strong export markets, strong workforce participation and strong environmental stewardship. Australian farmers have shown incredible resilience through floods, droughts and global disruptions. Our role as a government is to ensure they have the tools, supports and market access they need to continue thriving and contributing to Australia's economic success. The choice before Australia is not between supporting families and supporting businesses, or between helping communities and growing the economy; the choice is whether to build an economy that works for everyone, and that is what this government is doing. The budget recognises that economic strength comes from investing in people, supporting businesses, backing Australian industry and creating opportunities for future generations. 15:51 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson This budget is big-spending, high-taxing and full of broken promises. This budget is an attack on our farmers. Are there any farmers among those opposite? Have any of those opposite actually been to a farm? Oh, this is tough! Have any of those opposite driven past a farm? Have any of those opposite driven past, or known anyone who's driven past a farm? Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Dawson, I did have this discussion earlier on. Enough of the interjections! I am asking for comments to be directed through the chair. This is not a game show. Mr WILLCOX 286535 I take your advice, thank you. I've done that one before, but thanks for that. I'm a proud third generation farmer, and I will just explain to those opposite what farming is all about. I'll go back to my mother. Mr Holzberger 88411 Tomato farmer! Mr WILLCOX 286535 A tomato farmer—that's right! Thank you, the member for Forde. It's good to see you back out of the freezer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Forde! Mr WILLCOX 286535 My mother used to get up very early in the morning and make our lunches and breakfasts, and then she used to go over into the shed and pack fruit. She would work all day and then, for afternoon tea break, come home and make sure we kids got some afternoon tea. Then she'd go back and pack fruit. Then, after work, she'd come home, cook everyone dinner and clean up. Then, after we kids went to bed, she used to actually have to go into the office and do the bookwork. That is how hard it is on farms. That is how hard the farmers work. My father was the same. He was out working the fields from daylight to dusk. While they were doing that and developing the business, they never had any extra money to put into super. The farm was their super. But now, with these new changes that the government has just brought in, people like my parents won't have that same opportunity, because the capital gains will then tax them out of existence. This is simply not fair. Those opposite just cannot get away with this. But I can understand, because of my questions earlier, that the reason this has happened— Mr Holzberger 88411 You're just making it up—like what you said I said today! Mr WILLCOX 286535 Again, the member for Forde's very, very helpful, isn't he! Check the tape. Those opposite just don't get it because they've never ever had to do it. What is the reason for all these extra taxes? It's Labor's addiction to spending—$77 billion more of taxation in this high-taxing, high-spending budget. What about small business, the backbone of the nation? Well, they've taken on a new unwanted shareholder, and he's got a 47 per cent stake claim in their business. And let me tell you, the Prime Minister is not wanted in these small businesses. He's unreliable, he's dishonest, and he's certainly not required. Small business is so important to the whole of Australia. It's the self-starters. It's where big business gets started. It's so, so important, and this side of the House will back our small businesses each and every day. When the Prime Minister said, 50 times, I might add, that there would be no new taxes, what about the death tax that they're bringing in? The Albanese Labor government want to tax people from the cradle to the grave. It is just ridiculous. And what did they do? They buried it in the budget papers. It's not called a death tax; it's an inheritance tax. What about the promise of the new taxes? There are so many taxes now, and this is after being promised no new taxes. There are changes to the capital gains tax, negative gearing and trusts. Like I said before, there's a death tax. But we have a plan on this side of the House. The coalition will axe all the toxic taxes that have just been passed because we understand that, when the government taxes something, you get less of it—less housing, less saving, less investment, less small business and less farming. It's less aspiration and less of the Australia that we love. This is a choice before the House—a government that takes or an opposition that builds, a government that hides taxes or a coalition that creates opportunities. This government has spent all its political capital, and they are bankrupt of vision. It's time that they pay the price. And, let me tell you, Australians will make the Albanese Labor government pay the price. 15:56 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner When Labor came to office in this place, we didn't inherit a clean slate. We inherited an absolute mess: a trillion dollars of coalition debt, huge deficits, inflation biting and real wages going backwards. That was the coalition's legacy. And that is what those opposite—a few less are here, actually—left behind. And you know what their response was when we started cleaning it up? They voted against us every single time. Labor got to work because that is what Labor does. We recognised that people were under real pressure, and we took action. Labor has delivered the most significant tax reforms in more than a quarter of a century. It's not tinkering, and it's not talking; it's the most substantial overhaul of our taxation system in a generation, and we've done it while managing the budget responsibly, strengthening Medicare and helping with the cost of living at the same time. In health, in housing, in wages and in tax—in every single area that matters to a family who is sitting around a kitchen table—we acted. We have delivered tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, not just for the top end of town or big donors but for every worker who gets up every single morning and does their job. They are the ones who deserve to earn more and keep more of what they earn. On top of that, we today have passed legislation for the $250 working Australians tax offset as well as the $1,000 instant tax deduction, because workers deserve a fair go in the taxation system. That is combined with three rounds of tax cuts. The average Australian worker will be $2,800 better off under this Labor government. We have made medicines cheaper. We have invested in bulk-billing. We have made Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of our healthcare system, so, when your kids need care, you can get it without worrying about the cost. We are tackling housing, with over $47 billion in our Homes for Australia Plan, supporting 75,000 more Australians into homeownership and enabling tens of thousands more new homes to be built. We've halved the fuel excise because we know that, when you fill up at the tank to get to work, every cent counts. And we have backed Australian workers every single Annual Wage Review, five years in a row. That's five years of standing up and saying that workers deserve a real wage increase. The result is that the minimum wage has gone up 30 per cent since we took office. For the first time in this country's history, the national minimum wage will be above $1,000 a week. Let's be honest about who's fighting us every single step of the way: those opposite, the same people who left us with a trillion dollars of debt, the same people who at the last election wanted to increase taxes on ordinary working Australians. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. And what was that to pay for? It was to pay for taxpayer-funded lunches for bosses and nuclear reactors that would push power prices up, not down. They have opposed our tax cuts, they have opposed our wage rises and they have opposed the very cost-of-living measures that are putting money back in people's pockets right now. You have to ask yourself why. Why would they do this? And the answer is so simple: they will never, ever be on the side of hardworking Australians. They never will be, because they are more interested in their politics than in your family. They are more focused on themselves than on cost of living. They are divided, they are dangerous, and it will be everyday Australians who pay for their dysfunction. We are a government that is on the side of working Australians. This government was elected to make life better for ordinary working people, and not one day has passed when we haven't been doing exactly that. We are focused on cost of living and delivering for them. Those opposite are focused only on themselves. 16:01 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne The Albanese government taxes aspiration. This side backs aspiration. The Albanese government told Australians one thing before the election and is doing something completely different afterwards. The Prime Minister promised there would be no changes to negative gearing, and he promised there would be no changes to capital gains tax. Australians were assured that these policies were safe—'for the 50th time'. Now those promises have been abandoned. This is a Labor budget of broken promises and toxic taxes. All the spit and polish in the world cannot make it shine. The Treasurer says Labor's tax reform is good for the economy. The problem is that the people who actually create wealth in this country say otherwise. When you tax investment you get less investment, and when you tax risk-taking you get less risk-taking. That is not politics; that is economics. Yet this government wants Australians to believe we can become more prosperous by taxing investment, enterprise and aspiration more heavily. Well, the people who will feel the impact most are not multinational corporations. They are family farms, they are small businesses, they are family enterprises that have spent decades building something for the next generation. Across regional Australia, trusts are not an exotic tax arrangement. They are the legal structures used by farming families, tradies, retailers, transport operators and professional businesses to manage risk, plan succession and keep businesses in family hands. Farmers understand something that this government does not: a farm is not a tax structure; it's a family enterprise built over generations. Trusts provide flexibility to manage risk and transition a business from parents to children. Yet Labor sees those structures and sees only a source of revenue. The National Farmers' Federation and many farming groups have warned about the impact these changes could have on family farm succession and investment decisions. Small business groups have similarly warned about the uncertainty these measures create at a time when business confidence is already fragile. What is perhaps most extraordinary is that this week the government has struggled to answer basic questions about its own trust changes. Ministers have been unable to clearly explain how the policy will operate in practice or how it will affect testamentary trusts, donor trusts and family enterprises. Labor wants you to pay but can't explain the way. If the government cannot explain the detail of a tax policy, how can Australians have confidence that the policy has been properly thought through? This looks increasingly like a government making tax policy on the run, a government announcing taxes first and working out the consequences later. History tells us that, when governments do that, small businesses and farmers usually end up paying the price. The most extraordinary thing about these taxes is that they are not being introduced because the government lacks revenue. Australians are already paying more tax than ever before. Bracket creep is delivering billions. Inflation is delivering billions. According to the budget papers, Australians will pay around $77 billion more in tax. Yet debt continues to rise, spending continues to rise and deficits remain. Historically, governments use revenue windfalls to repair the budget. This government has treated them as an invitation to spend more. These taxes are not being driven by economic necessity; they are being driven by a government that has become addicted to spending and now needs higher taxes to sustain it. While the Treasurer talks about fairness, ordinary Australians are asking fair questions. Leigh from Tinonee asks: 'What have I done to justify being penalised by this treasurer and this government? All I have done is save and work.' This budget was sold as a budget about fairness. It is increasingly being revealed as a budget of broken promises. A government that promised not to change negative gearing or capital gains tax is changing both. A government that claims to support small business is making it harder for small businesses to invest. A government that claims to support farming families is creating uncertainty around the structures many farming families rely upon to pass their businesses to the next generation. The coalition takes a different view. We believe small business should be rewarded for taking risks. We believe families should be able to build wealth and pass opportunities to the next generation, because a stronger Australia is not built on taxing aspiration; it's built on backing aspiration and cutting Labor's toxic taxes. 16:06 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt This is a responsible budget—one focused on relief, resilience and reform. This approach matters because we are governing in a difficult global environment. Conflict in the Middle East has pushed up oil prices, disrupted supply chains and placed immense pressure on household budgets. In my community, families are feeling the pinch every single time they fill up the car, pay their bills or do their weekly grocery shop. That is why this budget delivers real cost-of-living relief. It delivers tax relief for every Australian taxpayer. The new working Australians tax offset will provide up to $250 for working Australians from 2027-28, alongside a $1,000 instant tax deduction to simplify tax time and provide immediate practical support. For everyday Australians in my electorate of Holt, it deeply matters. This budget also backs the small businesses that keep our communities moving. Australia's 2.7 million small businesses are the backbone of our economy. That is why the government is delivering $3.5 billion in new business tax relief. We're making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, giving small businesses more certainty when investing in equipment, technology and tools. We are also introducing a permanent two-year loss carry-back, helping businesses bounce back faster and withstand unexpected volatility. For startups and innovators, loss refundability will help new businesses grow in their first two years. These measures back the people who back our community, because when small businesses do well our whole community thrives. We are backing Australian farmers. We are strengthening biosecurity, opening new trade opportunities, investing in fuel and fertiliser security, and supporting producers through hardship. That same principle guides our approach to housing. We know that housing remains one of the biggest pressures Australians are facing. Too many young people are working hard, saving and doing everything right only to feel the dream of owning a home slipping further away. That is why our government is reforming the system to support more first home buyers and rapidly increase housing supply. We know it isn't enough to simply announce more homes. We must build the essential infrastructure to make those homes a reality. That's why this budget commits $2 billion through the Local Infrastructure Fund to deliver the roads, water, power and sewerage required for new developments. Health care is another central pillar of this budget. The government is investing an additional $25 billion over five years into our public hospitals. We are also making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of our healthcare system. This means more families can access care when they need it without spending hours waiting in a busy emergency department. On this side of the House, we are easing cost-of-living pressures, strengthening Medicare and building more homes. But, from those opposite, we've heard no serious plans—just uncosted ideas, detail-free cuts and division. The clearest example was the opposition leader's proposal to deny permanent residents access to the NDIS and 17 support services. Let's be clear who they are targeting. These people are not strangers. They work here, pay taxes, raise families and enrich our communities. In Holt, they are nurses, aged-care workers, teachers and tradies, small-business owners and volunteers. Many have lived here for years. I know this story because this is my story. I came here as a very proud migrant, and I know their pride and sacrifices and the contribution migrant families bring to Australia. They do not weaken our nation; they strengthen it. To target them for a cheap political gain is not leadership; it is division. And it has no place in our country, while those opposite rely on divisive scare campaigns and desperate attempts to chase One Nation politics. 16:11 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper We, on this side of the floor, know that, if you tax something more heavily, you get less of it. This Labor government has decided to take aim at aspiration, ambition and Australian values. Are those the things that we really want less of in our nation? We need our nation to prosper. They also appear arrogant enough to believe that the promises made prior to an election can be arbitrarily broken with the flick of a pen and that Aussies should thank them for it, because let's be clear: no-one voted for these taxes. Before the election, the Prime Minister stated, more than 50 times, he would not introduce them. So much for 'my word is my bond'! In the pages of this budget, we see a desperate Treasurer at the helm of a sinking ship that's sailing on a sea of broken promises—and I should say 'a pirate ship', because Labor is pillaging the pockets of millions of hardworking Australians because it cannot mention the nation's finances. And the hardest hit by this pirate Treasurer parading as an intergenerational Robin Hood are our small-business owners and our generational farmers—the backbone of our economy and the largest employers in regional Australia. They're the ones that take the risks, and train and employ our young people, and, more importantly, produce things—produce things for their communities and this nation. But the government is reaching into their tills and taking a 47 per cent stake claim. All those unflattering memes of the PM and his Treasurer alongside small-business owners have flooded our social media pages, and they paint a very clear picture: they've done none of the work and taken none of the risk, but they'll take half of what you earn in the end. And, like pirates, they're taking something that they haven't earned because they saw the opportunity to do so and just because the lower house has the numbers on their ship to do so with disturbing ease. It's no wonder that Australia is now in the unenviable position of having more than 50 per cent of voters reliant on government as their main income, because why would you take a punt? Why would you get out there and risk everything? Creating, managing and growing a small business or farming enterprise is hard. I can say this from personal experience, having run a business for 18 years before coming to this place—unlike those opposite, who roll out of university into union jobs or political office and have never once shouldered the burden of managing the bottom line, keeping their staff safe and paid, or dealing with cash-flow issues or midnight BAS submissions. Very few have also ever tended to crops or livestock while battling the weather and global factors and everything in between. A government member interjecting— Mr CONAGHAN 279991 I take the interjection from across the floor. Perhaps they should go and speak to the member for Forde, who has actually worked on a farm and has made the concession that Australians are worse off. In this country our business insolvency rates are leading the world. We are clocking in at eight closures per business hour. But, rather than sending life rafts, this government ship seems to be intent on aiming its cannons at those who are now somehow managing to survive against all odds. These are businesses and primary producers that have already taken hits to their bottom line in the form of rampant power and fuel increases, out-of-control insurance premiums surges and skyrocketing rents. It's a far cry from robbing the rich. In reality, this government will be sending former gainfully employed Aussies to the dole line once these small businesses finally break and are forced to start laying off staff. The Treasurer and Prime Minister insist there will be carve outs that protect small businesses and family farms. The problem is there's no tangible evidence of that to date. We have to take them at their word—and we all know how good that word has been in the past! In stark contrast, we on this side of the floor want to provide Australians with a hand up, rather than a handout for what they have earned. We promise we will repeal these punitive taxes once this government is thrown out by the angry Aussies it represents. Rather than tax something we need more of, we'll provide a tax incentive to build and produce and look after those Aussies that deserve it. 16:16 Ms TEESDALE 314526 Bass At the start of this MPI, the Labor Party was compared to jellyfish. Perhaps it's the continuously regenerating immortal jellyfish that they compare us to. But I ask the party and I ask the chamber what is the expected lifespan of the National Party? Do we think it might be like the immortal jellyfish, or might it be much shorter? This budget delivers for my local community in Bass. It is about supporting local businesses. It helps working families with the cost of living, it strengthens our health care and it builds a stronger regional economy for northern Tasmania. Bass is a community built on hard work. From small-business owners to tradies, manufacturers, farmers, tourism operators, health workers, hospitality staff, we have it all in Bass. Our region succeeds because our local people back themselves and they back each other, and we back them too. Of course, agriculture is absolutely the heart of the story. From dairy and cropping to fisheries and exports, our farmers and producers are central to our economy and our identity. We also know the last decade has been challenging. Global inflation, supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages and rising international costs are putting real pressure on our households and our businesses alike, including our farmers. Our Labor budget responds to these pressures with practical measures that support growth, resilience and opportunity. For our local businesses, one of the most important measures that they keep talking to me about is making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. That will help 9,253 small businesses in Bass alone, and that certainty really does matter. These businesses in Bass should be able to plan ahead with confidence, invest in new equipment, upgrade their technology, purchase their vehicles or tools and grow their operations. We need to make sure these measures are permanent. They reduce compliance costs and improve cash flow. And we need to make sure that small businesses continue to invest and hire in our local economy. When they invest, our whole region benefits. The budget's also about making sure people are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. We've got the working Australians tax offset—goodness me, there are a lot of words there!—and the $1,000 instant tax deduction. Mr French 316550 WATO. Ms TEESDALE 314526 WATO, indeed. It's supporting families, local jobs and businesses. Since coming to our office, our government has delivered record investment into agriculture, and it's built a strong foundation for this vital sector. I'm proud of the work done by my fierce Tasmanian colleague Minister Julie Collins. We've boosted biosecurity, we've expanded export opportunities and we've backed farmers to deal with a changing climate. Earlier it was asked if we had been to a farm. I've sat on farms with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry drinking cups of tea, listening to farmers. On Flinders Island we walked down the very long driveway of a farm and looked for Killiecrankie diamonds. It's an incredible place and an incredible part of the world. Our minister knows our community well. I know our community well. In our budget, we know that we need to continue this work. We're investing in market access, international leadership, export support and strengthening the agencies that underpin that agricultural sector. We're also investing in fuel and fertiliser security because we know how critical that is to our farmers and our regional communities, particularly in Bass. These investments are about resilience, productivity and securing the future of Australian agriculture. While we're getting on with delivering for farmers, those opposite continue getting on with running scare campaigns. It hurts me to hear it day in and day out in this chamber. We need to be really clear about these facts. The changes to capital gains tax do not start until 1 July 2027, and they only apply to gains from that date. It is not on historic gains. Importantly, those existing tax concessions for small businesses and farms remain in place. Our data shows that more than nine in 10 agricultural businesses will fall well under that turnover threshold, meaning that they will continue to benefit from ongoing concessions. When people continue to choose to spread fear, they're continue to ignore the facts. They're ignoring the support in this budget and they're ignoring the reality for Australian farmers. On this side, we're delivering real support. The Nationals would rather run a scare campaign to save their own seats than support regional and rural Australia. They're chasing headlines while we do the work. They spread fear while we're delivering the facts. Farmers deserve better than being treated as props in another National Party scare campaign. They deserve directness, honesty and certainty. They deserve a government who is focused on their future, not political point scoring. This government will always back our farmers, our workers and our regional communities. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for this discussion has concluded. BILLS 74 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 74

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Report from Federation Chamber 74 16:22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with the resolution agreed on 28 May 2026 as amended 4 June 2026, I will put the question that the bill be agreed to immediately. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 74 16:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027 74

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027

Second Reading 74 16:23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 May 2026 as amended on 4 June 2026, I will put the question immediately. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 74 16:23 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 75

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Second Reading 75 16:24 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 May 2026 as amended on 4 June 2026, I will put the question immediately. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 75 16:25 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations 75 Membership 75 16:25 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations. 16:25 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That Mr Abdo, Ms Clutterham, Ms Sitou and Ms Templeman be appointed members of the Select Committee on Cyber Security for Small to Medium Sized Businesses and Organisations. Question agreed to. BILLS 75 BILLS Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 75

Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026

Second Reading 75 16:26 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Just yesterday, the Sydney Morning Herald, through its reporters Britney Busch and Shane Wright, who, incidentally, I gave his first job back in September 1991 at the Daily Advertiser, had a report talking about the data that destroys the idea that Australians are quitting smoking. As I said earlier, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has, for the first time, according to this report, assessed how the illicit tobacco trade now absolutely dominates the nation's cigarette market by using experimental testing of nicotine concentration in wastewater. According to the data released just on Wednesday—and this is really compelling—illicit nicotine products, including cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vapes and loose-leaf tobacco, comprised 80 per cent of consumption in Australia in 2025, up from just 12 per cent in 2017. According to this report, nicotine consumption grew 40 per cent in the same period, with most of the jump in the past four years. The population grew 14 per cent over that period, while tobacco taxes soared by a third. The report stated that the federal government, along with the states and territories, is spending more than $300 million on combating the illicit tobacco trade. Since the turn of the decade, this has just become out of control. But don't take my word for it. Ask any of the highway patrol officers who pull up vans incessantly on the Hume Highway and find not just illegal vapes and boxes of chop-chop and illegal smokes but bags of cash—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is now the black market and the means that bikie gangs and other nefarious groups are making their money. They're doing it at the expense of people who can't afford smokes due to the cost-of-living crisis. They're doing it at the expense of people who run small-businesses tobacconists. Indeed, many of these tobacconists find it hard to get insurance for their shops, let alone their next-door neighbours, who cannot get insurance for their shops because of the Molotov cocktails that are thrown into their stores late at night. This is a particular problem in Melbourne, as I read and as I understand. Wednesday's data showed that household spending on tobacco dropped back to 2016 levels after peaking at the end of 2020, even as tobacco consumption rose, indicating a shift towards cheaper, illicit sources. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sorry, Member for Riverina. I know you've been chopped in a couple of times, but you will be granted leave for continuation when the debate resumes. The debate is interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Artificial Intelligence 76 16:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Artificial intelligence feels like a huge wave forming vaguely on the horizon. We can't tell yet how big it is or when it will arrive, but we can feel it looming, and already there are smaller waves lapping at the shore. The decisions we make now will determine whether we'll be able to ride the wave or whether we'll be swept away. No-one knows how significant the impact of AI will be on society, not even the people developing the AI models at frontier labs like Anthropic and OpenAI. In fact, these people reject the use of terms like 'building' and 'developing'. They prefer to say that they are 'growing' the AI models, because even they have no idea how they'll turn out. That creates a lot of uncertainty, but uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. Our government needs to be preparing. If this is a tsunami that we're facing, we need to be ready. Experts around the world are telling us that AI will fundamentally reshape our economy and information environment. Some are telling us it could cause the extinction of our species. Others are telling us it will bring unparalleled prosperity and equality. A lot of these scenarios feel like unrealistic sci-fi fantasies, but, if even a fraction of the promise or peril of AI comes to pass, it will have an enormous impact on our society, and we're not ready for it. This is not just a future problem. We can already see the effects of AI—white-collar graduates struggling to find jobs, young girls in schools finding their likeness used in disgusting pornographic deepfakes, floods of AI slop online, supercharged scams, and sycophantic chatbots and companion apps hacking our children's ability to form relationships and eroding their critical thinking. This is why I'm so frustrated by the government's passive, hands-off approach to AI policy, and I'm not alone. I've met with a large range of stakeholders across industry, business, civil society, think tanks and academia who agree. The government's National AI Plan puts forward important goals but has implemented almost no policy to achieve these goals. Almost the only federal funding allocated to navigating our AI path is the $20 million in annual funding for the two new AI bodies, for a technology that could supposedly boost productivity by over $100 billion each year. If the government continues to pursue a passive and hands-off approach to AI policy, it means our future is at the mercy of the quirks and capabilities of AI models grown in overseas labs by tech billionaires. That's not good enough. That's why I've put out an AI discussion paper with 18 specific policies that should be implemented now to set up the structures to govern AI policy moving forward, to capture the opportunities of AI, to deal with current harms, to prepare for emerging risks and to share the benefit of AI with all Australians. To touch on just a few of them, we should increase funding to the AI Safety Institute so Australia can test new models, monitor risks and attract technical talent to match global peers like the UK. We should set up a national AI missions program to identify and target a handful of AI opportunities where Australia can be a world leader, like natural disaster response, agricultural productivity and medical research. We should resolve the copyright standoff by facilitating licensing agreements between AI companies and Australian creators, unlocking AI training in Australia while fairly compensating rightsholders. We should deal with the overwhelming volume of AI deepfakes and disinformation by introducing federal truth-in-political-advertising laws and giving people ownership over their own likeness. We should require frontier AI developers to provide Australia's AI Safety Institute with early access to their models and information about the training and testing processes. We should set binding obligations for data centres to use 100 per cent additional and renewable energy, meet minimum water-use efficiency standards, engage with community, hire locally and deliver community benefit. We should tax big tech to ensure AI companies generating value from Australian consumers, Australian data and Australian resources pay their fair share. The thing that I hear the most from parents in my community is that we need to protect our children from sycophantic AI chatbots and companions that are causing long-term psychological harm and eroding critical thinking. The promise and the peril of AI are unparalleled. This government's passive approach is not cutting it. Mitchell, Mr Frank, Walley, Ms Tessa, Albanese Government 77 16:35 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Burswood Road in Burswood—an unassuming road, it's a road that I've travelled on many times as a little girl that grew up in the Goldfields, because we'd always stop at Burswood Seafood. But I went there recently, thinking that I knew everything there was to know about Burswood Road because my husband used to also work on that road. I entered through this unassuming door, and I got to meet this incredible man called Frank Mitchell—curly hair, big smile, really good energy. I was entering his business. Frank Mitchell is Local Hero of the Year, and I got to enter into his business called Kardan Construction. This was alongside the Minister for Skills and Training. I got to meet an incredible number of Aboriginal electrical apprentices. Frank took over Kardan 10 years ago with eight staff and a $1.5 million turnover. Today, across four companies, including Baldja and Bilyaa, he employs more than 200 full-time employees. Frank is a proud Aboriginal man. As a young single dad who was unsure about his future, his vocation and what he'd do for work, his uncle offered him a mature-age apprenticeship. He has spoken about that moment and how he felt that it was amazing that someone believed in him so much to give him this 'sweet as' opportunity. When he became a business owner in 2015, he made a pledge. He would create the same 'sweet as' opportunities for his community, and he certainly has kept that pledge. Across his businesses, Frank and his partners have created more than 70 Aboriginal upskilling positions in the electrical and construction industry, including 30 electrical apprenticeships that have awarded more than $11 million to Aboriginal subcontractors. I visited Kardan with the Minister for Skills and Training, and we were met with some of the amazing team members from Frank's team. I have to say that, when you think of, let's say, electrical construction offices, you don't imagine the offices that I got to walk into. There are these beautiful plants as you go up the steps. You walk into reception; there's beautiful artwork all across the walls. Then you get to go downstairs and go into this place that, in my husband's work, would be called a dungeon. That's what they call it there. But, here, I would describe it as a paradise. What was amazing was seeing this phenomenal wall of amazing Aboriginal artists from wall to wall and floor to ceiling. It was incredible. I also let Frank know that, having checked out Wesfarmers' artwork, I think it was actually better. What I also got to do was meet one of the apprentices, Tessa Walley. Tessa is a proud Whadjuk Noongar woman, and she is completing her electrical apprenticeship through Wilco Electrical. Tessa told us that she didn't know much about electrical work before she started. But her dad used to drive her around the neighbourhood fixing phone lines and doing low-voltage work, and she thought 'YOLO'. For those that need a translation, it means 'you only live once'. After Tessa finishes her apprenticeship this year, she hopes to study electrical engineering in her future, because she sees a gap in the industry where engineers design electrical systems that don't always work in the field but work in theory. As an engineer, I totally recognise that sometimes engineers do get it wrong, but the best engineers are those that have actually done a trade. I also want young women and First Nations people watching someone like Tessa and knowing that the pathway is real and that it is open to them. That's why the support structures around apprenticeships matter so much. Frank has been clear that the system still has barriers, particularly for Aboriginal apprentices trying to finish. He advocates constantly for fixing the structural barriers to ensure that we can have retention, because he has lived them. The Albanese government is acting on this. Under the Key Apprenticeship Program, apprentices in critical housing and construction and clean energy occupations can receive up to $10,000 over the life of their apprenticeship. Jobs and Skills Australia has projected that we'll need another 32,000 electricians by 2030, and another 130,000 more construction workers. Fee-free TAFE is a part of that pipeline. It's a practical way that the Albanese government is making a positive difference. Agriculture Industry, South Australia: Water 78 16:40 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The right of Australians to farm their land, build their businesses and pass their livelihood onto the next generation should never be undermined. For generations, farming families have been the backbone of regional Australia. They rise before dawn and work through droughts, floods and market downturns so that they continue producing the food and fibre that keeps our nation running and the world fed. Yet increasingly many of those families feel under siege. They see decisions being made in distant capital cities by people who have never worked the land, never depended on rainfall for income and never carried the responsibility of keeping a family farm viable for the next generation. Across regional Australia, farmers are facing a growing list of challenges. The Albanese Labor government has legislated the end of the live sheep export trade, creating uncertainty for producers and the communities that depend on that industry. It has pursued politics that place increasing pressure on regional businesses and agricultural enterprises. Farmers are watching with growing concern as governments propose major developments across productive farmland without properly listening to the people these decisions most affect. What frustrates farmers the most—indeed, it terrifies them—is that this isn't one policy decision; it's a pattern. It's a pattern of government expecting regional communities to bear the cost of decisions while receiving little say in the process; a pattern of treating agricultural land as though it's empty space, waiting to be utilised for someone else's agenda; a pattern of forgetting that food security is in fact national security. Prime agricultural land is not just a turn of phrase. It's the foundation of regional economies, local jobs, export industries and indeed family livelihoods. Farmers don't ask for special treatment. They simply ask for respect, consultation and the ability to continue doing what they do best: feeding Australians and the rest of the world. That is why I strongly support the principle of the right to farm—the right of farming families to have confidence in their future, the right to invest in their businesses without fear that changing political fashions will undermine their livelihoods, and the right to know that government understands the value of agriculture and the communities that depend on it. The Limestone Coast is one of Australia's most productive agricultural regions. It's home to world-class livestock producers, grain growers, forestry operations, dairy farms and wine-grape growers, to name a few. Its success is built on three things: productive soil, high rainfall and reliable groundwater. That reliable groundwater is not merely important; it's almost everything. It sustains farms. It supports regional towns. It underpins billions of dollars of agricultural production across the south-east. That is why the South Australian parliament established a 10-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the Limestone Coast in 2018. That moratorium was introduced after overwhelming community concern about the potential impacts on water resources and agricultural industries. Now—in a pattern that is common: without saying anything before an election—the Malinauskas Labor government is attempting to remove that moratorium, putting at risk all of those industries that rely on that pristine underground aquifer. In fact, there is more irrigation effort in the south-east of South Australia than in all of the Murray-Darling Basin in South Australia. I say to Peter Malinauskas: Why take the risk? Why gamble with one of Australia's most valuable food-producing regions? Why put at risk a groundwater system that has sustained communities and industries for generations? This is not a debate about being anti development. It's a debate about what your priorities are. When food production, water security and agricultural prosperity are placed alongside resource extraction, I know where the people of Barker stand, and I stand with them. The south-east should be known for growing food, producing wine and supporting thriving regional communities, not for an experiment in unconventional extraction in a limestone region. The people of Barker have made that view clear. They want farmland protected, they want their water protected, and they want governments to recognise that some places are just too valuable to risk. Agriculture has sustained the south-east for generations. It will sustain it for generations to come if governments have the wisdom to protect it. Macarthur Electorate: Manufacturing Industry 79 16:45 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Recently, we celebrated Australian Made Week in Macarthur, and to mark that occasion I visited the fantastic team at Sebel, a manufacturing business which produces chairs, stools, tables, desks and storage units in Minto in my electorate of Macarthur. Established in 1951, and having won numerous awards since, Sebel now employs nearly 50 local workers who produce high-quality, built-to-last products that serve our nation. They are a trusted Australian brand bolstering our economy and employing many locals. I have a personal relationship with Sebel. Although it's no longer owned by the Sebel family, Sebel was started by Harry and Queenie Sebel, who were friends of my grandparents, in 1951. Harry Sebel came from England with very little money and built up the Sebel business to be a really fantastic business exporting all around the world. It's great to see the Sebel tradition of high-quality products being maintained now in my electorate of Macarthur. Harry and Queenie are long gone, but their legacy continues with a business that is employing lots of people and providing innovative products and 21st century manufacturing, including recycling. When I visited the factory, we saw part of the recycling plant there. They had 40-year-old plastic moulded chairs which were being recycled and made into new chairs which hopefully, I think, will last another 40 or 50 years. It's an incredible business, a small business started by a family wanting to take a risk and build up a life in Australia. It's a really innovative place. You'll find Sebel products in a whole range of environments around the country. Virtually every public school has Sebel chairs. I think there are probably some Sebel chairs in this parliament. It has really innovative products that are now going all around the world. When I posted this visit on my socials, a fair few comments were received from constituents saying they were surprised to learn that we still made things in Australia. I can reassure you that in Macarthur manufacturing is strong, and we have some great, great companies there. It was great to celebrate Australian Made Week, and we raised awareness amongst the companies themselves that they have partners and that there are businesses all around the country that are still manufacturing high-quality products. Across the road from Sebel, of course, is DECO Australia, which I have celebrated in this place before. It was founded by my friend Ross Doonan in 2004 and has gone on to national and international acclaim, producing products with coating. You often see them on railway stations—the signs and chairs that have wood coatings on aluminium products. I myself am doing a home renovation that will be using DECO products. These products are high quality and made in Australia. They are being exported all around the world, and they're produced in their manufacturing facility in my electorate of Macarthur, and I'm very proud of that. They produce the signages you see at train stations, as I've mentioned, and the innovative coating products you see on houses by the sea. At Wollongong, Katoomba, Kiama and everywhere between, you'll see signs and coating products made by DECO in Macarthur. I really want to encourage all of us to celebrate our Australian-made products. We really need to keep a look out for Australian-made products and celebrate that they're made in this country, and we need to support these businesses by buying their products. The Albanese Labor government is proud to continue supporting Australian products through our almost $23 billion investment over the next decade to build the A Future Made in Australia campaign to support Australian manufacturing and jobs. We have some other great companies in Macarthur: the a2 Milk Company and the Leppington Pastoral Company, producing dairy products. We do some great things in Australia, and we do some great things in my electorate of Macarthur. The COVID crisis and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have exposed how vulnerable we are without a sound, stable manufacturing base, and our government is working hard to build up Australia's manufacturing and infrastructure capability. We do this all around the country, but I'm proud of what's happening in Macarthur and I'm proud that we continue our manufacturing, with small businesses that support local jobs and local people. And it's really a great place to live. Media Ownership, Lyne Electorate: Regional Television News 79 16:50 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne I rise to speak about the future of regional television news and what it means for people in my electorate. For generations, regional television news has been more than a nightly bulletin. It has reported on floods, bushfires and droughts. It has celebrated local achievements, told local stories and held governments, councils and public institutions to account. Most importantly, it has connected regional communities through a shared understanding of local events. Regional television news has also been a training ground for civic leadership. Indeed, members on both sides of politics have come through regional television journalism. The member for Paterson spent many years with NBN News in Newcastle. In the New South Wales parliament, the member for Tamworth, Kevin Anderson, built his career with Prime Television. But the future of local storytelling through regional television news is at risk. The latest example is the sale of NBN television to the WIN network. NBN is not simply another television station. For more than 60 years it has been one of Australia's most respected regional broadcasters, serving Newcastle, the Hunter, the Mid-North Coast and the Northern Rivers. When the news broke that WIN would acquire NBN television, I publicly called on WIN to make no cuts to programming and no cuts to local journalists, production staff or camera crews following the acquisition. I stand by that call today. If WIN genuinely believes this acquisition will strengthen local news coverage, it should guarantee that local jobs, journalists and crews will be maintained. I made that call because regional Australians have seen this story before. Over many years, WIN has acquired valuable regional television assets, promised ongoing local coverage and then progressively reduced local news services, local production and local staffing. In 2019, WIN cut local television news services and jobs in Orange, Wagga, Albury and Hervey Bay. In South Australia, nightly WIN local news services in Mount Gambier and the Riverland were abolished. In other regional markets, dedicated local bulletins have been replaced with broader regional or statewide services produced further away from the communities they serve. The consequence has been fewer journalists, fewer camera crews, fewer local stories and less accountability. Regional communities have paid the price. That is why people from the Hunter to the border are sceptical when they hear assurances from WIN that local coverage and staff will be maintained. The concern is not what is promised today. The concern is what remains in five years time. Importantly, these concerns are not solely mine. MPs from both sides of politics, local government leaders, business groups and community organisations have all expressed concern about the future of NBN news and local journalism in my neck of the woods. That bipartisan concern should tell us something. This is not about politics; it's about protecting one of regional Australia's most important democratic institutions. Regional Australians have watched media companies extract value from regional assets while reducing the local journalism that made those assets valuable in the first place. This should also prompt us to examine whether our regulatory framework is fit for purpose. The ACCC may assess whether a merger substantially lessens competition, but regional Australians are asking a different question: does it lessen local journalism? Time and again, media consolidation has been approved, while local newsrooms have shrunk and local journalists have disappeared. Perhaps it's time to consider whether acquisitions involving regional broadcasters should face a stronger public-interest test—one that explicitly considers local journalism capacity, local production and newsroom employment. Whilst my focus tonight is regional television news, similar pressures are affecting print media. In my own region, concerns have been raised by the Forster Fortnightly regarding broadsheet printing following the closure of printing operations in Tamworth. The true test of the NBN acquisition will not be whether a bulletin runs for 30 minutes or 60 minutes. The true test will be whether, five years from now, there are more or fewer journalists and camera crews serving communities like Taree, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Coffs Harbour and Newcastle. That is why my message to WIN tonight is simple: honour your commitments, maintain your journalists, maintain your Canberra crews and maintain your local production capability, because local journalism is not an overhead to be managed; it is a public good that deserves to be protected. Regional Australia does not simply need local content. Regional Australia needs local journalists, and, if we fail to protect local journalism, we will lose more than news bulletins; we will lose local voices. Health Care, Tangney Electorate: Road Safety 80 16:55 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Since the Booragoon Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in Tangney opened in February this year, there have been more than 3,150 visits to this clinic. It helps take pressure off the emergency room at nearby Fiona Stanley Hospital, and the feedback from the community has been very positive. Now in this budget, all 136 Medicare urgent care clinics around Australia, including the one in Tangney, will be a permanent part of Medicare. Our government cut the maximum cost of a prescription on the PBS to $25 and, for concession card holders, to $7.70. There have been more than 2.79 million cheaper prescription scripts in Tangney under the Labor policies. With our investment in bulk-billing, there are almost 3,800 fully bulk-billing practices across Australia. I recently visited Samy Medical Practice and Trinity Mental Health, two bulk-billing practices in Canning Vale. It is great to see bulk-billing practices like these in my community. All these measures contribute to strengthening our public health system, and it means fewer out-of-pocket costs. We are providing an additional $25 billion for public hospitals, taking total Commonwealth funding for state-run hospitals to $220 billion between 2026-27 and 2030-31. In my home state of Western Australia, the additional amount is $2.4 billion, which adds to a total of $23.4 billion over five years. This funding will help improve hospital waiting times, reduce emergency department crowding and free up hospital beds. This funding is very important. I recently visited Borong in my electorate of Tangney. His wife had to wait for 11 hours at a local hospital. I also spoke with Michael, another Tangney resident, about his experience of waiting for 12 hours at the hospital. I agree with Borong and Michael that these long wait times are unacceptable, and I share in their advocacy to prioritise fixing this issue. This has been an important week in our parliament, and I originally planned to speak more about tax cuts and our measures for first home buyers. But my heart is so very heavy today because yesterday there was a fatal crash in my community between two cars at the intersection of Garden Street and Boardman Road in Canning Vale. I wish to give my condolences to the family and the loved ones of the little four-year-old girl who tragically lost her life in this traffic accident. My heart breaks for this family. It is deeply tragic to have the life of a little girl, with all the promise in the world, cut short in just a split second. There has sadly been a number of fatalities on Canning Vale's roads. Just last month, a 42-year-old man died following a crash on Nicholson Road. As a former police officer, I remember being called to the scenes of accidents. The tragedies did not always happen on high-speed roads, and these accidents have all stayed with me for many, many years. I have had constituents reach out to me about road safety in Canning Vale, including following yesterday's traffic crash. Like many people in Canning Vale, I drive on Nicholson Road and Garden Street on a regular basis. It is scary and sad to see so many accidents and near-accidents on these roads. Our community needs to come together to see how we can address this, because even one accident is one too many. As a police officer, I always reminded drivers to please understand the importance of road safety and of good responsible driving. Today I also ask that we take care of our driving and we take care of each other. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 81 NOTICES Presentation 81

Thursday, 4 June 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 82 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS BHP, Palantir 82 09:30 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan BHP is the world's largest mining company and Australia's largest company. They've made a staggering $91 billion in profit over the last 10 years, so why did they receive $622 million in fuel tax credits just in the last year? That is Australian taxpayers subsidising diesel for the world's largest mining company. People are right to be really angry about this. BHP is one of many mining companies benefiting from generous fuel subsidies while everyday Australians have to pay full price. Meanwhile, the government has made huge cuts to public services in the budget, including cuts to the renewables transition. Perhaps, instead of cutting funding for renewables, they should be looking at the billions of dollars in subsidies that we're giving to the mining sector every year. Speaking of big companies taking public money, Palantir—you might have heard of it. It was founded by far-right billionaire Peter Thiel. Its business is AI data analytics, and it's enabling a huge expansion of the surveillance state through its technology with absolutely no democratic oversight. It is now worth a staggering $375 billion. This is not a politically neutral company. They're very, very explicitly in favour of US military power and dominance over the rest of the world and have said that they have a duty to uphold that with their work. Palantir's clients include the US and Israeli militaries and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aka ICE. We know that they help develop AI generated 'kill lists' in places like Gaza, that they help track and deport immigrants from the US and that it was their AI targeting software that was responsible for the strike on the school in Iran that killed over a hundred children. In Australia, Palantir's clients include the Department of Defence and the Australian Signals Directorate—and also Coles Supermarkets, to 'address workforce related spend'. They hold other contracts with the federal government and Australian states worth several hundred million dollars. How much of your data do they have access to? How can we be confident that data is secure when Palantir has explicitly said they will serve the interests of the US military? Switzerland rejected the use of Palantir after an internal risk assessment because they couldn't be confident about data security. We should be doing the same here in Australia. Instead, during questioning in Senate estimates this week by Senator David Shoebridge, the government refused to answer whether Australian biometric data would be safe from Palantir. We simply should not be trusting them with our data. Scullin Electorate: Community Events 82 09:33 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Wollert is a high-growth community in the north of the Scullin electorate. It's forecast to welcome around 20,000 new residents over the next decade. It's a place where families are building their dream homes and forming communities right now. This is why I'm so deeply concerned by the proposal to build a large waste-to-energy incinerator there, effectively right in the backyard of these family homes and local businesses. So I stand here to make it very clear that I join with concerned locals in saying that this is a proposal that simply does not stack up on any basis whatsoever. The suburb is already grappling right now with issues like illegal rubbish dumping and soil contamination. Against a backdrop like this, the plan to import an additional 760,000 tonnes of waste into the area raises deep anxiety amongst residents that is quite understandable. So, too, does the proposal to burn this waste, including significant amounts of plastics and other landfill materials, producing hazardous by-products that carry the potential to cause harm to surrounding communities. These emissions, these by-products, pose serious risks to air, water and soil quality and could have lasting environmental and social effects for those communities. In this regard, I want to give a big shout-out to the NO Northern Incinerator Wollert group, a dedicated community movement driven by genuine concern for the health and wellbeing of local residents and for the climate. Communities in Melbourne's northern suburbs deserve thoughtful, sustainable planning, not decisions that place their amenity, health and environment at risk. This simply cannot proceed. Last month I attended Seeds for Culture—an absolutely fantastic community event in my electorate—to launch Lalor Tennis Club's new Indigenous garden, which is absolutely beautiful and a wonderful community asset. This was a vibrant celebration of Indigenous culture, complete with a smoking ceremony, live dance, didgeridoo performances and bush tucker planting sessions that I didn't completely ruin! This was developed by Cultural Gardens, an amazing group supported by the City of Whittlesea and a really welcome addition to the community. It represents a hub where culture, sport and community can all intersect, fostering an environment which promotes sporting and social participation. But it's also a place where community can come and reconnect to country, sharing in teachings from First Nations Australians about Indigenous life and culture. It's an asset the whole community should be proud of, and I look forward to seeing it enjoyed and valued for many years to come. I acknowledge, in particular, Ian Goolagong, former president of the club, who came back from New South Wales to play a really significant part in the event—a pretty significant tennis-playing family there!—and also Liz, Dein and Rose, leaders of the committee, who've done such an amazing job in fostering inclusion. Lastly, I'll give a shout-out to an old friend of mine, Dave Gregg, who came back from western Victoria with his sons to play a part in something that he had a really big connection to. Immigration Detention 83 09:36 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I have a statement here from a new offshore immigration detention whistleblower, who says: I make this statement anonymously because I am fearful that being identified would have an impact on my employment or even my safety. Through my employment, I am involved in the process which sees individuals removed from Australia and taken to the Republic of Nauru. I have come to hold grave concerns about the physical safety of individuals removed to Nauru. Those concerns arose following firsthand conversations with other individuals directly involved in the Australian-Nauru program of removal and management of these individuals once in Nauru. These concerns relate most acutely to the NZYQ cohort. In numerous conversations, serious threats of physical violence were made in relation to those removed to Nauru. These were not idly-made threats. They were said with a tone and gravity that indicated, at best, an indifference to the dignity and wellbeing of the removed cohort, and, at worst, an active desire to cause them serious harm. I came to understand that those responsible for overseeing the removed cohort had a fundamental lack of respect for the humanity and rights of the cohort. The threats included comments that those removed were quote 'absolute (blank) pieces of (blank)', who, in Nauru, would be mistreated in such a way to make quote 'very clear how they are going to be managed for the rest of their lives.' This threat was made by someone who I understood was contracted by either the Australian government, or the Nauruan government with Australian funding, who was directly involved in the management of the removed cohort. I was absolutely shocked by such unashamed and gratuitous threats of violence. From my perspective, these comments were not isolated. Another relevant individual indicated that those removed from Australia would, on arrival, face a reckoning—with justice in Nauru served on the streets, rather than through formal channels. I took this to mean that the removed cohort faced the risk of vigilante violence from those entrusted to safeguard their wellbeing in Nauru. I have repeatedly tried to raise concerns about these matters through appropriate channels. To date, I have seen no evidence that my concerns have been addressed. Instead, I understand that Nauru has recently enacted a law to permit so-called community monitoring officers to monitor the cohort and use force if necessary; in other words, to give legal authorisation to these threats of physical violence. As the process of removal of individuals from Australia to Nauru continues, I feel no option but to bring my concerns to the Australian people. It would be a travesty if, forewarned with my concerns, the Australian government nonetheless continued conduct that saw those removed to Nauru experience physical violence. Thank you. Housing 83 09:39 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Every Australian deserves a place to call home, and that is what the Albanese government's budget delivers. Our $47 billion Homes for Australia plan and our budget provide for even more homes, more support to renters and more support for Australians getting into homeownership. In Perth, we're getting on with the job on the ground. I was at the Pier Street development with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Western Australia just a few weeks ago, seeing 219 apartments that are being built because of the decisions of this government rising 29 storeys out of the ground. Then, further down the road, on Stirling Street in Highgate, we have Stirling Towers. It was closed by the former Barnett Liberal government and sat vacant for years, but, again, because of decisions of this Labor government, we have homes being built—affordable homes, specialist disability homes. This will bring even more people into Highgate and the wonderful Beaufort Street strip. Then, just above the METRONET City Link project, we have the Roe Street development, with another 170 social and affordable homes. All of these projects are happening because of decisions that we have taken in government over the last four years. I also got to see the opening of Common Ground in East Perth, an extraordinary project that helps some 112 people go from the challenges of insecure housing or homelessness into a secure place to call home. That makes a real difference to every single one of those people. What we also know is that those who are doing all the right things—they're working hard, they're saving, they're trying to get their first home—are struggling, and that's where our five per cent deposit program comes in. I recently had a chat to Kate, who's a pastry chef at Miller + Baker, which is a wonderful cafe and bakery in the Perth electorate. She's done everything right, but we know that, when trying to find that path into the housing market, it takes the average Australian 11 years to save for a deposit. I'm pleased that our five per cent deposit scheme is helping people make that final step into the housing market. It has supported more than 300,000 Australians to build or buy their own home, including some 2,058 people in the electorate of Perth. One of the things I love doing in this place, as I know do you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, is to bring the words of our constituents into this parliament. After the budget, I received this email from Perth constituent Sebastian, who said: Dear Patrick, I'm writing to actually thank you for standing up for young Australians. That means a lot as someone who will soon be entering the housing market to buy their first home. You have stood up against all odds and delivered a fair budget and budget that will make long term change for the better. I bet your team and you are receiving countless emails saying this isn't enough or asking to revert the changes, but I want to say this from the bottom of my heart thank you. My partner and I felt the weight lift off our shoulders. I know it will take time to have an effect, but it's a change for the better … Kind regards, Sebastian. Law Enforcement, National Disability Insurance Scheme 84 09:42 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest Police officers have our backs every single day, and we think it's time that we had theirs. Across Australia, officers are facing more pressure than ever. They're being asked to do more with fewer resources, all the while navigating a system that makes an already demanding job even harder. Too often they feel undervalued and unsupported by policies that fail to recognise the reality of frontline policing. We can and we must do more to stand with those who keep our community safe every day. That's why the Liberals are calling on the Albanese Labor government to cut taxes for police by extending FBT concessions, bringing them into line with ambulance officers and other frontline workers. This is a straightforward and commonsense reform that would lift their take-home pay and send a clear message that our police across Australia are genuinely valued, like other frontline workers. People across Forrest are telling me that they want to back our police officers, with thousands already signing my petition. It's time we stood up for those who stand up for us every day: our men and women in blue. I rise today to speak on behalf of Fraser, a father of two and a profoundly vulnerable NDIS participant from my part of Australia who is being failed by the system that was meant to support him. Fraser lives with spinocerebellar ataxia type 3, which is a mouthful. It is a rare, progressive, devastating neurodegenerative disease that robs him of coordination, strength, speech and, fundamentally, his independence. Despite clear medical evidence, he has faced months of delay and neglect. When my office visited his home, we found conditions that no Australian should endure. His wheelchair broke in January and his request for a powered wheelchair has languished on a desk somewhere, leaving him trapped, unable to safely leave his home or spend meaningful time with his daughters. Worse still, his mobility supports were paused during an unrelated appeal. Fraser has already fallen into active traffic due to failing equipment. His plight simply cannot be ignored any longer. Across the NDIS, people like Fraser are being failed. Instead of tackling the fraud and waste, the organised crime and the corruption, this government seems to have turned its focus on participants. The NDIS must protect the vulnerable, not force them into a battle for basic supports they cannot live without—up against lawyers, backed by taxpayer money, who are actively seeking to deny them the very supports the scheme was designed to provide. Timor-Leste: Restoration of Independence Day, International Relations: Australia and Solomon Islands 84 09:45 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to mark 24 years of the restoration of the independence of Timor-Leste, which was achieved on 20 May. I was fortunate to join the Deputy Prime Minister in Dili, Timor-Leste a few weeks ago to celebrate with new and old friends alike. Back home in Darwin, the Portuguese and Timorese Social Club had a great celebration. I want to congratulate President Pedro Bernardino and Vice-President Germano Bernardino and the whole community, who came together to celebrate the 24th anniversary of that restoration. The evening was filled with traditional Timorese and Portuguese food, music, dancing and plenty of good conversations. My own ties and my family's ties to Timor-Leste run deep, having worked there, having served there in the military and having volunteered there for many years. I'm proud to see the vibrant country that Timor-Leste has become, and I'm proud to be part of a federal Labor government that truly values our partners, like Timor-Leste, and our regional relationships. To all the ADF and AFP personnel and other federal government members who took part in the development of Timor and to the countless Australians who played a part in the story of the development of Timor-Leste during that time: your contribution to Timor-Leste is very much appreciated. As a token of Timor-Leste's gratitude for those ADF and AFP members, President Jose Ramos-Horta has expanded eligibility for the Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal. We have been proud, as a government, to approve the wearing of that medal by those who are newly eligible. Viva Timor-Leste! This week I was honoured to welcome the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, the Hon. Matthew Wale CBE, and his wife, Veronica, along with many members of his cabinet, off the plane at RAAF Fairbairn here in Canberra. I'm a big fan of all things Solomon. Our relationship with the Solomon Islands is an important one for Australia, and that relationship is growing. It was great to see the Prime Minister and his team here this week. Both our nations' prime ministers have committed to elevate the bilateral relationship, which is one based on mutual trust, respect and open dialogue, and we look forward to the comprehensive treaty to realise a shared vision for our partnership with the Solomon Islands. We are growing and strengthening our relationships in the Pacific, and we're very proud to be doing so, because it is important. Our Pacific family and our friends in Timor-Leste and ASEAN are so important. Budget, Tropical Cyclone Narelle 85 09:48 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Labor's toxic taxes are taking more victims every day. Today I want to focus on our junior mineral explorers. Our junior miners are very dear to me, as a child of Kalgoorlie, in the eastern Goldfields. Junior explorers play a critical role in identifying new mineral deposits. Labor's tax changes are not just hitting the big end of town; they are attacking mums and dads who traditionally invest in emerging WA mining projects. Those who invest in junior miners are funding the riskiest stage of nation building. They are making the hardest bet in the mining pipeline—taking a risk, just trying to get ahead, with the awareness that most exploration projects fail. But it has been mum and dad investors helping to fund some of the most important recent mineral discoveries in WA, including the Hemi gold deposit and the Kathleen Valley lithium mine. When Western Australians—or any Australian for that matter—take a risk and invest in projects such as these, rather than overseas investors, every ordinary Australian benefits. These projects contribute thousands of jobs and millions in taxation and royalties. But it's not just me who believes that we should avoid disincentivising our junior explorers. Labor's Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook said: We do not want to disincentivise exploration in our mining industry … which are essential for bringing these mega projects to life. Mineral investors want a carve out for these CGT changes, but you can't fix these toxic taxes with carve outs. You need to scrap them, which is what a coalition government will do. I recently visited Exmouth to see how the recovery from Tropical Cyclone Narelle was progressing, and I was pleased to hear that the shire has commenced their local operational recovery plan to help locals with the clean up. An area of immense frustration for locals has been the recent closure of access to Bundegi Beach and the boat ramp. This has been a popular recreational area for families for many years. Swimming, snorkelling, kayaking—you name it—it is Paradise. It was originally created by the US Department of Defense for service personnel and their families. Thankfully, Cyclone Narelle did minimal damage to Bundegi Beach and the ramp. However, the access road to the beach will require some patching and sand clearance to restore the road. The council has been unable to include the road in their restoration plan due to it being on land owned by the Department of Defence. Work is yet to begin to reinstate access to the beach and ramp, and there's a real fear in the community that access changes to Bundegi will be permanent. This is incredibly unfair. So I implore the Department of Defence to begin work immediately to restore it. This is a Defence town. You need the community support. All Stars Choir, Strike a Chord, MacKinnon, Ms Donna 86 09:52 Mr GREGG 315154 Deakin Today I want to touch on some great organisations and people making a real difference in Deakin. My friend the member for Aston and I recently attended an All Stars Choir session in Bayswater North. The All Stars Choir has been around in various forms for decades, but they've experienced amazing growth in the last couple of years and now see about 60 participants at every session. Every Wednesday morning, a group of professional Australian musicians volunteer their time and expertise to provide a live music experience for people with disability. The member for Aston and I had a fantastic time at these sessions, and I thank everyone for indulging my rusty, borderline-intolerable ukulele and vocals. Congratulations to everyone who showed up and joined in, and a special thank you to all the volunteers who put their time and energy into making these musical experiences so special. Sticking with the choir theme, I also recently attended the 16th anniversary of the Stroke A Chord choir. This is a choir for people who have had a stroke and have aphasia, a communication difficulty often caused by stroke. As Secretary Barry Cole said when he invited me to this celebration, the members of Stroke A Chord may not be able to speak, but they can still sing. I saw that first hand, and it was a remarkable experience. It's another example of the power of music to bring people together and provide a great experience. Thank you to Barry and everyone who welcomed me. It was wonderful to celebrate with you. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Donna MacKinnon, who has been recognised as Volunteer of the Year at the Victorian Labor Party conference. Everyone in this House knows that we are here on the backs of great Australians who want to make a difference and who ask nothing in return for the hours and hours they give. I have spent countless early mornings with Donna—and late nights—handing out and championing a variety of causes, as well as, of course, campaigning for the Labor Party over a number of years. She's someone who has got boundless energy. She is at every single event, every single doorknock and every single early morning train station. She is a great representation of the soul of the Labor Party—and, I know, parties across the parliament and indeed independents as well. We really do need to remember that we stand here on the shoulders of fantastic Australians who want to make Australia a better place, and Donna McKinnon is the perfect example and really is incredibly deserving of the honour she's received in the Labor Party. She'll be incredibly cross with me for mentioning her name in the parliament, but I think she deserves the recognition that we often get in lieu of those unsung heroes of our various movements. I think she is well deserving, whether she admits it or not. I'd like to thank her for everything she's done for me and for the Labor Party and for being such a great friend over a number of years. Congratulations, Donna. I look forward to fighting the good fight with you for many years to come. McPherson Electorate: Community Groups 86 09:54 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson Over the past few weeks, I've had the privilege of engaging with a range of groups across our Gold Coast community, each contributing in their own way to the strength and the character of our region. I recently joined Adam and the team of committed volunteers to celebrate our local sporting champions at the Varsity Vipers basketball summer awards day 2026. It was a great afternoon celebrating the achievements of the club's hundreds of registered junior players across the season, while also acknowledging the coaches, the volunteers, the families, the sponsors and the organisations who make it all possible. The sun was out at Tugun Bowls Club for Bowls Australia's Long Roll event, part of the campaign to see lawn bowls included in the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It was a terrific opportunity to meet local members and join them on the green, and I learnt that I am not that bad at bowls. It was a great opportunity to also take part in an event that highlighted the broad appeal of bowls across all ages and experience levels. The club also held their Biggest Morning Tea in support of Cancer Council Queensland. Raffles, a fashion parade and community support brought members and locals together for an important cause. Congratulations to president, Karen Spangler, and to the volunteers who made the event such a success. McPherson is home to some of the best schools in the country. One of the highlights of being the federal MP is delivering civics education to the next generation. I met with some impressive year 12 legal studies students at All Saints Anglican School to discuss a range of issues relevant to their studies and the work of the federal parliament. It was encouraging to see their interest and thoughtful engagement. There are some future lawyers and politicians in there, no doubt! Somerset College hosted me to deliver a class on civics, representative democracy and the roles of federal, state and local governments for the year 6 cohort. The students were switched on and full of questions, and credit to the fantastic teachers indeed. At the Industry School in Robina, I had the opportunity to meet school leaders and the new principal, play a game of multiplayer volleyball against the students and even deadlift with them at the gym. I met with principal Ian Johnson at Mastery Schools Coolangatta and discussed the school's unique approach to supporting students. It was encouraging to hear directly from the young people about their experiences at the school. We have some of the most dedicated surf lifesavers on the southern Gold Coast. I recently joined the members of the Palm Beach surf lifesaving club for their annual awards night and dinner. The selflessness of these volunteers was on display when they were awarded for their contributions to ensuring safety on our beaches. Across each of these visits and events, it is clear that the southern Gold Coast community punches well and truly above its weight for community spirit and for mateship. Housing 87 09:57 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce One of the things that we've been hearing over the last couple of weeks, out in the community—I was at the Berwick market on Sunday morning; around Dandenong at lunchtime—is the question of house prices. What's going to happen with house prices with the government's tax changes? I want to make a couple of points. What we have seen with respect to house prices over the past 20 years is completely unsustainable. House prices have risen twice as fast as wages. House prices in Australia have risen twice as fast as incomes. That's completely unsustainable for any society. First and foremost, housing is a good that you need people to live in. We want people to aspire to home ownership and to get into the housing market, and yet for the past 20 years it has felt like, however fast they save on the treadmill, house prices just race ahead twice as fast—and that's what the data shows. The opposition's policy depends on who you ask. Some of them go on TV and say, 'We want house prices to go up.' Others go on TV and say, 'We want house prices to go down'. I'll tell you what my position is and what the government's position is. I want to see wages in this country grow faster than the price of housing. We have to repair that ratio for the next generation, to give them a fair chance at owning a house, and so we want to see real wage growth rising faster than house prices once again. We saw the opposition leader, Mr Taylor, out in Narrabundah today. For those listening at home, Narrabundah is a pretty wealthy suburb in Canberra. He was standing in front of a flat this morning that, in 2006, sold for $420,000. The asking price today is $900,000. He thinks that's not a problem. He thinks nothing needs to change. If the opposition want to keep everything the same, I say things have to change. The government's policies and changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will see 75,000 more Australians be able to enter the home market and give homebuyers and first home buyers a fair go against investors. The opposition says they want to keep everything the same. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem. It's about time the Liberal Party admitted that there was a problem in the housing market. It's fundamentally cooked and unfair. The definition of insanity, of course, is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, which is what we see from the Liberal Party. Actually, I'm going to contradict myself; I'll finish on this point. They do have one policy for housing: super for housing. The gold medal policy for stupidity would be to let people drain their retirement savings and push up the cost of housing. It'd be like pouring petrol on a bin fire. So I say very clearly to young Australians that the government's tax changes are about giving you a fair go at getting into the housing market. The Liberal Party think nothing should change. Aged Care 87 10:01 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman One of the things I hear most often from people across my Redlands community is that the aged-care system simply isn't working the way it should—not in theory and not on paper but in the real day-to-day lives of the people who rely on it. I recently sent out a My Aged Care survey which enabled my constituents to give feedback on where the aged-care system needs to be improved. The response has been overwhelming. The results of the survey were deeply concerning: 52 per cent of respondents reported waiting nine months or more for their approved aged-care package to become available, and 62 per cent of respondents reported facing issues with the lack of supply of providers once their package was provided. These are not short delays; they highlight critical gaps in the system, and it is impacting the real lives of Australians. I heard from an 82-year-old man who is living alone after suffering a stroke. He has a level 2 home-care package, but it is completely inadequate for his needs. He cannot stand without a walker and he fears falling when he showers, when he shaves and even when he gets into bed. Two years ago he requested a reassessment; two years later he has heard nothing. His world has shrunk to a single chair, a single window and a television. With the limited funding he does receive he can't afford to visit his wife, who is currently in a nursing home. This isn't care; this is neglect by delay. Another story came from a daughter navigating care for her elderly mother. She did everything right. She arranged an assessment, secured a package and followed the process, but, when her mother needed simple aids, like a safe kettle or easy-grip kitchen tools, she was told to wait months for approval pending assessments. Later, as her mother became almost immobile and required the highest level of support, basic necessities like continence products, a proper bed and mobility equipment were still not provided. She bought these all herself, every single item, and when she asked for reimbursement she was denied. Eventually exhausted and with no local options available her mother was placed in a nursing home four hours away. She passed away two months later. That family did everything that they could, but the system didn't. I also heard from a 76-year-old woman who hasn't even tried to access support, and this is becoming a common story in my electorate. She told me it feels that there is nowhere to go for advice, and she's not alone. The sense is that it's all too complicated. These aren't isolated cases. These are symptoms of a system that has become too hard to navigate, too slow to respond and too disconnected from common sense. Older Australians and their families deserve far better than this. We need a system that works for all Australians and respects the input that they have made to our community over so many years. Housing 88 10:04 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde Sometimes it's a little bit daunting following the member for Bruce, but the good thing about speaking in this chamber and the video feed is that I can cut this up to make it sound like I came up with the idea! But I thought he summed it up perfectly when he talked about whether house prices are going to go up or down and what the government's intention is, and our intention is that wages will grow faster than house prices. It's pretty simple. When you look at what has happened over the last 20 years, there was not only a deliberate policy to keep wages down but also an accidental policy, I guess, which forced house prices up. We've seen house prices go from multiples of four or five of the median wage to about 10 times the median wage. It has become totally unsustainable and totally unaffordable. It really has killed the Australian dream. I think what the last couple of weeks has really revealed in this place is the battlelines of the next election. When people realise that the investments that they have now have been grandfathered and the gains that they've made until now are going to be protected under the old rules, when they realise that, actually, the sky hasn't fallen down and that it's just a sensible recalibration of our tax policies to encourage people to buy a family home because it's a family home and not an investment people, the next election is going to be about that we are a party that believes in people buying a family home and in tax breaks for workers, and they're going to take a manifesto to the next election where they're going to give tax breaks to property investors. I'm not sure they've really thought this one ahead. That's, of course, unless they change leaders again. Then, I guess, everything is off the table, and there's got to be a high chance of that. At the moment, we have really seen what the battleground of the next election is going to be. The other thing that the last couple of weeks have really revealed is the philosophy of this government. I think the way the Prime Minister summed it up has two key things. One is that nobody is left behind, and nobody is held back. The other thing that he said that really struck home to me—he of course said it more eloquently than I'm going to be able to say it—was, 'When you come across a problem, do you just sort of throw your hands up in the air and say, "I wish I could do something about it, but I'm the only Prime Minister?"' because I think what the last couple of weeks has revealed is that we are the party that is not going to cop the status quo anymore. The people on the other side are the party who are defending the status quo. Somehow, they've got themselves into a position where they think that our settings around housing are good, our settings around health care are good, and our settings around industry support are good. Somehow, I think they've got themselves into this awful situation. No wonder they're doing so badly. 10:07 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I rise today to speak about an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as a nation—how we care for older Australians and whether the system is designed to support them and whether it's doing its job. Right now, too many vulnerable elderly Australians are being left to navigate a system that is complex, confusing and, in many cases, failing them. Older Australians built this nation, and they deserve to have the care and dignity that was promised to them. My Aged Care is meant to be a safety net, a gateway to essential services that allow older Australians to live with dignity in their own homes, but, what we're seeing on the ground tells a very different story. We've seen families overwhelmed by red tape, we've seen elderly Australians waiting months—sometimes longer—for care they're already been assessed as needing, and we've seen decisions being made by process, not by people. I recently asked the shadow minister for aged care, Senator Anne Ruston, to come to Townsville because we needed to advocate together for a Townsville man called Merv. Merv's case highlights just how serious the failures are. Here is a man assessed as needing a high level of care. Support included help with daily tasks like showering, personal hygiene, mobility and the clinical care required as a safety net to safely remain in the home. Merv's family, when he was assessed at a higher level, were given a lower level package. They were finding it hard to get the support to help Merv with showering. They were talking about what days Merv could have a shower. That's just un-Australian. That is a basic human right. When the family had to step in and help him with the daily living activities, they contacted my office and told me about the extreme emotional burden that they were carrying. This shouldn't have happened. It's not about luxuries; it was about where Merv was assessed. It should never take political intervention to secure the care for someone that has already been assessed as needed. And, as for Merv, whose case is now resolved thanks to the advocacy of Senator Anne Ruston and me, it shouldn't have to happen like that. People are struggling. Older Australians need the support and shouldn't be falling through the cracks. What happens if the family don't or don't know how to reach out to their federal representative? We shouldn't have to see a system failing these people. People are assessed at a higher level; they deserve the supports they need. Older Australians deserve the dignity that they always should have. Learning Ground 89 10:10 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Growing up, we either saw or were troublemakers at school. Sometimes it's because young people— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:10 to 11:29 Mr HUSIC 91219 Growing up, we either saw or were troublemakers at school. Sometimes it's because young people are doing what young people do, attracting a bit of attention while working out who they are. Sometimes that's read as being a troublemaker, but it masks something deeper. The reality is that young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds are up to five years behind in school compared to their peers, and one in five young people disengage to the point of leaving school early. Sometimes the response to kids' bad behaviour or disengagement is to shut them out or kick them out of school. It's a big call, and I'm not pointing fingers at schools—it's not an easy decision to make. The bigger test is in how to get those young people re-engaged and to rebuild the trust held by someone who feels they've been given up on. I want to state my deep respect for those people in our community who don't give up on those kids or those teenagers and who work with them. Learning Ground in Bidwill, supported by the Chain Reaction Foundation, have done this for years. The greatest thing they do is rekindle in young people a belief in themselves that they can make a greater life for themselves. Many of the young people at Learning Ground are growing up in environments that are shaped by domestic violence, substance abuse, hardship and families under huge pressure. These young people arrive at school carrying more than most. They're exhausted, hungry and emotionally overwhelmed. Learning Ground brings together educators, volunteers, philanthropists and local leaders, and they're rallying around a simple but powerful belief that every young person deserves the chance to succeed. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:31 to 11:43 Mr HUSIC 91219 From literacy programs to vocational support, young people get a chance to think about how to reshape their lives. Learning Ground demonstrates the very best of our community. I thank them warmly for what they do. Their work couldn't be done without a lot of support, which is why I also want to pay particular tribute to Kerr Neilson and the Neilson Foundation. For a decade, the foundation has been a steadfast supporter of Chain Reaction and Learning Ground, pouring in so much financial support and backing. Kerr chose to invest in young people who are often overlooked. He came to Australia as an immigrant, built an extraordinary life and career, and exemplified the best traditions of giving back to the country that provided him opportunity. His commitment reflects a belief that success carries with it a responsibility to help others succeed as well. For that generosity, foresight and commitment to the next generation, I thank Kerr and the Neilson Foundation. Together with Chain Reaction and Learning Ground, they're ensuring that more young Australians remain connected to education, opportunity and, importantly, hope. Casey Electorate: Community Volunteers 89 11:44 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It was an honour to hold the Casey Community Awards this weekend just gone and recognise 52 hardworking and dedicated volunteers in my electorate. I seek leave to present a table of the represented community groups, and to have the list incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Mr VIOLI 300147 I thank the government for that. It's so important that we recognise volunteers. They give so much back to our community. They don't do it for thanks—they do it because they love the community—but they deserve thanks. So thank you to all those volunteers who give their time to support our community. Thank you to their families and friends who support them so that they can support the community. Thank you to everyone who nominated a volunteer, because sometimes our volunteers can feel like their work is not seen and not appreciated. But it is, and we thank you for that. I also want to thank Nola Sharp, who I was lucky enough to nominate, because she gives so much back to the Wandin community, including the Wandin Toastmasters, Wandin Rotary and raising money for the Biggest Morning Tea. She's also the emcee of the event and does a wonderful job recognising all of the volunteers. So thank you for everything you do, volunteers. I'm glad we could recognise you on the weekend. I recently had the chance to join Healesville Rotary for a presentation of the Ron Goding Business Excellence Award. This award honours the late Ron Goding, a charter member and past president of Healesville Rotary Club. Congratulations to Healesville based family business Bluegum Metal Workers and Co on receiving the award this year. John, Sue and the Bleumink family established the business in 1990 as a backyard workshop, and have seen it grow into one of Australia's finest steelworks businesses. Bluegum Metal Workers and Co were selected for their craftsmanship, adaptability and commitment to our community. They give back to our community by sponsoring the Healesville Soccer Club, storing all of the Healesville Christmas decorations for Rotary at no charge, helping with the Yarra Valley Railway volunteer program and providing aid to local elderly people. It's a perfect example of the contributions small businesses make to our community, and it's an honour to Ron Goding, who treated his daily work not just as a way to make a living but as a way to serve our community and society. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:47 to 11:58 Mr VIOLI 300147 I recently had the privilege of joining the Our Hills Our Future forum in Belgrave, alongside many community members, local residents, families, industry experts and local businesses. Thank you to Elliot Bell from Bell Real Estate, whose vision brought our community together for this important event, and to all those who supported the forum and attended, including fellow panel members Paul from Mountain Men, Belinda from Mums of the Hills and Yarra Ranges councillor Peter Mcilwain. It was a great opportunity to talk about not only our community today but also how we can work together to build a better community into the future. Women in Leadership, Motor Neurone Disease 91 11:59 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane I grew up surrounded by strong women. There are seven girls in my family. My mum and grandma were true matriarchs. At school I was taught mainly by women teachers, and throughout my career I've been mentored and sponsored by strong, accomplished women, who actually paved the road that I then walked. Being surrounded by strong, knowledgeable, caring and supportive women gave me my voice. I tell this story because women can make a difference, especially if we support each other. Women matter and their voices matter. Women make up half the population, yet our issues are often misunderstood, dismissed or sometimes ignored. But we know that having women in leadership positions drives the changes that women need. You can't be what you can't see. Women have a place in this world. We can lead and we can make a difference. This is why I recently had the pleasure of joining a panel of women leaders at the University of Queensland. The event, attended mainly by aspiring young women, was hosted by Zoe, the President of the Political Science and International Relations Society at the university. The discussion centred on the recognition that diverse representation leads to better outcomes in policymaking and in government. I couldn't agree more. Look at our landmark women's health package and our support for pay rises for some of the lowest paid workers across the country. Millions of award-reliant workers will see a pay rise of between 4.75 per cent and six per cent in their pay packets from 1 July in a few weeks time, and these workers are predominantly women. I also spoke to the students, though, about the importance in leadership of holding true to your values, backing yourself, being brave and, importantly, being kind to yourself. It was so inspiring to be amongst so many young future women leaders, some who may one day sit in my chair in this chamber. Thank you, Zoe and the team, for a wonderful event. Tragically, we recently lost an Australian hero and legend Neale Daniher to motor neurone disease. Neil fought what he called the beast with courage, optimism and passion that brought hope and inspiration to many people affected by MND. The difference he made can be measured in national awareness and in the tens of millions of dollars that he and the FightMND fund have raised to support research for a cure. Approximately 3,000 Australians live with MND, including former Broncos and Queensland Maroons player Jai Arrow. It's a debilitating disease. It forced him to retire early. It took the life of a friend of mine who never got the chance to see her daughter grow up. We still haven't found a cure, and we know we need to step up our efforts to find one. That's why it was great to join hundreds of Brisbane residents at the New Farm annual walk for MND. As we said on that day, until there's a cure, there is care and there is community. I want to say to everyone with MND: we have your back. Grey Electorate: Crime and Mental Health, Grey Electorate: Acknowledgements 92 12:02 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey I rise today to raise the alarm on behalf of my struggling regional communities experiencing crime, anti-social behaviour and poor mental health. I've had 27 letters plus harrowing videos sent to me mostly from Ceduna businesses, all of which tell me they're on the brink of closing. Here are some examples: People are intentionally stealing stock and abusing staff members. Another remarked: Never seen so much shoplifting and anti-social behaviour in my life. Many— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:02 to 12:11 Mr VENNING 315434 Many indicated that they used to leave the door open, but now they have to lock it, and the list goes on and on. The antisocial conduct has been so concerning that the CBD has been designated by SA Police as a declared shopping precinct. This grants SA Police expanded temporary powers to search and move people out of the Ceduna CBD to ensure public safety. But it's not just Ceduna where crime and antisocial behaviour are spiralling out of control. Home invasions and street violence in Port Augusta are placing enormous pressure on police and local services. Suicide rates are way too high in Streaky Bay, where there is a constant shortage of mental health workers. Currently, it's up to our incredible volunteers to do all the heavy lifting, and they are burnt out. All of these issues are rearing their head in the far north in places like Coober Pedy. Things are so out of hand in Coober Pedy that the mental health commissioner was compelled to visit on 27 May. I am told by the SA Mental Health Commissioner that services are stretched and problems are escalating. If the South Australian Mental Health Commissioner can acknowledge that Coober Pedy is in desperate need of help, then why is it so hard for this government to do the same? If we can hear the alarm bell raised by local leaders in rural and remote areas of South Australia, why does this government block its ears? The sad reality is that these communities have been left behind and pushed into a crime and mental health crisis. If mental health outcomes in these areas continue to deteriorate, there'll be more crime, more violence and more people being pushed into our crumbling public health system. Crime and antisocial behaviour are destroying these once thriving regional communities. I stand with the families, business owners and local leaders and regional towns like Ceduna, Port Augusta, Streaky Bay and Coober Pedy. I urge the government to start allocating resources to address these very real problems before it is too late. Five students from Whyalla have done something truly remarkable. Eli Coppins, Caelan Kaminski, Simon Coppins, Shannon Bayogos and Karman Randhawa will be representing the electorate of Grey on the world stage at the H2 Grand Prix World Finals in Switzerland. How incredible is that! Albanvale Football Netball Club, Gorton Electorate: Community Events 92 12:14 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton After three years as club president, Martin Bielski of the Albanvale Football Netball Club has made the difficult decision to step down from the role. I want to thank this passionate local leader who has given so much to our community through grassroots sport, as always putting the best interests of the club first. During a significant period of growth and transition, Martin's leadership, dedication and tireless volunteer service have helped strengthen the club both on and off the field. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:14 to 12:51 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 The Albanvale Cobras are more than just a football and netball club. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:51 to 13:18 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 They provide a place where friendships are formed, young people grow in confidence and the community comes together. They're a fantastic club, and I know there's more work to be done in terms of infrastructure. Martin's contribution has helped ensure their important legacy continues for future generations. I congratulate Dean Formosa on stepping into the role of interim president, alongside Vice-President Karl O'Donnell, and wish the leadership group every success for the season ahead. Go, Cobras! Getting up in front of others and speaking from the heart is no easy feat, as all of us in this place know. Those who competed in heat 7 of the Wynspeak youth public-speaking competition at Lakeview Senior College know this as well. This annual competition is run by local Rotary Clubs and entered into by more than 40 schools from across Melbourne's western suburbs. From speaking about the dangers of perfectionism and AI data centres to speaking about the importance of youth activism, these students were truly inspiring. I give a shout-out to one of our 2025 Gorton Young Leader awardees, Joywin Benmar Rees from Yarrabing Secondary College, who gave an impassioned speech about the importance of financial literacy for young people, showing wisdom beyond his years. Congratulations to all the participants from our local Gorton schools Yarrabing Secondary College, Overnewton Anglican Community College, Lakeview Senior College, Catholic Regional College and Bacchus Marsh Grammar Woodlea Campus. These young people from Melbourne's west are the real deal, and the future is in good hands with them. Thank you to the volunteers of the Caroline Springs RSL Sub-Branch for their morning tea celebrating National Volunteer Week. From supporting the ANZAC Appeal and organising the Anzac Day commemorative services and youth vigil to school engagement, welfare outreach and community support, the contribution of the RSL volunteers helps keep the spirit of service and remembrance alive in Caroline Springs. This local RSL has a wonderful partnership with the Caroline Springs Scout Group based on friendship, mentorship and shared service to the community. It reflects the very best of who we are in Melbourne's west—people coming together to support one another and make our community stronger. To Peter Burquest, Dave Saunders, Wendy Mason, the veterans of the Caroline Springs RSL and all volunteers in our community: thank you for everything you do. Crime: Illicit Tobacco 93 13:21 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash Australia is in the grips of an illegal tobacco crisis, and the report released yesterday on household tobacco consumption and illegal nicotine by the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms our very worst fears. We are now looking at an illegal tobacco market in Australia that grips 80 per cent of the whole market. That means just 20 per cent of the nicotine and tobacco market in Australia operates through legal avenues. What's worse is that we're now looking at a 40 per cent increase in nicotine consumption over eight years. There should be three imperatives when looking at this issue. First, the most important job of any government is to keep Australians safe. On that metric, this federal Labor government is failing terribly. We've seen organised crime and over 300 firebombings, and Nick McKenzie's investigation into the CFMEU showed clear links to the illegal tobacco trade. We're losing billions of dollars in lost excise revenue. In fact, just $4.1 billion will be brought in, in downgraded Treasury forecasts. For my region, that represents about five new West Gippsland hospitals. The forecast to 2029 has been downgraded by nearly $15 billion. That's money that's not being spent on roads, schools and hospitals. The federal government has completely outsourced this issue to organised crime and the illicit market, and that is having a terrible consequence. The Victorian government have just made an announcement on tougher penalties. The thing I would say about the Victorian Labor government is that they're always slow to react and they're always wrong on these issues. States like Queensland and Tasmania have done a great job of bringing in tough new laws to shut down illegal tobacco shops and change their leasing arrangements, but we cannot have one focus on one solution to this problem. We need a Swiss Army knife approach to combating illegal tobacco. Law enforcement alone won't work. We need to look at excise tax reductions, beefed-up law enforcement and an education campaign, because, at the moment, we are going to see a continuation of the illicit market. We're going to see tragic cases like that of the woman in Melbourne who was killed as a result of mistaken identity in a house fire and that of a young woman going to work at a convenience store who was held up for a pack of 20s. They're the sorts of stories I'm hearing every day. It's not good enough. The federal government need to change their approach and get real on illicit tobacco. 1st Preston Scout and Community Centre, Endangered Species: Flying Foxes 94 13:24 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise to inform the chamber of the opening of the 1st Preston Scout and Community Centre. This was a project that I was incredibly proud to attend and speak at alongside wonderful families and volunteers in my electorate of Cooper. What I saw was more than a refurbished building; it was a space brought back to life by a dedicated Scout group and a community that refused to let it fade away. With support from the Albanese Labor government through the Thriving Suburbs Program, we invested more than $545,000 to transform a once unusable hall into a vibrant, modern community hub. That investment has delivered a main activity space for Scouts to meet, learn and grow; community rooms for the rest of Preston and surrounding suburbs to use; and— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299964 Sorry to interrupt the debate. We have lost quorum, so we will have to suspend the Federation Chamber. Sitting suspended from 13:25 to 13:26 (Quorum formed) Ms KEARNEY LTU Now, that investment has delivered a main activity space for Scouts to meet, to learn and to grow. There's a wonderful community room that the rest of Preston and surrounding suburbs and other community groups can use. There's a brand new sparkling kitchen, accessible amenities and outdoor areas designed to bring people together. Scouting plays a vital role in shaping young people—building skills, confidence, leadership and resilience. Many people feel disconnected right now, but this centre gives young people and their community a place to belong. To Alan Harding, the group leader of Preston Scout Group, and to every volunteer and every young adult who's a member of the Scouts group: thank you and congratulations. Labor is proud to invest in community groups like yours, because when we support these spaces we support our future. I recently joined the Friends of Bats and Bushcare group to celebrate 20 years of the flying fox soft release program at Yarra Bend Park. For two decades, this extraordinary program has cared for orphaned and injured grey-headed flying foxes, giving hundreds of young bats a second chance and helping them return to the wild. These remarkable animals play a vital role in pollinating our native forests and maintaining healthy ecosystems across Victoria. What makes this program so special is the people behind it. Every rescued bat and successful release over the past 20 years has been made possible by dedicated volunteers who have devoted countless hours. I particularly want to acknowledge Davita Coronel and Lawrence Pope for their leadership, passion and commitment. I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government committed $30,000 to Parks Victoria to help protect the Yarra Bend flying fox colony. To everyone who has volunteered with this program over the past 20 years: thank you. Your care for these unique animals is helping protect biodiversity and strengthen our environment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299964 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 94 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 94

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Consideration in Detail 94 Consideration in Detail 94 Consideration in Detail 94