2026-08-11 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 12:01 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the order of the day for the resumption of debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026 being called on immediately; (2) debate on the second reading of the bill continuing for a period of no longer than one hour; (3) questions then being immediately put on any second reading amendments and on the second reading of the bill; (4) consideration in detail then proceeding immediately, with the Leader of the Opposition being permitted to move amendments which are not relevant to the subject matter of the bill; and (5) any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill then being put immediately. Yesterday marked 90 days since Labor's bin fire of a budget, a budget full of toxic taxes—taxes on housing; taxes on savings; taxes on investment; taxes on small businesses, some of the very hardest working Australians; taxes on shares, on crypto and on every asset class; taxes on aspirational young Australians trying to build a nest egg; taxes on family businesses, who work day and night, weekday and weekend, to try to make ends meet; taxes on farmers; and taxes on charities. The cruellest tax of them all is a wicked tax on widows and divorcees. What type of government thinks that it's acceptable to whack a tax on Australians who are grieving at the loss of a spouse or a partner? What type of government sees dollar signs when looking at someone who's gone through a traumatic break-up? What type of government is so desperate for money that it goes after Australians who are the victims of family and domestic violence? I'll tell you what type of government—a government that has lost its moral compass, a government so heartless that it goes after Australians who are heartbroken and hurt. The justifiable public backlash to Labor's budget is of a magnitude unlike anything we have seen in recent times. Australians are rightly calling it the worst budget in living memory. Labor's budget has blown up in their faces, and don't they know it? That's why they've proposed carve-outs. That's why the Treasurer wanted extraordinary powers to make captain's calls. That's why, when the Treasurer appeared on the ABC's Insiders program and was asked about his widows tax, he said he would fix it. He said it. Well, more than 40 days have passed since the Treasurer made that promise. His word ain't his bond; that's for sure. And where's the legislation? It's nowhere to be seen. Instead, the government is doing a two-week consultation period before it brings forward any legislation. 'Lazy Labor' is doing the consultation now that it should have done before the budget. All this procrastination and delay means one thing: the government won't fix its cruel widows tax until as late as September or even October at best. Who knows? You never know, when this government says something, whether it is ever going to happen. In the meantime, widows, divorcees and victims of family and domestic violence will be hit by Labor's toxic taxes. We've seen the ramifications of this tax. News.com.au recently reported on the effects of the widows tax on a 44-year-old domestic abuse victim. The woman couldn't refinance an investment property she co-owned with her ex-partner because of Labor's negative gearing changes, and that means she could lose a retirement asset she spent more than 15 years building. The widows tax is completely unacceptable, and we're not going to let Labor get away with it. We're not going to let Australians endure this government's incompetence and inaction one moment longer. Today we seek to suspend standing orders to force the government to fix its treasury laws amendment bill. We want the widows tax gone, and we're putting forward an amendment to the government's bill to repeal Labor's widows tax. If the government is serious about fixing the problem it has created, it should welcome our amendment today. The widow tax can be scrapped in this sitting period right now, and there's no reason this mean-spirited tax shouldn't be scrapped in this sitting period. We have another amendment too. Under the Albanese Labor government's watch, 30 businesses a day are going bust. It's a record number. Small and family businesses' dreams are going up in smoke in record numbers. They're feeling the pressure that Labor has put on them on every front—higher taxes, soaring energy bills, choking regulation—and they need tax relief. They need renewed confidence. They need to be able to reinvest in their businesses, which is also an investment in their communities and in our country. In the coalition's budget reply, I announced our plan to back small and family businesses, those with a turnover of under $10 million, with a permanent $50,000 instant asset write-off. Today we seek to amend the government's bill to legislate our small business tax deduction, which would be welcome relief for those hardworking small and family businesspeople who are doing it so tough right now. Just as small businesses need tax relief, so do hardworking Australians. Inflation doesn't simply make prices increase—and in fact, we know they've been increasing faster than incomes. When Australians' wages rise to keep up in an attempt to at least keep up with inflation, their income creeps into higher tax brackets. This is a dirty little secret of this government. The higher inflation goes and the longer it lasts, the more Australians are paying in income tax every single year through bracket creep and the more the Albanese government takes from Australians every year. It turns out that the Treasurer's homegrown inflation, their inflation, is driving up their tax revenues and they love it. But I tell you who doesn't love it: the Australian people. In the coalition's budget reply, I announced our plan to stop this dishonest inflation tax. We will index tax thresholds to protect Australians' incomes from inflation. A typical worker will be better off $250 in year 1, $500 in year 2, $750 in year 3, $1000 in year 4 and much more than that at current inflation rates, which are well above the targeted 2½ per cent. Our policy will give Australians a bigger tax cut each year than Labor's would without those tax increases. This is genuine tax reform. This is what tax reform is about—not raising taxes, as those opposite define it. Today I call on the government to support our tax-back guarantee. If Labor is for scrapping its widows tax, if Labor is for providing small and family businesses with proper tax deductions at a time when they need it most, and if Labor is for providing every Australian with a bigger and better income-tax cut, then the Albanese government will welcome this debate and agree to the amendments that the coalition has put forward today. Everything we are asking for here today is reasonable, and the choice for the Albanese government is very simple: Labor can act in the national interest or remain stubbornly self-interested. Sadly, we see it repeated time and time again—they are stubbornly self-interested. But here's an opportunity to show Australians they're prepared to act in the national interest. Labor can show some humility or double down with their hubris. Labor can seek some redemption and fix their bad budget or fix nothing and face further condemnation from Australians. Australians are watching. They want better, and here's an opportunity for Labor to give it to them. 12:11 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is this suspension seconded? 12:11 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It is seconded. I want to start by commending the Leader of the Opposition for moving this suspension of standing orders. It is so important for so many Australians who are looking on this parliament right now—after a train-wreck budget that has put to an end so many people's aspirations and ambitions because the Treasurer and the Prime Minister can't keep their greedy mitts off people's hip pockets and wallets—to get a sense of relief, because there are so many people who make an effort to back themselves and to get ahead, to save, to invest, to build a future and retirement security for themselves, and the government can't control themselves. We know that this is a tax. The widows tax is not a tax that existed before the budget; it was a tax introduced in the federal budget. And it was only when it was exposed that the government was coming after grieving widows, the victims of domestic violence and those who are experiencing the horrible consequences of divorce and death that the government turned around and said they're going to do something about this tax, but where is it? We're here to have the discussion, have the debate, pass the legislation and repeal the tax right now. But the government don't want to. It's almost like they want to play politics with grieving widows, the victims of domestic violence and those with debt, and that is the tragedy. We're happy to have a debate here. We're happy to bring it on right now. It's only a question of whether the government rise to the challenge and actually honour their word. I do concede that they have not said they are going to introduce this change 50 times over but maybe for once they could actually honour their word. There are so many Australians who are looking at this parliament and looking at their smashed dreams, especially if they're in small business, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined. On housing, on rents, we have seen tax after tax after tax and it's just a disgrace that the government cannot help themselves but to hit widows in their hip pockets. We need change and, as the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly outlined, the time is now. But the only reason this government won't do it is because they want to keep the money off grieving widows and, of course, the victims of domestic violence and those who have lost their spouses. This is a disgrace. They could change it now. They want the tax revenue because they can't control their spending addiction. I know the member for Sturt during the winter recess had a number of things to say, highlighting the absurdities and the inconsistencies of the government's budget. She wrote to her constituents, pleading, begging for support after, quite justifiably, constituents had written to her and said, 'If the objective is to make housing affordability for first homeowners better, why are you hitting my small business? Why are you hitting my investments? Why are you hitting widows with new taxes? And, of course, in a desperate plea to try and explain it away, she said, 'Actually, you're right. It doesn't make any sense.' So where in the chamber right now is the member for Sturt, to vote on this legislation? I know the member for Hindmarsh, the Minister for Health and Ageing, is out there trying to wangle his way over to the chair right there, and maybe he's brought a prime-ministerial discipline to the member for Sturt and expelled her from the chamber. But now is the time. If the members just brought on the debate, brought on a vote, we could repeal this tax right here, right now, so we had a pathway forward. I know the members on the government side won't like these changes, particularly the amendments that have rightly been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, because, if they were passed, it would mean lower taxes on Australians, it would mean the legislation of the tax-back guarantee, and, most importantly, it would mean that the government weren't able to be the silent thief in the night on inflation by adding new taxes. That's what we have in our plan as part of making sure that there is a better pathway forward for this government. What we know is this government, at every point, has gone after the hip pockets of Australians. Every time they've had a chance to increase a tax, they've gone about doing so. Every time they've been able to find a vulnerable section of the community or somebody who's backing themselves to get ahead or somebody who's actually employing the next generation of Australians, their only solution has been, 'How do we take our share of those people's incomes, growth and wealth?' because they can't manage their spending addiction. It's an old truism, but it remains the same: when they run out of money, they come after yours. So I fully support this suspension of standing orders, and I hope the members opposite will bring on debate and save Australia's widows. 12:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the debate be adjourned. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The question is that the debate on the suspension of the standing order motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be adjourned.  

The House divided. [12:21]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Sharon Claydon)

86 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. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. 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. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 47 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. 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. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

BILLS 4 BILLS Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026, Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026, Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026, Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 4

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026

Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Reference to Federation Chamber 4 12:26 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 immediately; (2) Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026; and (3) Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 and Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. BUSINESS 4 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 4 12:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the Federation Chamber order of the day government business No. 7, relating to the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech, stands returned to the House for further consideration. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The matters will be set down for consideration at a later hour this day. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 4 12:28 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately: (1) the Member for Curtin presenting a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes; (2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and (3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay. I do not move a motion like this lightly—suspending standing orders is an extraordinary step—and I recognise the House doesn't take it lightly either. But I'm asking for one hour of debate and a vote on a bill that has been sitting on the Notice Paper for three months, that was first introduced to this parliament more than two years ago and that fixes a single, narrow, well understood problem. I'm asking for that hour because every week this parliament delays is a week in which dying Australians and their families continue to suffer for no reason connected to their own choices, their own illness or their own state's laws but because of an accident of Commonwealth drafting two decades ago. Voluntary assisted dying, VAD, is lawful in every Australian state and the ACT, with the Northern Territory expected to follow this very month. Every one of those jurisdictions has a tightly regulated scheme. A person must make multiple formal requests for VAD to a doctor, including one in writing. They must undergo independent clinical assessments by doctors who've undergone mandatory training. There's a requirement for independent witnesses as well as independent board oversight of every case to monitor compliance, track medication, review cases and report directly to parliament. Australian VAD laws are considered some of the most prescriptive, the most highly regulated, in the world, and the safeguards are working. VAD deaths make up a tiny proportion of all deaths in Australia, between one and three per cent annually, consistent with other countries where assisted dying is legal. There have now been more than 7,000 voluntary assisted dying cases across Australia since 2019. Each has been examined by a government appointed independent review board, as well as parliamentary reviews and independent studies. There has been no evidence linking VAD frameworks to elder abuse or coercion. Yet sitting above all of that carefully built state and territory law is a Commonwealth provision, subdivision G of the Criminal Code, aimed at pro-suicide websites and chatrooms, inserted in 2005, more than a decade before any Australian jurisdiction had legalised VAD. This provision makes it a criminal offence punishable by fines of more than $300,000 for a doctor to discuss lawful voluntary assisted dying care with a patient over the phone, by email or by videocall. The practical effect of this provision is that no part of the VAD process can occur by telehealth, not one consultation. Every assessment, every request and every question a dying patient has for their doctor between appointments must happen in person, no matter the distance, the pain or the time that patient has left. Australia's the only country to criminalise the use of telehealth in relation to VAD appointments this way. I want the House to understand what that actually means for real people, because I don't think this parliament has properly reckoned with the human cost of this anomaly. Researchers at QUT's Australian Centre for Health Law Research spent years interviewing patients, family caregivers, doctors and nurses across Victoria, WA and Queensland precisely about this. One doctor described the law bluntly. The barrier around what can and can't be discussed over a carriage service in the era of telehealth is, in their words, 'just crazy'. Consider Brian Dick, an 81-year-old man from Swan Hill dying of prostate cancer. Despite a broken back and broken ribs from a recent fall, Brian had to make a 4-hour round trip to Bendigo for his multiple voluntary assisted dying eligibility assessments, because telehealth was not an option. His pain medication could not remove his discomfort during that drive. His daughter Rebecca has described sitting beside him on that road as he begged her: Just stop the car, stop the car. I can't handle the motion … That's what this law does to a dying man in his final months seeking care that is entirely legal. Consider Tom, a 79-year-old man in Queensland dying of lung disease, who died waiting for his voluntary assisted dying medication to arrive by post, because pharmacists have no legal choice but to mail it. Consider the two rural doctors who, in one documented case, made three trips totalling 8,500 kilometres to assess a single patient—kilometres, time and effort that could have been given to other patients waiting to see a doctor in parts of the country that already have too few trained VAD practitioners. Consider Terry, whose daughter Emma brought a petition to this House on his behalf which I tabled last month. That petition was signed by more than 13,000 Australians and calls for this unnecessary Commonwealth restriction on using telehealth for VAD appointments to be removed. In his final week, simply reaching the bathroom was a huge task for Terry, let alone getting into a car for a medical appointment. Emma said telehealth would have made an enormous difference to her father and would have given him back some agency and dignity in his last days. Instead, this Commonwealth anomaly took that away from him. These are not fringe cases. The QUT researchers documented this pattern again and again—patients arriving in wheelchairs in their pyjamas, too sore and too exhausted to dress themselves, because they were not allowed to speak to the doctor by phone. These are delays that, in some cases, rob patients of their VAD choice. Despite being approved for VAD, Alan in regional Victoria died without VAD due to long delays in receiving the medication. He died in the circumstances he feared the most. His wife, Zenda, described his death as the most horrific end. This is the problem. Let me turn to the bill this motion would allow the House to debate and pass. The fix in my bill is deliberately narrow. It inserts a single amendment into subdivision G of the Criminal Code, making clear that lawful voluntary assisted dying, carried out in accordance with the state or territory VAD law, is not suicide for the purposes of the Commonwealth carriage service offences. That is the entire substantive change. This amendment does not touch a single safeguard that exists under state and territory law in relation to VAD. It doesn't mandate telehealth in any case. It does not go anywhere near the act of administration of VAD medication, which state and territory law dictates can only be self-administered or directly practitioner administered. What this amendment does affect is the earlier assessment process for VAD—the multiple formal requests and independent assessments needed to establish eligibility and voluntariness—and every decision as to whether or not telehealth is clinically appropriate in all of the circumstances for a particular appointment would properly revert to being a decision for the doctor engaged, because doctors and their patients are best placed to decide when telehealth is clinically appropriate, not the police. Doctors already make these decisions in relation to every other area of Australian medicine in accordance with Medical Board of Australia telehealth guidelines. These guidelines require a doctor to continuously assess the appropriateness of using telehealth for a particular consultation. There is nothing novel about this. Telehealth is already an established practice for serious, complex, life-and-death clinical decisions across Australian medicine, particularly in rural and remote areas, where it's often the only way a patient can reach a specialist at all. My bill does not ask the parliament to invent a new category of medical practice. It asks the parliament to stop treating voluntary assisted dying as the single exception where telehealth cannot be used. At its national conference a fortnight ago, the government's own party membership resolved to remove federal barriers to end-of-life care, including telehealth, while maintaining appropriate clinical safeguards and resolved that this should be a conscience matter for its members. This is why I am asking this House for one hour not to relitigate whether voluntary assisted dying should exist but to determine whether this ordinary, trusted clinical practice should be treated as a crime. The Australian Medical Association, the Law Council, VAD regulatory bodies, 20 health organisations and state attorneys-general and health ministers all support this change. Now it is time to determine whether this House also supports that change. We simply want to let this parliament do what people like Brian, like Tom, like Terry and his daughter Emma have been waiting for years for it to do—pass a narrow technical fix so that a dying person can speak to their doctor without turning both of them into criminals. I commend this motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the motion seconded? 12:39 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I second the motion to suspend standing orders to reintroduce the bill sponsored by the member for Curtin. The most vulnerable moments in our lives are those in which we enter this world and those in which we leave it. I want to acknowledge here the doctors, nurses, pharmacists and healthcare professionals who provide end-of-life care across this country. I believe that we shouldn't put those professionals at risk because our laws are outdated and misdirected. Within weeks, every state and territory in Australia will have passed laws legalising voluntary assisted dying. Voluntary assisted dying is not a choice between life and death. All it does is enable terminally ill individuals to take control of their imminent and inevitable death by choosing its manner and its timing. Suicide is a choice, often made in crisis, between continuing life and not doing so. It is an entirely different circumstance. Australia's leading suicide prevention organisations all agree that the conflation of voluntary assisted dying with suicide is wrong. But a 2005 amendment to the Commonwealth Criminal Code aimed at online material inciting suicide, created more than a decade before VAD was legal anywhere in this country, makes it a federal offence, with penalties of over $300,000, to use a telephone, video conference or email—a carriage service—to discuss lawful VAD services. This means that a doctor can lawfully care for a dying patient in a clinic but that the same care delivered over the phone, because that patient is unable to travel, is a federal crime. It means that doctors can't call or use telehealth to review symptoms, to adjust doses, just to answer questions. It means that prescriptions can't be emailed or texted to a pharmacy and that, in Queensland, voluntary assisted dying medications have to be posted or hand delivered. It means that dying patients often have to travel hundreds of kilometres to receive the care that they need and deserve—often in distress, often in pain. It means that sometimes they die before they can access the end-of-life care that they want. Demand for VAD is growing, but up to 40 per cent of people who begin the process don't live to complete it. The member for Curtin's bill makes a simple and single amendment. It excludes conduct lawfully undertaken under a state or territory VAD scheme from the Commonwealth carriage service offence. It doesn't touch existing strict state eligibility criteria or safeguards. Capacity assessment, coercion screening and identity verification remain mandatory in all states and territories. They ensure that all individuals freely and repeatedly choose what they're requesting. This bill would not make VAD telehealth only. No-one has ever supported that, and statements to the contrary are wilfully misleading. Best practice medical care is always face to face, but this bill permits clinicians simply to exercise the same clinical judgement over the use of telehealth services that they exercise every day in this country for palliative care, for psychiatry and for the termination of pregnancies. The AMA, the Law Council, the ANMF—more than 20 health organisations, including Palliative Care Australia, support this change. State attorneys-general and patient support groups have called for this action. Two weeks ago, the ALP's national conference entrenched it in the party's platform. And yet it's been reported that cabinet will not permit us to vote on this issue here. I seconded the member for Curtin's private member's bill on this issue in February 2024 and wrote to the Attorney-General at that time, imploring him to act on this. The bill was allowed to lapse without a debate and without a vote. Two years on, with the ALP's platform now aligned with doctors and with dying patients and their families, there is no good reason for delay. As a doctor, I know this is a very sensitive issue, but, as a doctor, I also know that all Australians deserve the very best practice end-of-life care. This simple bill would enable this. So I urge every member of this House to support the suspension motion to reintroduce this bill, to give it the debate and the vote that we were denied in 2024, to prevent even one more Australian dying in unnecessary pain because this House continues to fail to right a longstanding wrong. 12:44 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this debate on and the way in which she has engaged not just in this House around this debate today but also in the public domain, including in the media and with the government as well, particularly with me. I really appreciate the way in which that's happened. And I thank the member for Kooyong for seconding this. As both speakers have indicated, this debate today, I think, arises out of the decision of the ALP's national conference a couple of weeks ago—a conference of which I'm proud, because it is a debate held in public. It is telecast. It is open to visitors. It has these often very difficult, deeply held debates, and has for many, many decades, in the public light. As has been indicated, the conference decided a couple of weeks ago, as a matter of policy, that Labor will remove restrictions in Commonwealth law on a carriage service being used in association with state voluntary assisted dying laws, and—as both speakers have indicated—importantly, while maintaining appropriate clinical safeguards. I was there for the debate. It was a very respectful debate. I thank the conference delegates, some of whom had quite different views about this issue, for the way in which that debate was held at our conference. It was deeply respectful there, as in this chamber and right across the community. These issues raise very deeply held views, some of which come from very traumatic personal experiences. I acknowledge that and thank both speakers for the way in which they've approached this debate today. As with all decisions of the party platform and party conference, as we've said a number of times, the government and the parliamentary party will decide any questions of implementation of our party's platform. Responsibility for the laws that the member for Curtin is seeking to amend sits with the Attorney-General. The current Attorney-General, as the former attorney-general did, has been engaging with her state and territory colleagues about these issues. Responsibility for the second element of the party's decision a couple of weeks ago—the question of appropriate clinical safeguards—rests with me as the health minister. Although it's the second part of the resolution of the conference, it's effectively a precondition, in our view, for consideration of any change to the laws. Reasonable people might disagree about what an appropriate clinical safeguard for the use of telehealth in relation to voluntary assisted dying might be, but I indicate my view as health minister and as one member of the government that this is a critical question. Telehealth has exploded, as every member of this parliament knows, since COVID. The experience of that, frankly, has been quite mixed. The seconder of this motion indicated that we should simply follow—I hope I'm not verballing the member for Kooyong—a clinical judgement of a doctor about the use of telehealth. Frankly, my experience of telehealth over the last several years, in too many instances, has indicated that, without very strict clinical safeguards, telehealth has not been used appropriately. There is case after case after case about that. I'm not convinced that the current telehealth arrangements are particularly well suited to VAD right now. They have not been appropriate for a whole range of ways in which new business models have been developed to use telehealth in a way that I don't think is clinically appropriate. Reasonable people will disagree about what the telehealth standards should be. I agree with the member for Kooyong; I don't know that anyone has ever indicated seriously that VAD should be telehealth only. I've never heard anyone reasonably make that judgement. When a carriage service should be used for particular steps in the VAD process is a very important clinical decision as a matter of substance but also as a matter of perception and reputation. I indicate that that is something we take very seriously. I'm sure all members take it very seriously, even if they might disagree about the finer details on what those clinical safeguards should be. I'm very keen to continue engaging on this with members of the parliament but also with many other members of the community who have deeply held views about this; I acknowledge that. We are not in a position to support this motion today. 12:49 Ms WHITE 224102 Lyons I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the debate be adjourned.  

The House divided. [12:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

74 AYES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hastie, A. W. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Joyce, B. T. G. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 12 NOES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

 BILLS 9 BILLS Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026 9

Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026

First Reading 9 13:00 Ms WHITE 224102 Lyons I move: That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 13:00 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the second reading be considered immediately". On the last sitting day prior to the winter recess, the Senate sent a clear message about putting older Australians first, and it's now time the House of Representatives do the same. The bill that is the subject of the motion is about one fundamental matter: ensuring that humans, not computers, make decisions when it comes to our elderly. This is critically important because elderly Australians are deeply concerned at the moment with the way that the aged-care system is treating them. They do not want a faceless algorithm determining their outcomes when it comes to aged care. They want this matter addressed immediately because, if it isn't, what we're going to see is more and more perverse outcomes for elderly Australians. We're also going to see backlog after backlog after backlog, because people will seek review after review after review of the decisions that these algorithms are making. I have to make the point that those opposite, who are now in government, made a huge fuss about anything being automated when they were in opposition, yet here they are, using algorithms to determine outcomes for our elderly. We say enough is enough, and we would like to bring the debate and the discussion on so that we can make sure that this is fixed. If this bill can pass the parliament today, if this bill is considered immediately, then we will be able to address this issue, and we will go a small way to add in some sort of comfort to elderly Australians. There are still a lot of issues under which elderly Australians are buckling because of this government, but this is one thing that we could address. That is why we want to see this brought on and why we think it is critical that it is brought on. I'll look forward to hearing from the government as to why it shouldn't be, because there is no real reason why it shouldn't be. We have ample time in the chamber to make it happen. If the government votes to not allow this to be considered today, each and every one of those members of the government who votes accordingly should be able to go back to their electorates and explain to their constituents why they're happy for an algorithm to do the work when it comes to our aged-care system. That's what they all should be prepared to do. My hope is that constituents right around Australia will be going to their local member and saying, 'How did you vote when it comes to this?' There is no question whatsoever that people are worried about our aged-care system. The government made a lot of noise about our aged-care system and how they were going to fix it. I remember—this is going back now a little way, because they've been in government for four years—in the lead-up to the 2022 election, the government made a lot of promises when it came to our aged-care system. But I don't remember one of those promises being about using algorithms to fix the system to determine outcomes for our elderly. I just cannot recall that, so I'm looking forward to that being explained by those opposite, those in government. Where was it in any of your policy platforms? I know you've just had your national conference. Where was it at your national conference that you highlighted the fact that algorithms would be embedded in our aged-care system and in making determinations in our aged-care system? That is what we need to hear from the government on. At the moment, all we're hearing—and this is becoming far too common from the government—is just denial. They just say point blank, 'Oh, that's not happening.' We've seen the Prime Minister do it on numerous occasions. He just denies anything's happened: 'I deny I fell off a stage!' An opposition member: Down an escalator. Mr TEHAN 210911 'I deny I tripped down an escalator. I deny I said this before the budget. I deny I said this before the election.' Well, they seem to now be denying that the algorithm is doing the job, yet there is proof that it is doing the job. That's why the government need to address this, and the best way they can address it is to bring on this debate now. There is no good reason why they shouldn't. Speaker, you will recall that, before we went into the winter recess, we raised this as a serious issue, so the government has had five weeks to consider what it needs to do. That is why we think the bill is urgent and should be considered today. There's plenty of time for the House to debate it today, and there is no valid reason why the government shouldn't. Let's be very clear. Those of us who have been in our electorates for the last five weeks—members from both, I'm sure, the government side and, I know, the opposition side—will have heard that the system is failing. More and more we're getting people coming to us saying, 'What is going on?' I heard a particularly bad case from a resident in Casterton in my electorate just on the weekend. She is the wife of someone who needs urgent help, urgent support. They are being messed around, and it did seem like an algorithm was being used, because every time they approached the aged-care sector to say, 'Surely we can get help nearer our community,' they were told, 'Well, we'll have to see.' I don't know how the checks or balances work, but they kept being told they had to go over an hour and a half away to get that assistance when the help was right there in their local community. Even though they kept raising and saying, 'That's going to cost more,' it seemed like the request just went into the system, and the algorithm spat out the outcome, which said, 'No, you've got to drive over an hour and 20, an hour and a half to have the support services that you need.' That's why this needs to be fixed. That's just one of numerous examples that I've heard in my electorate, and I'm sure everyone, over the five weeks of the winter, has heard something similar. That is why I have moved that we should now bring this on, debate it and deal with it—because if we don't, sadly, we're going to see more and more examples like the one I heard recently from a constituent in the town of Casterton. We want to make sure, on our side—and I'm sure, on the government's side, they don't want elderly Australians suffering. But that is what's occurring because of the problems the system is facing today, especially when it comes to a system that seems wholly and solely reliant on algorithms and not wholly and solely reliant on humans putting a human face to decision-making and making sure we get the right outcomes, the whole time, for elderly Australians. 13:10 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I second the amendment and give credit to the Manager of Opposition Business for raising this amendment today. It really shouldn't need to be the business of the opposition to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to deliver the basics in aged care that Australians deserve, but that is exactly what we are seeing today. The opposition stands here ready to bring on the Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026 that the Senate saw fit to pass before the winter break commenced. We should do it right here and right now. I say that because our inboxes as MPs are getting overloaded with stories from Australians whose families are being let down by a horribly failing system. The minister, I think, sets the right tone, but he's completely lacking in substance to deal with these issues that are arising in his portfolio. This particular issue of computers not being able to have any sort of human override in the absolutely critical decision-making process of the way in which our elderly are cared for in their final years is an indictment of the way in which this minister has carriage of this portfolio. Just before we went into the winter recess, I asked a question of the minister. At that point we knew that this bill had passed the Senate, and we knew the minister could see that there was a willingness from the opposition to deal with this issue in a humane way for older Australians. In answer to the question I asked in question time just prior to the break, the minister went on and on and on but failed to acknowledge that we have lost the humanity and the human element in these decision-making processes. We could fix that today. If I were to go home to my electorate at the end of this week and tell people in my community that we had the chance to fix this issue in Canberra this week but that the government wouldn't even deal with it, they would be flabbergasted. I suspect that is exactly what we are going to see today—a complete unwillingness by the government to acknowledge that they are in any way to blame for the failures in this system. The question that I asked of the minister just prior to the winter recess related to a constituent in my electorate, in fact, a constituent who lived just around the corner from me in my home suburb of Hollywell. His name was Dudley Austin. Dudley and his family are examples of why the government should come in here, support our motion to have this bill dealt with immediately and support this legislation that's been brought through the Senate. The Senate have seen fit to pass this bill because, over in that other place, they know that this could easily be fixed, and they know that it should be fixed. Yet here we are today, with the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care happy to bat it off and kick it into the long grass, but older Australians deserve better than that. These examples are becoming far too numerous. The case of Dudley Austin that I dealt with locally is just one of many where this aged-care system, under this minister and under the Albanese Labor government, is failing our older Australians. The crux of the legislation that was passed in the Senate is so incredibly simple. It is to merely give humans the opportunity to review decisions that are being made by computers. I wouldn't have thought that that was a particularly controversial piece of legislation—that, in the end, human oversight should be restored to our aged-care system. The fact that that is, in any way, vaguely controversial for this Labor government shows that their priorities are all wrong. Today, the first sitting day back after a few weeks back in our electorates, this Labor government should do the right thing. They should step up to the plate and they should fix this issue now. The case of Dudley Austin is a stark reminder of how this system is failing Australians. Dudley was 98 years of age and had had a life-threatening fall in his home, but the assessment of Dudley, aged 98, was one of no urgency and no priority. Because the computer said no, he was left at home without the care and support that he needed in what turned out to be the final days of his life. This story is being repeated all over the country. Every older Australian deserves to get the best out of the government of this nation. What's happening right now is that they are being left to wither on the vine. The waiting lists are too long. The decision-making process is completely flawed. Today, this Labor government has an opportunity to right a wrong. They have been bleating on about aged care for four years, making out that they are some sort of guardian of the older Australians, but they're not. They are dramatically failing older Australians. This bill could be a goodwill gesture from this government that they have had a winter of remorse and that they have seen the error of their ways. But they won't, will they? I suspect they won't, because they won't be happy unless they are playing politics with people's lives. The concept of us as an opposition walking in here and saying, 'Let's do this today,' is completely unacceptable to them. It wasn't their idea. They wouldn't want to admit that there's any wrongdoing, but case after case of older Australians being failed by this system would suggest that there are major problems. Today, let's just take a simple step in trying to address that. The Senate has done all the legwork, so all the House members have to do is roll in here today and support this piece of legislation. That's not a difficult task. In fact, I think that's what Australians would expect of the government in this place. They would expect that, when there are issues that are of this level of urgency and importance, the members opposite would roll in here, get the job done and fix the problems that they created. Older Australians are the ones that we should be looking out for, for having given so much to our country for so many, many years; for having paid taxes; and for having lived through pandemics and wars and worked their buts off for their families. They deserve to be given the best treatment, not the beta treatment from some computer. I urge those opposite to please pack away the politics for a few moments. Come in here today as a gesture of goodwill to older Australians, and vote to deal with this today so that we can restore human care in our aged-care system. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.  

The House divided. [13:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 42 AYES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. 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) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. 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. Watson-Brown, E. 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. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. France, A. A. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. 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.

 13:29 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 12 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS South Australian Under-12 Girls Australian Football Team 12 13:30 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt In South Australia when it comes to footy there is nothing we like better than saying, 'Kick a Vic.' Last Sunday, in absolutely miserable and arctic conditions at the Amaroo playing fields on the outskirts of Canberra, the South Australian under-12 girls AFL team did just that, winning the Australian School Sport footy championship for the first time ever, with a 19-9 victory over the Victorian side. I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that these under-12 girls can play, and, with the AFLW entering its 11th season this weekend, there is a genuine elite pathway for them to continue to play well into their 20s and 30s. The game was tough, skilful, a little heated and quite thrilling, with Victoria leading the low-scoring affair for probably 90 per cent of the match, before South Australia fired up in the last quarter to secure the come-from-behind win. The team was made up of players from many clubs across the state, including two in particular are based in my electorate of Sturt, the might Glenunga Rams and the Athelstone Football Club. Congratulations must also go to head coach Ella Mickan, whose Mickan family pedigree combined with firm, fair and positive leadership not only steered the team to victory but ensured the girls and their freezing-cold parents had the type of experience that will keep them playing sport and coming back year after year. Congratulation to the under-12 girls South Australian AFL team. You are champions. Science 12 13:32 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Australian science gave the world spray-on skin, the first mechanical grain harvester, the black box flight recorder and the HPV vaccine that's eliminating cervical cancer. That's what Australian R&D looks like when we back it. Right now, at exactly the moment we need that ingenuity most in AI, quantum, advanced manufacturing, health, agriculture, defence, energy resources and technology, Australian R&D investment is in a terrible state. We spend just 1.69 per cent of GDP on R&D. The OECD average is 2.72 per cent. We rank 40th out of 44 OECD nations for STEM graduates. Last week I met with the Australian Academy of Science to discuss their Restore Science campaign, which is about this underinvestment. I've also spoken with UWA's deputy vice-chancellor, who told me, 'WA risks losing world-class talent because we can't afford to give researchers job security.' The independent, Ambitious Australia review found that bold reform of our research and innovation system is required to take advantage of strategic technologies and deliver a better standard of living for future generations. One sensible step announced last month, redesigning research grants, is not a substitute for that reform. I call on this government to commit to implementing the whole Ambitious Australia package, not just the recommendations that are administratively easy. If we back science together, we secure a healthier, safer and more prosperous Australia for generations to come. Housing 13 13:33 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I want to share a story. Liv has told me she thought she'd be 60 before she could save the deposit needed to buy a home in the Blue Mountains, but, thanks to the 5 per cent home deposit scheme, Liv, who is not yet 30, and her partner are now the proud owners of a home in the very suburb they were both born in, Katoomba, at the top of the Blue Mountains. The pair had worked hard to save a reasonable deposit but told me they would have needed around $200,000 without the government supported scheme. Not only do they now have that amazing sense of certainty and security that having your own home can bring, but they're also really pleased to be paying off their own mortgage not someone else's. Liv is one of more than 1,350 people in the electorate of Macquarie who've taken advantage of the 5 per cent deposit scheme or our Help to Buy program, where the government contributes up to 40 per cent for new homes and up to 30 per cent for existing homes. I know when I talk to people of my generation, the parents and grandparents, they wonder how on earth their kids will be able to have a chance to get into the market. That's why this government needed to fix the problem, and that's why this government has delivered real change that's making a difference to people's lives every time they take those keys to their new home. Renewable Energy 13 13:35 Mr JOYCE e5d New England The swindle industry of intermittent power of solar and wind—apart from the cost-of-living crisis it's created, there is the desecration of the landscape, the socialism of otherwise private assets and the fact that it does not work and is supported by secret agreements. As such, how do we know that they're not corrupt? It's now coming up with dongaville demountable houses. We're going to have 500 to 1,000 people at the village of Walcha Road. Who supplies the water? Who supplies the police? Where does this overwhelming group of men go? How do we control for drugs? How do we actually even deal with such things as parking? It's not only there in Walcha Road but at Kentucky—1,300 coming to a village of 301 people. Where is the infrastructure to support this? This is not local labour. It's overwhelmingly fly-in fly-out workers, and that is yet another of the lies of the swindle industry—so much for local employment. This is running over the top of local government. It's running over the top of locals. It's destroying our environment. It's putting pensioners into their cars and out of their houses because they can't afford their power. It has de-industrialised Australia. It is making us weaker, and it is happening because of secret capacity investment scheme deals which are not for publication in the budget and not able to be cited. The only thing we can answer this with is a royal commission, so get your little deals right because you're heading to a royal— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Holt has the call. Country Fire Authority 13 13:36 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I will never miss an opportunity to recognise the incredible work of CFA volunteers across Holt. Victoria began this year facing the devastating Longwood and Harcourt bushfires. Dozens of volunteers from CFA brigades across Holt travelled hundreds of kilometres to fight these fires and support the communities impacted by them. Since then, they have continued to serve our community, responding to house fires, attending roadside accidents and being there when their neighbours need them the most. That is why I am proud to visit CFA brigades across Holt to present the Holt Local Legend Award to volunteers who go above and beyond in the line of duty. I want to thank the local legends at Clyde, Pearcedale, Cranbourne, Warneet-Blind Bight, Hampton Park and Narre Warren CFAs for welcoming me and allowing me to recognise your service. You do this work not for a paycheque but because you care about protecting your community. I look forward to visiting the remaining CFA stations over the next few months. To all the volunteers, from the bottom of my heart, I want to say thank you for your hard work and dedication to keeping our community safe. Great Western Highway 13 13:38 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The sound of silence continues on the Great Western Highway. We see billions and billions of state and federal funding being showered on projects on the other side of the sandstone curtain, yet, when we need them most, all we get from government are empty words and small change. It's been weeks since the state government announced its fix for this closed nationally significant road corridor, yet, since then, it's been the sound of silence—no word on how much this fix will cost, no word on whether we're going to get more than one lane of traffic each way and no word of any federal contribution for anything. It's not just government silence. We've now got the sound of silence from shuttered and closed businesses that have gone broke because of government negligence. The Triple 8 Cafe? Gone. RNA Chainsaw & Mower Supplies? Gone. ICF Haulage? Gone. Lithgow Bike Stop is being smashed, and I was recently at the Donnybrook Hotel where business is down by 60 per cent. These inadequate one-off business support grants from the NSW government simply aren't cutting it. It's just a tokenistic political gesture. We need federal and state funding for the roadworks and an ongoing business support package, like we had with JobKeeper during COVID, before more businesses are lost. This government neglect is disgraceful, and it has to end now. Maribyrnong Electorate: Early Childhood Education and Care 14 13:39 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong Last week was Early Learning Matters Week, and there was only one way to mark the occasion: by going out and connecting with the incredible early childhood educators across my electorate of Maribyrnong. My morning started at Goodstart in Flemington, where Vanshika and her colleagues were excited to talk about what the 15 per cent pay rise that we've delivered means to them. Then it was up the road to the Guardian in Ascot Vale—a gorgeous double-fronted home, where I met two other Jos. One of them has been there for 18 years—18 years, helping to educate a whole generation of Ascot Vale children, and she talks about them with such pride. Then I went across to Avondale Heights, where Mehreen took me through every room at the Nido learning centre, with a very determined young co-tour-guide stopping each time to ask how he could help his educators. I finished with Josie's team at the Guardian in Essendon, which holds both the Guardian Victorian kinder Educator of the Year and the Cook of the Year in the same centre. There are many people who still call this work 'babysitting'. It isn't. It's the first rung of our education system, and the people I met last Wednesday are educating our next generation. To Vanshika, Mehreen, Josie and the two Jos and every early childhood educator across my community: I thank you for the work that you do every day. Taxation 14 13:41 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise today to express the ongoing concern of my constituency—the small businesses and the hardworking Australians who have put aside their wealth and structured their affairs according to the tax and other laws that require them to organise their affairs into family trusts and other things that allow them to ensure their families are well off. I note that, from the other side, the Labor Party members of the government have been raising issues with the Treasurer. Those like the member for Sturt, the member for Reid, the member for Parramatta and other people have been expressing their concerns about the capital gains tax discount changes that the government has made—not for the purposes of negative gearing, but other forms of investment vehicles and the properly-structured assets of ordinary Australians. I want to add my voice to those concerns of those members in the government. Why did the government make these unannounced changes to the capital gains tax regime when, before the election, they promised they wouldn't? And how will it impact people? Well, it has created immense uncertainty. What I hear from the average person who has used the tax laws—the existing law of the land—to structure their affairs is that the chaos and uncertainty are having a chilling effect on investment, a chilling effect on the flow of capital and a chilling effect on how people are going to be able to fund their families' lifestyle and retirement. This isn't fair. And the government knows it. The government still hasn't articulated why these changes had to be made on these kinds of classes of investment. Why should people be punished for putting aside money in savings? The government needs to answer these concerns. Tertiary Education and Training 14 13:42 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith Students should not have to choose between completing a compulsory placement and paying the rent. I know this pressure firsthand. More than 20 years ago, when I first left high school, all I wanted to be was a teacher. My intention was to graduate and start teaching. But, when it came to my final practicum, there was absolutely no way I could afford to give up work for that period. So I had to make the very difficult decision, all those years ago, to graduate with an arts degree and leave my education degree on the shelf, at that stage, for another two years, to save up. I've had many conversations with staff, particularly young staff, at local pharmacies; at hospitals, like the PA, the Mater and Children's Hospital; and at urgent care clinics. In those conversations, I have heard just how important support is in the early stages of their career. I've heard from young people like Marcia in West End, who said: I took on a big debt to study psychology because I want to help people, especially those doing it tough. We didn't choose these paths for money—we chose them because we care. Our Labor government has cut student debt by 20 per cent and lifted the repayment threshold, and now we are expanding paid prac to an additional 10 key frontline health professions. It will now reach 10 more professions, including clinical psychology, physiotherapy, pharmacy and paramedicine. This has real value in Griffith. Around 17,000 Griffith residents work in health care and social assistance, and this expansion of paid prac will help more students join them. It offers practical cost-of-living relief, grows our local health workforce and strengthens Medicare. Labor is backing students who choose to care for others. Economy 15 13:44 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The hard truth for Australian families is this: inflation and interest rates are still too high, and household budgets are being stretched to breaking point. The reason is clear: Labor has lost control of the budget and it has lost control of the economy. Every time families go to the supermarket, fill up the car, open an electricity bill or make a mortgage repayment, they are being reminded of what Labor's economic mismanagement means in real life. Labor promised life would be cheaper. Instead, Australians have had higher prices, bigger repayments, rising rents and more pressure on small businesses and families right across the country. Here in regional Australia, we know these pressures hit even harder. When costs increase, communities like ours feel it immediately. Australians do not want excuses. They want a government that understands that every dollar it spends has consequences, and every failure to control inflation ends up landing on the kitchen tables of hardworking families. The coalition understands that fighting inflation must be the priority. That means responsible spending, lower taxes, support for small businesses and policies that grow the economy without fuelling the cost-of-living crisis. So whatever the RBA does today, the message to Labor is simple: stop blaming everyone else, stop spending money Australians do not have, and start taking responsibility for the inflation and interest rate pain Australian families are living with every single day. Moreton Electorate: Medicare 15 13:45 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton Tonight is census night and it's an important night because tonight every Australian is counted. Tonight we take a snapshot of our nation, and tonight we gather statistics and we get the numbers in. But you don't have to wait until the census release to hear some good statistics because yesterday the latest Medicare stats came in. It's good news for Australians and their families because the bulk-billing rate rose to 84.1 per cent, and that's up five per cent from the same time last year. Queensland, my home state, is up by 4.7 per cent In my electorate of Moreton on Brisbane's southside, we now have 28 fully bulk-billing Medicare GP practices—that is, 28 places where no wallet is required, 28 places where green and gold plastic is the only currency that you need, and 28 places where health care doesn't care about your bank balance. I had the great pleasure of visiting the grand reopening of one of those bulk-billing GPs at the Moorooka Medical Hub just last month. This is Medicare and this is Labor. Family and Domestic Violence 15 13:47 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I rise today to acknowledge the passing of Ms Jana Armstrong. Jana was an alleged victim of a domestic violence murder in my electorate. But I want to speak about her life. She was someone who cared fiercely, who loved deeply. She was her sister's best friend. She adored her little brother and, most of all, what I'd like her to be remembered for is that she was someone who loved being a mother, absolutely loved being a mother. At her funeral, her sister, Faith, said, 'I promise your name will continue to be spoken,' and today the name Jana Armstrong has been spoken here in Australia's parliament. It's important that we talk more about domestic violence in our communities and it's important we speak more directly to men about domestic violence. There are many programs in our communities designed to help men recognise controlling and violent behaviours, to seek help and to change before violence occurs. Too often, as in today, we speak about these services when it is too late. I commit to using my position here to talk more on this issue. I want to thank my friend Matt Smith, the member for Leichhardt, for joining me on this endeavour. I want to thank the minister and the Leader of the Opposition for getting behind this. We need to talk about domestic violence. It's a very uncomfortable conversation. It's a conversation about what happens in the home, and it's one that affects far too many Australians far too deeply. Banks Electorate: Lions Club of Lugarno 15 13:48 Mr SOON 298618 Banks All members of the House will be aware of the outstanding community work and fundraising that Lions Clubs do all around our country and all around the world. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge one such Lions Club in my community, the remarkable Lugarno Lions, who have joined us today in the gallery. The Lugarno Lions are one of the most active Lions clubs in Australia, have been serving the community for more than 50 years and, in that time, have raised more than $3.8 million for local causes, including providing significant support to local community organisations. The Lions also run a regular breakfast club at Hannans Road Public School, and each year put on their iconic spring fair, which has grown to become the largest carnival in southern Sydney and second only to the Sydney Royal Easter Show in size. A delegation of 15 Lugarno Lions and partners has joined us here today, led by the current president, Mike Warner. Thank you for everything you do in our community. I sincerely welcome you to the House and I proudly wear my Lions badge here in the chamber today. Gambling Advertising 16 13:50 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook The Prime Minister has lost the public debate on gambling advertising. Six weeks ago I saw him stand at this very dispatch box and say he would never amend his gambling bill. Last week, the Prime Minister's office briefed out that he would never amend the gambling bill. But the Senate inquiry—a Senate inquiry the Labor Party voted against—exposed two glaring problems with the bill. Firstly, it did nothing on inducements, and we heard about cocaine and about prostitutes. Secondly, it allowed unlimited advertising online, during live sport and in breaks scheduled and unscheduled. Negotiations are underway. I'm not privy to them, but I have full confidence in Sarah Henderson and Angus Taylor. They will look to address those two glaring gaps—inducements and unlimited gambling advertising online. No-one wants to ban gambling advertising. I thank Sarah Henderson, Pat Conaghan—the deputy chair of the Murphy review—from the Nationals, Andrew Wallace and many coalition members who wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister 12 weeks ago calling out his shameful record on gambling. I have full confidence. The last thing is that there should be an independent review after the next election of wherever we land, so we can do more. National Breastfeeding Helpline 16 13:51 Ms KARA COOK 316537 Bonner Last week was World Breastfeeding Week. I recognise an important milestone for Australian families: more than 50,000 families accessed the National Breastfeeding Helpline last year for advice, for support and for reassurance. I personally have breastfed all three of my children, and I know that breastfeeding can be a beautiful thing to be able to do but it can also be incredibly hard. There are sleepless nights, there are concerns about milk supply, there is positioning and there is simply wondering what to do when things aren't going to plan. Sometimes, in those moments, you need more than reassurance; you need practical, trusted advice from someone who understands what you are going through. That is exactly what the National Breastfeeding Helpline is. It's free, it's confidential and it's available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Since 2008, the helpline has received more than 1.2 million calls. The Albanese Labor government announced last week that it is investing a further $8.9 million to ensure that that support remains available. Supporting women is not about telling women what choices to make; it's about making sure that women have the information, the support and the freedom to make those choices for themselves. That is what empowering women looks like, and that is exactly what this Albanese Labor government is delivering. Economy 16 13:53 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa The coalition stands with the over three million households that are waiting today, with their breath held, for what the RBA will do in about 40 minutes time, to see whether they'll add another 25 basis points to interest rates. They are the lived experience and the human toll of the Albanese government. They have already forked out more than $30,000 a year more since Anthony Albanese and the Labor government came into power, because this government has been unable to manage its spending. They are spending over $189 billion extra every year since coming to government in 2022. That has an inflationary impact. That has an impact on the RBA. The RBA is independent and is reactionary to the actions of this government. When this Treasurer loses control of the chequebook and continues to spend, Australian households continue to pay. This is the human toll of Australians. Tonight, there'll be some Australians that will not be able to put dinner on the table because their mortgage payments still need to be made—and those are $30,000 extra a year because of a government that's lost control of the economy. They have lost control of our borders. They have lost control of this nation. It is time for this government to acknowledge that the fundamentals of this country need to be fixed. Until they do, there will be the human toll of every mortgage payer that, every month, will look with bated breath to see what the RBA may do. Glasgow Commonwealth Games 16 13:54 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I want to take a moment today to recognise two outstanding young athletes who have done the Hunter community incredibly proud at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. Boxer Emma-Sue Greentree came home with gold in the 75-kilogram division, and what an achievement that is. You don't just win gold at this level by accident. It takes years of hard work, early mornings, long training sessions, plenty of sacrifice and, most importantly, the determination to keep going when things get tough. Emma-Sue has put all of that together, and she's got a Commonwealth Games gold medal to show for it. I also want to congratulate another boxer, Eve Bryson, who brought home a brilliant bronze in the 65-kilogram weight division. To stand up on a Commonwealth Games podium is something very few people ever get the chance to experience. Eve has competed against the best in the Commonwealth and shown she belongs right there with them. What I love about achievements like these is the impact they have back home in the Hunter. There will be young athletes watching Emma-Sue and Eve and thinking, 'Maybe I can do that, too,' and that's pretty special. Of course, behind every great athlete there's a team of coaches, family, friends, clubs and volunteers, and they all deserve a huge thankyou as well. Emma-Sue and Eve, you represented Australia and your community brilliantly and given us plenty to celebrate. Congratulations on an outstanding Commonwealth Games. We're incredibly proud of you and every single Australian athlete that competed in Glasgow. Economy 17 13:56 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest At half past two this afternoon, the Reserve Bank hands down its latest decision on interest rates, but, whatever the RBA does today, the reality for Australians across this country is still the same. Inflation and interest rates are too high because Labor has lost control of its budget and the economy. Across Australia, Australians are still feeling the squeeze every time they pay the mortgage, pay the power bill or go to the supermarket. It is simple: Labor is spending too much, taxing too much and putting too much pressure on prices. Because of Labor's out of control spending, Australians are the ones that are paying more for everything. Debt is set to pass $1 trillion for the first time, and the budget is forecast to remain in deficit for at least a decade. After more than four years of this government, Australians have suffered the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world. Australians don't need more spending and higher taxes. They need a government that can restrain itself and manage the economy, because, whatever the RBA's decision today, the verdict on the Albanese government is in. Labor has lost control of the budget and the economy, and Australians and their families are the ones paying the price. Our plan is for lower taxes, lower power bills and lower inflation, because Australia is worth fighting for. Medicare 17 13:57 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I'm really pleased to stand here today to report to the House that we've had another jump in bulk-billing in the Bendigo electorate since we last met. We now have the second-highest bulk-billing rate in the nation. I'm really proud to stand here today to say that we are up from a 68 per cent bulk-billing rate to an 89 per cent bulk-billing rate in just the few years since our record investment in Medicare. During the break, we saw the opening of our 39th 100 per cent bulk-billing clinic. Under Labor's reforms, we don't just have more clinics transferring to bulk-billing and being 100 per cent bulk-billing; we have new clinics opening, welcoming patients. These are clinics that are also opening on weekends. We are back to bulk-billing visits on weekends, which is taking pressure off our EDs and taking pressure off our UCCs. This is the investment that Labor has made. We are seeing our bulk-billing rates turning around and knocking out that cost. No-one should be denied health care because they don't have the funds to pay gap fees. We are seeing that in my electorate with an 89 per cent bulk-billing rate, up from 68 per cent. We are at 39 clinics and counting. That is what our investment is doing for bulk-billing in the regions. Economy 17 13:59 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Labor have lost control of the economy, and they are smashing Australians with new taxes. Under Labor, there's a new tax on savings, a new tax on widows, a new tax on housing and a new tax on small business. Everywhere you look, there are new taxes. Meanwhile, inflation remains high. The price of food, electricity, petrol, gas and healthcare premiums keeps going up. People can buy less with every dollar they earn, and people are earning less. Real hourly wages have fallen by five per cent, and family budgets are stressed. Australia needs a plan to get out of this mess, and the coalition has a plan. It's very simple. We will fix the economy, and we will protect our way of life. Under Angus Taylor, we will lower taxes. We will axe Labor's toxic taxes and let Australians keep more of their hard earned money. We will bring on cheaper power. We will scrap net zero. We'll unlock coal, gas and uranium, and we'll turn Australia into an energy superpower. We will cut migration and build more homes. We'll take back control of our borders. We'll cap migration based on housing numbers. We'll deport people without a valid visa, and we'll make homeownership a reality for young Australians. Finally, we will put Australians first. We will build a strong Australia using profits from the gas and resources sector to build more ports, roads, power plants and water assets. That's our plan to fix the economy and protect the Australian way of life. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 18 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE International Relations: Australia and Vietnam 18 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It was my great pleasure this morning to welcome to parliament house His Excellency the General Secretary and President of Vietnam, Tô Lâm. General Secretary Lâm's visit is further affirmation of the strength of the bonds between our two nations. His Excellency will also meet with the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, showing the bipartisanship that is in the relationship between Australia and Vietnam. As one of the fastest growing economies in our region, Vietnam's success creates opportunities for both of our countries. Our trade relationship is stronger than ever, supporting jobs and businesses in both Australia and Vietnam. As part of His Excellency's visit to Australia, he will meet with the architects of the South East Asia economic strategy to 2040, including Nicholas Moore. This is important. More than a document, this is a blueprint for Australia benefiting from jobs and increased trade in the fastest growing region of the world in human history, which is of course the Asian region to our north. We want to build on the success that has come from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Today we welcomed and signed agreements for stronger cooperation across defence, maritime and border security, the digital economy, agriculture, energy, minerals, and science and innovation. Australia and Vietnam are trusted strategic partners, and the relationship between us will be further enhanced by increased exchanges both at senior levels between people in business and politics but importantly from general members of the population as well. The fact that Vietjet have chosen the president's visit to announce that it is now the third international airline that will take off from Western Sydney Airport when it opens will provide real opportunities for increased exchanges. Above all, of course, we are close friends and will work together for a better future, including working in forums such as ASEAN and APEC in the coming months. 14:03 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume On behalf of the coalition and the federal opposition, I warmly welcome His Excellency and the Vietnamese delegation to our parliament. This is a symbolic visit, but it's also a visit with practical outcomes. The coalition welcomes the deeper collaboration between Australia and Vietnam as a consequence of this historic visit. I was proud to be part of the former coalition government that elevated our two nations' bilateral relationship to a strategic partnership in 2018 and in 2021 finalised an economic strategy to boost trade and investment between Australia and Vietnam. These inroads were the foundation for forging a stronger friendship between our two countries. In April last year in Ho Chi Minh City, His Excellency spoke profoundly about Vietnam being a nation that has endured profound suffering and loss from the ravages of war. It is one that has reaped the great rewards of peace, cooperation and friendship over recent decades. He spoke about his hope of bequeathing to future generations a better world. He spoke about the values of peace, independence and freedom. Australia shares these ambitions and values too, and I'm sure, like Australia, he was deeply concerned about China's recent test launch of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in the Pacific. As he correctly acknowledged at the Shangri-La Dialogue, no country benefits when our region becomes a theatre for coercion, confrontation or displays of power. And so we welcome all nations of our region calling out and condemning acts of coercion and aggression whatever the source. For countries like ours, enhancing our partnerships sends a strong message about the importance we place on sovereignty and collective security. Next week marks the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. Can I also take this opportunity to acknowledge our two countries Vietnam veterans. From the battlefield to bonds of friendship, Australia and Vietnam have come a long way over many decades. His Excellency and the delegation are most welcome guests in our country. CONDOLENCES 18 CONDOLENCES Scolyer, Professor Richard, AO 18 Report from Federation Chamber 18 14:05 The SPEAKER 53517 I have to report that the order of the day relating to the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Professor Richard Scolyer AO has been debated in the Federation Chamber and is returned to the House. I present a certified copy of the motion. I understand it is the wish of the House to consider this matter immediately. The question is the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. Hinch, Mr Derryn Nigel 19 14:06 The SPEAKER 53517 I also inform the House of the death on 10 July 2026 of Derryn Nigel Hinch, a former senator. Derryn Hinch represented the state of Victoria from 2016 to 2019. As a mark of respect to the memory of Derryn Hinch, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 19 14:07 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's toxic taxes have tanked the housing market. The ANZ bank today reports Sydney house prices could fall by almost 15 per cent, the worst crash in more than four decades. Will the Prime Minister finally admit Labor's broken promises on capital gains tax and negative gearing have made millions of Australian home owners worse off? 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about housing issues. In the budget, it is true, that we had measures that were aimed at addressing the challenges that are facing young Australians when it comes to owning a house. I note that Scott Pape, the Barefoot Investor—someone who is well-known, who's not always part of a cheer squad for the government—wrote in the Herald Sun: Average house prices have increased by more than 400 per cent since 2000, partly on the back of taxpayer-funded landlord welfare. They've grown much faster than workers wages. Which is why we're in this pickle.    …   …   … Somewhere along the way we started treating houses like a share price. Something to check, brag about, and borrow against. We forgot what they're actually for. A house is for living in. He went on to say that the people who are concerned certainly aren't the young people finally getting a foot in the door. We have created a change in the way that the tax system operates in order to give first home buyers a fair crack. And so, last Saturday, when people were going along to an auction for an existing home, they were not competing against investors seeking to negatively gear the property; they were competing as people who wanted a roof over their head. I don't want to be a Prime Minister who leads a country that sees growing inequality, that sees the opportunity for people to get into their first home as being defined on whether mum or dad can help them. I want people to have the opportunity to be the first in their family to own their own home. That is something that is part of the great Australian dream. The truth is that the great Australian dream was becoming a nightmare because, if people can't get that access to home ownership, it changes everything else in their lives. It changes the opportunity for their kids to get a good education. It changes their health outcomes. It changes where they can engage as a member of society. So what we are doing here is making a change—a change that's been called for in the past by people, including the shadow treasurer; a change that was called for by his predecessor, the former treasurer and former member for North Sydney. In his valedictory speech—he waited till he was leaving the joint before he said, 'The system's broken, and we should fix it.' Well, we're fixing it. (Time expired) Medicare 19 14:10 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for Australians to see a doctor for free? Why is the government so determined to lift bulk-billing rates and strengthen Medicare, after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:11 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Thank you to the member for Whitlam, because I know how determined she is to strengthen Medicare—and her recognition of a decade of cuts and neglect and what it did to the Medicare system under those opposite, particularly the years-long freeze to the Medicare rebate that was cheered along at the time by the now leader of the opposition. It meant that, when we came to government, bulk-billing was in freefall. It bottomed out at just 75 per cent before our first investment to turn bulk-billing around started to kick in. I'm pleased to say that that first investment—targeted at pensioners, kids and concession card holders—has had an effect. That rate, for those Australians, is now over 93 per cent nationally. In the Illawarra, in the seat of Whitlam and the neighbouring seat of Cunningham, it's over 94 per cent. But we know that, after that first investment, because of the Medicare rebate freeze, bulk-billing continued to decline for other Australians. That's why last year, for the first time ever, we extended bulk-billing support to every single Australian. After that record investment, I'm pleased to report that the latest data indicate that, up from 75 per cent, bulk-billing nationally now sits at 84 per cent. It is up in every state and territory, and I'm pleased to say that the biggest increases are being enjoyed by those Australians who don't have the benefit of a concession card. The bulk-billing rate for those Australians in Whitlam is up 25 per cent. In the neighbouring electorate of Cunningham, it's up 20 per cent. And what that's doing is delivering literally millions and millions of additional free visits to the doctor every single year. This is the centrepiece of our agenda to strengthen Medicare, because, for us, bulk-billing is the beating heart of that great system. It's what it means to Labor and the vast bulk of Australians. But it's not quite so clear what Medicare means to those opposite. Now, the shadow minister for health and aged care was in a Senate inquiry a couple of weeks ago. She's been in the job for five years, mind you; the system has been in place for 42 years. She asked this question of my department: … I'd be keen to understand what Medicare means. Does the department have a definition of what Medicare means? I'm pleased to say the department has provided the shadow minister for health with a definition of Medicare. I table it for those opposite, because, if the shadow minister doesn't know what it means, I suspect the rest of them don't either. On this side, we know what Medicare means. It means the promise of universal health care. It means the promise that Australians anywhere can access the world's best health care, no matter where they live or their ability to pay. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of The Nationals and the member for Goldstein were yelling continuously during that answer. It's completely unacceptable. You're both warned, so no more interjections for the remainder of question time. If you interject one more time, you won't be here. I hope that's crystal clear for everyone. International Relations: Australia and Japan 20 14:14 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash My question is to the Prime Minister. On the BushDeep podcast, filmed at the Lodge, the Prime Minister made a series of foul-mouthed, classless comments about women. Will the Prime Minister personally apologise to the Prime Minister of Japan, Her Excellency Sanae Takaichi, for his disrespectful behaviour? 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I reject the assertion in the question. Australia and Japan have never been closer or more strategically aligned, and my government has taken our special strategic partnership to new heights. During the recent visit by Prime Minister Takaichi, we announced substantial outcomes, including a joint declaration on economic security cooperation, signalling our resolve to support each other in the face of economic coercion, including to consult each other on economic security contingencies. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're not having those sorts of interjections. The member for Casey is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 We released statements on enhanced defence and security cooperation, on energy security, on critical minerals cooperation and on a new strategic cyber partnership. Prime Minister Takaichi is a friend of Australia and a friend of mine. Together, we're focused on working together after three bilateral meetings to shape a free and open Indo-Pacific that is peaceful, stable and prosperous, as demonstrated by the outcomes in the visit. Tertiary Education and Training 20 14:16 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government's expansion of paid prac delivering real change by easing cost-of-living pressures, strengthening Medicare and building Australia's future workforce? What has been the response? 14:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Holt for her question. Indeed, just over a year ago, Labor created paid prac, backing Australians who are studying nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work so that when they're doing their places they get paid for the work that they're doing. Most Australians, I think, would be surprised that, previous to that, if someone had undertaken to be a nurse—a profession that's honourable, a profession where we need more of them—they had to not participate in their part-time job and they had to work out how they would get by, pay their rent et cetera. But Labor made that change, and that change has made a difference for thousands of people. I've met nurses and teachers for whom it has changed their lives. Now we're building on that success, delivering real change for more Australians, because we're expanding paid prac to a further 10 fields of study: physio and occupational therapy, clinical psychology and pharmacy, podiatry and speech pathology, audiology and radiography, rehab therapies, and our future paramedics as well. Real help with the cost of living, real investment in Medicare and real investment in skills in the health sector for the healthcare workers of the future—those are our priorities. That's just one example of how Labor governs, making a difference to cost-of-living pressures in the short term but making a difference to the way that our society and economy function in the long term, helping people under pressure here and now while building for the future. I was asked about alternatives or opposition. Of course, at the last election campaign, those opposite promised to abolish paid prac. It's never a priority for the coalition to build a skilled workforce and, of course, strengthen Medicare. As we just heard from the health minister, they don't even know what it is, so it's no wonder that it's not a priority. They want to just go back to cuts and neglect. Labor is delivering real change. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 21 14:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the special visitors gallery today is Honorary Professor Gabrielle Persley AM, who was presented with the Crawford Fund for Food Security medal last night at Parliament House in recognition of her exceptional contribution to international agricultural research and development for over five decades. I'm pleased to acknowledge Councillor Jim Memeti from the City of Greater Dandenong council and the Hon. Dr Kay Patterson AO, former senator for Victoria and minister. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Home Insurance 21 14:19 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah To the Prime Minister: amidst a 51 per cent rise in home insurance premiums in five years and with one in five Australians uninsured or underinsured, the Resilient Building Council rating scheme helped thousands of households reduce disaster risk and lower their insurance costs, yet the government allowed this scheme's funding to lapse on 30 June. I wrote to the government asking for it to be restored but received no response. Is the government's position that households are on their own in dealing with escalating climate risks and rising insurance costs? 14:20 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I thank the honourable member for her question. She has a longstanding involvement in these issues, and I thank her for that. The Albanese government is committed to making insurance more affordable and accessible for Australian households and businesses. That involves a range of different approaches. One is this government is investing in the Disaster Ready Fund, through the minister for natural disasters and emergency services. That fund, at $200 million a year, is seeing the rollout of mitigation works right across the country, and that is something which is being informed by data from the insurance sector and the Hazards Insurance Partnership, which is world leading. Whenever I travel to other countries or whenever I talk to insurance regulators in other countries, they see what we're doing in Australia through the HIP as world leading on that front. What we're also doing is strengthening the General Insurance Code of Practice. That code of practice is being finalised at the minute. For the first time, that code of practice will be approved by ASIC and will be contractually enforceable, and we are currently engaged with both consumer groups and the insurance industry to make sure that there are a range of protections in that code of practice for consumers. In the last budget, we announced a measure that is really important to ensure that we will work towards greater price transparency in insurance. I am now going to lead that project and work with consumer groups and the industry and experts to make sure that we can work towards an insurance industry where there is regulation to ensure that there is much more transparency when it comes to the premiums that are charged and when it comes to changes in premiums, and that there is much more transparency when there is a reduction in risk and that that is reflected in the price. That price-transparency project is extremely important, and we have already begun discussions with consumer groups and with industry on that. This government has adopted an extremely strategic approach to these issues, because they haven't arisen overnight. They've been getting worse and worse for decades, and climate change is making these worse and worse, as you know but as those opposite do not accept. That is one of the fundamental problems with their approach to insurance. But we are working very constructively with consumer groups, with academics, with experts and with the insurance sector to make sure that we strengthen the regulation of insurance. Tertiary Education and Training 21 14:22 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support students training to be the frontline healthcare workers Australia needs? Why is this policy better than other approaches? 14:23 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank my friend the cracking member for Calwell for his question. A big part of a lot of university degrees today is prac—practical on the job training—and it's all unpaid. You don't get paid for it, and, often, students have to give up their paid part-time job just to do it. Sometimes, students have to end up paying rent in two places at once as well—paying rent where they normally live and paying rent a couple of hundred kilometres away where they've been sent to do their prac. That sometimes means students don't finish their course at all. That's why we created paid prac. It started just over a year ago for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students, and it's working. It's providing real cost-of-living help. I speak to a lot of students about what they use this for. The most common answers I get are petrol and parking and something a bit more nutritious than two-minute noodles. Now, we're extending that to 10 more jobs that are on the front line of our health system—to physios, to psychologists, to occupational therapists, to speech pathologists, to pharmacists, to radiographers, to audiologists, to rehab therapists, to podiatrists and to paramedics. These are the people who come to the rescue when we need them. These are the people who help you to learn to speak again after a stroke—people who help to get you back on your feet and get you back to work. These are the people who help to make Medicare work. But, as we just heard from the Prime Minister, not everyone is a fan of it. The Liberal Party didn't have an education policy at the last election, but, two days before the election, they did release their costings. Guess what was buried inside that? A plan to get rid of paid prac and, instead, just add that to your student debt. They had one education policy, and that was to increase student debt. We fundamentally disagree with that. That's why we've cut student debt by 20 per cent. That's why we're expanding paid prac to 10 more areas on the front line of our health system to provide those people with real cost-of-living support, to make Medicare stronger and to help the Aussies that have signed up to do the jobs that help all of us. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert is warned. International Relations: Australia and Japan 22 14:25 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister apologise to the Prime Minister of Japan for his disrespectful behaviour? 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I have a very good relationship with the Prime Minister of Japan. We have met on the sidelines of various forums, and I have welcomed the Prime Minister of Japan here. That visit was a very successful visit. The relationship has meant that, with purchases such as the Mogami frigates in Defence, that is— The SPEAKER 53517 The manager on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to relevance. I refer to a ruling from speakers— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has indicated he's concluded his answer. We'll move to the next question. Pacific Islands 22 14:27 Mr MATT SMITH 312393 Leichhardt My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change with greater cooperation and strengthened ties with our Pacific neighbours and the broader region? 14:27 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. Last week, he and I visited Thursday Island in his electorate in the Torres Strait, Australia's own piece of Melanesia. I really want to acknowledge the remarkable way that he represents this very special part of our country. During the break, back on 6 July, our prime minister, along with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, signed the Vuvale treaty. In that regard, along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I would like to particularly acknowledge the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs. That treaty greatly enhances our economic relationship with Fiji, supporting Fiji's digital transformation and its industry and providing more opportunities for Fijians to access the Australian economy. But, most significantly, the treaty contains a security commitment between our two countries. As one of the only nations that operates a defence force within the Pacific, to have this commitment at a treaty level now means that Fiji is our fourth alliance partner after Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and, of course, the United States. Indeed, just two days after that, our alliance with Papua New Guinea, the Pukpuk Treaty, also came into force. Since coming to government, we have concluded a treaty of common security with Indonesia and our alliance with Papua New Guinea. We are working on a security agreement with the Solomon Islands. We've signed the Nakamal agreement with Vanuatu. We've enhanced our longstanding relationship with France, a NATO partner. We now have a new alliance with Fiji, and we have an old alliance with New Zealand. This ring of countries surrounds our continent. Our government has done more to establish security agreements with these countries than any government in our history, and Australians are safer as a result. This is all in the context of enhanced partnerships with countries from Tuvalu to Naoero and to the Maldives; from India, through Singapore, Korea, Japan, and, of course, today, Vietnam. Our national security is founded on our defence capability, and we are dramatically increasing that as well. It is also, obviously, grounded in our alliance with the United States, but our relationships with the countries of our region are fundamental to the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific and, with that, the security of every Australian. Taxation 23 14:30 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell Australians why his government is targeting women going through divorce or the death of a partner to raise revenue through his heartless widows tax? 14:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin ():  Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The issue he raises, which was the subject of a stunt from those opposite earlier today— Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 I take the interjections. The reason it's a stunt—what they did earlier in the parliament—is that they said there wasn't enough consultation, and now they're saying there's too much consultation. That exposes the absurdity of the stunt that they tried to put on earlier on in the parliament today. Is it any wonder that they're doing worse under this leader of the opposition than they were doing under Sussan Ley if that's the best that they can do? They said there wasn't enough consultation. Now they say there is too much consultation. The government has been very clear that we will address this issue in the legislation which is currently out for consultation. It wasn't that long ago that they were saying consultation was important. Now they're saying consultation is not important. The draft legislation that we have released will ensure a property will keep access to negative gearing if it was owned on budget night or treated as a new build if the property was acquired from a spouse through an inheritance or a relationship breakdown or where someone inherits an asset in which they had an ownership share. We've been very clear about that. That's what the draft legislation which is out for consultation right now is all about. The final point is this: it's not unusual for tax reform of this magnitude to be legislated in stages. That's what the government is doing. These changes don't come into being until 1 July next year, and we are working, in a considered and methodical way, through subsequent pieces of legislation to get the implementation details right. That requires consultation—something that those opposite used to call for. Economy 23 14:32 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Treasurer. What are the recent developments in our economy, and what does today's interest rate decision by the Reserve Bank mean for Australians? 14:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and for all the work that she does in her beautiful part of Australia. I can inform the House that, today, the Reserve Bank's Monetary Policy Board has held interest rates steady at 4.35 per cent. This will come as a relief to Australians with a mortgage. It is a welcome decision at a time of heightened uncertainty in the world and persistent pressures in our own economy at home as well. This is the second rates decision since the budget, and, on both occasions, we've seen rates hold steady. This decision reflects the fact that inflation has been coming in well under the Reserve Bank and Treasury forecasts. In the Reserve Bank's Statement on monetary policy released today, they have downgraded forecasts for underlying inflation, and they have upgraded forecasts for growth. In June, inflation fell again. That means that inflation has now moderated for three months in a row, but it is still higher than we'd like. There's still a lot of uncertainty going forward, and we know that people are still under pressure. That recent inflation data has been better than expected, but the war in the Middle East is putting upward pressure on prices, and it's weighing on growth around the world and in our own economy as well. We did already have an inflation challenge in our economy, but the conflict is making that harder. That's why, from an economic point of view, a proper enduring end to this war cannot come soon enough. We desperately need to see an end to this war in the Middle East. Inflation has gone up since March in most major advanced economies, but it's come down here in Australia. When we came to office, inflation was north of six per cent and rapidly rising. It's now much lower than that. It is similar when it comes to underlying inflation. The government's responsible economic management has meant the budget is much stronger and debt is much lower than what we inherited. That's why, just last week, S&P Global, the ratings agency, reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating. That means we are one of only nine countries in the world with a AAA sovereign credit rating from all three major ratings agencies. We've also got lower gross debt than every major advanced economy. We know that people are still under pressure, despite this welcome decision from the independent Reserve Bank today. It is a welcome decision. It comes at a time of heightened global economic uncertainty. The government, for its part, will continue to manage the budget responsibly and will continue to help people with the cost of living in an ongoing and responsible way. I have heard those opposite interjecting throughout the course of this answer. They were desperately hoping for an interest rate rise today, and they are desperately disappointed that they didn't get one. That's the difference between this side and that side. We're for cost-of-living relief. They're for higher interest rates. Housing 24 14:35 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's toxic taxes and 15 interest rate rises on his watch have completely tanked the housing market. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the average new mortgage holder is paying $29,000 a year more in interest alone? 14:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I can confirm that we understand that Australians are doing it tough and that there are cost-of-living pressures on them. That's why, every day, we look at doing something about it—not just identifying grievance but producing solutions, not protesting but arguing for progress as we go forward. That's why, every day, we look to deliver real change and to make a positive difference, whether that be higher wages in aged care and child care or five wage increases for the lowest-paid workers, now more than $12,000 a year better off since 2022. The number of times a coalition government—or opposition, for that matter—has ever put forward a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing for wages to be maintained in real terms? Zero—never ever. On income tax cuts, we went to the last election arguing for income tax cuts. They said they'd reverse them. They not only voted against income tax cuts in this chamber; they said they would vote to reverse them. As a result of the measures we put in place, every Australian worker got an income tax cut on 1 July. Every Australian is benefiting from stronger Medicare as well—they don't even know what it is. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance. The question was about mortgage holders who are paying $29,000 a year extra in interest. He hasn't even mentioned mortgage holders. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the Prime Minister to return to the question. The Leader of the Opposition is correct. He was asked a direct question about the issue of mortgages and interest rates. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about interest rates, and the impact they have and what views would be. Someone in this place said on 10 November 2020: Nobody wins from low interest rates. On 23 October 2019, they said: At the beginning of this term I deliberately communicated my concern about the Reserve Bank continuing to cut interest rates. Going back, in case you think that was an accident, to 2018: … we need to create the policy settings to progressively increase interest rates. …   …   … Money is too cheap, and it's time we did something about it around the policy framework. Mr Tim Wilson IMW 0.1 per cent! Mr ALBANESE R36 The question for this Leader of the Opposition is: why did he make this man, who argued that interest rates were too low, the shadow Treasurer? The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to deal with one issue at a time. The member for Goldstein was yelling. I think everyone heard me say that if the member for Goldstein or the Leader of the Nationals were to interject they would leave the chamber. As a result of consequences for actions, the member for Goldstein will leave the chamber. The member for Goldstein then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has finished his answer, so we'll go to the next question. Paid Parental Leave Scheme 25 14:40 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga ():  My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australian families with expanded Paid Parental Leave? What are the risks to this? 14:40 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thanks so much to the member for Jagajaga for her question. I know that, as a mum herself, she knows how important Paid Parental Leave is for her constituents, and over 2,000 parents benefited in her electorate just last year from Paid Parental Leave. I recently met a beautiful little baby, Zoe, who was one of around 460,000 children last year right across Australia whose parents benefited from Paid Parental Leave. What's interesting about Zoe is she's the youngest of three, and, each time her mum and dad took Paid Parental Leave they got a bit more leave because of the changes that we have made under this government. Each time they received a bit more time and a bit more money and that's made all the difference to their family. In fact, right across Australia what we see is that parents are benefiting from more time. We are now at the full six months of Paid Parental Leave—more money. Since 1 July, that rate has gone up again. Paid Parental Leave is now more than $1,000 a week, and of course, since July last year, parents have been getting paid superannuation on top of that. There's more flexibility too, which is really important for families with young children, and more people are eligible because each year we're increasing those thresholds of eligibility. Thanks to the changes that this Prime Minister has made, that this government has made, families now get almost $30,000 of Paid Parental Leave. That is an enormous change from 2022. It's more than doubled since 2022, and it's the sort of help that families desperately need. You would think it's the sort of help that the whole parliament would universally support. I am very sorry to inform members that that is not the case. We know, of course, that the shadow Treasurer has managed to not be here again when we are talking about Paid Parental Leave. We know what he said about it. But, you know, the Liberals have never liked it. Mums were 'rorters' and 'double dippers'. One Nation as well—Senator Hanson in 2017 claimed that women get themselves pregnant for the money. She said this year, 'Listen, love, you have the equipment. That's what you're here for. If you don't want to interrupt your career, don't have a baby.' At the Press Club, she said, 'The gender pay gap is all smoke and mirrors. Women take time off and they're not paid their wages because they're not working. Well, fair enough.' We say it's not fair enough that families need help. That is the time in life where they need the most help, when they've got new little babies, and we are proud of the fact that we have more than doubled that help. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Lions Club of Lugarno 25 14:43 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Ryan, I also want to acknowledge some very hardworking volunteers from the Lions Club of Lugarno as guests of the member for Banks. Honourable members: Hear hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gas Industry: Taxation 25 14:43 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Prime Minister. At the recent Labor National Conference, ordinary Labor members and Labor MPs pushed to hold a vote in support of a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Given that around 70 per cent of Australians and now your own members support a gas tax, will you listen to everyday Australians instead of the gas lobby and implement a minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports? 14:43 The SPEAKER 53517 There are parts of that question the Prime Minister can't answer. Due to party conferences, under the standing orders it's going to be a very broad answer because the question's just within a whisker of standing orders. The Prime Minister. I'll listen carefully. 14:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Ryan for her question, but I am somewhat surprised to be getting a question from a member of a political party who not only have secret conferences but had a leadership ballot in this building a few years ago, where we only found out that there was an attempted coup many months later. What we do, in stark contrast, is have a conference that is broadcast live on national TV for all to see. We have the election of 400 delegates and 400 proxy delegates who represent workers, who represent local branch members and who represent regions right around Australia, including, for example, in my great state of New South Wales, where there are rank-and-file votes in every single electorate to elect a representative to go to, in this case, Adelaide over the break in July. It was an extremely successful conference because one of the things that shone through about that conference is that we in the Australian Labor Party are united about our views. We in the Australian Labor Party know what we stand for, and that was reflected in the platform that was adopted at the conference. Any delegate can come along, move whatever amendments that they like and put it to the conference. I must say that there were a range of highlights to the conference, but we're united about wanting a strong economy that works for people. We're united about wanting to make sure that no-one gets left behind. We're united about making sure that not only do we deal with the challenge of climate change but we seize the opportunities of climate change action. We're united by making sure that we want every Australian to fulfil the opportunity that they have to have the best life possible through an education, whether it be early education, whether it be the proper schools funding where we've delivered the Gonski reforms first spoken about in 2012, whether it be free TAFE, the universities accord or all of these measures meeting, or whether it be our place in the world, our engagement in our region, our engagement in the Pacific and our engagement through peace and security—that is a foundation stone—or our support for AUKUS, which was a foundation stone of jobs as well. We know what we stand for. Everyone gets to see it in full public view, and that's because we're proud of who we are. Avian Influenza 26 14:47 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government working with states and territories, industry and the community to respond to the detection of H5 bird flu in Australia? 14:47 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I do want to thank the member for Sturt for that question. I know that she as a South Australian and that other South Australians in this place are particularly concerned about the increasing number of detections of the H5 bird flu in South Australia and indeed right across the country. I know that so many members in this place have engaged because they are concerned about the impact that this will have in our country, and I do want to assure all members that we are taking this very seriously indeed and that we are acting. In terms of an update, there are currently 236 confirmed or suspected positive detections of the H5 bird flu in Australia—10 in Western Australia, 163 in South Australia, four in New South Wales, one in Queensland and 58 in Victoria. Our technical experts are working around the clock to confirm detections, and I've seen firsthand, at CSIRO's Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness in Geelong in the last few weeks, just how much they have been working around that clock. As I've said for some time, the arrival of the H5 bird flu in Australia was not unexpected, and we couldn't stop the migratory birds. I've also said very clearly that Australians should expect to see, sadly, more spread and larger numbers of wildlife being affected. We have been really upfront that there will be more large mass mortalities of native birds in Australia. We've seen the impact that bird flu has had overseas, particularly for wildlife populations, which is why we have been planning. We have invested over $113 million to strengthen our bird flu responsiveness and preparedness. That includes part of our $2 billion in additional biosecurity funding, and it has $25 million that we're also delivering with the states and territories in terms of the current on-ground response for biosecurity resourcing. Whilst we can't stop the virus spreading amongst the wild birds, we can take action to protect species most at risk. I'm pleased to advise the House that vaccination is now part of that response. Earlier today, alongside the minister for the environment and the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer, I announced that the first bird flu vaccines are expected to roll out in coming days on priority native bird species. This is based on an agreed national approach and will be guided by expert scientific advice. It's a targeted approach that will mean states and territories are able to commence vaccination activities, initially focusing on priority species identified by the states and territories. This obviously builds on the work that we are doing with the states and territories and with industry to help manage the response to the H5 bird flu. I want to finish by reiterating that, at this time, there has been no detections in our poultry or our broader agricultural system and that the risk to human health remains low. I also again want to thank the Australian public for the huge role that they are playing and to remind them that, if you see sick or dead birds or other animals, please do not touch them. Please avoid them. Contact birdflu.gov.au, where you can actually record them and you can get the most up-to-date information in relation to Australia's bird flu incursions. 14:51 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland on indulgence—I'd like to commend the minister for the manner in which she's engaged with the opposition in the manner of the H5 bird flu outbreak. From day one, the minister's office has been available to my office and to members of the coalition to seek information, particularly for those members who have had outbreaks in their own communities, and that is greatly respected and appreciated. I can assure the minister and the government that the coalition will continue to act in a very bipartisan manner to ensure that any of the risks associated with this outbreak are well managed in the interests of not just the incredible Australian wildlife but also our agricultural sector. I want to thank the chief vet, Dr Beth Cookson, for the briefing she's provided as well, and all the workers on the ground who are doing everything they can to try and prevent further incursions and impacts on our agricultural sector. Like the minister, I want to reassure the Australian public that there has been no impact on the Australian agricultural sector to date. Our poultry sector, our eggs are all safe to eat, and I encourage Australians to keep eating Australian grown products and again reassure the House and reassure the Australian public that the coalition stands willing to assist the government in whatever way possible to try to minimise the impacts. We certainly hope for the best, but we have prepared for the worst, and I want to again thank the minister for her willingness to keep engaging with the opposition in this regard. Housing 27 14:52 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Prime Minister. Rents have reportedly increased by 10 per cent since the budget just three months ago. Prime Minister, which of the following is to blame: (a) record-high immigration outpacing new home builds, (b) Labor's toxic taxes on housing, (c) the 15 interest rate rises under Labor, or (d) all of the above? 14:53 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks very much to the honourable member for his question about housing. A couple of important points to make. Whether it's house prices, auction clearance rates, rents or other indicators in the housing market—we'll get lending data later in the week as well—it's important to remember, as the Reserve Bank pointed out today and others have pointed out in their contributions, that there are a number of factors playing out in the housing market, whether it be interest rate movements earlier in the year or whether it be extreme global economic uncertainty. There are a number of factors playing out in the housing market, and that's why we saw some softening in the housing market before the budget that we handed down in May. That's the first point. The second point is, when it comes to the changes that we made in the budget around housing, for the reasons that the Prime Minister ran through—to make sure that we can give first home buyers a fair crack in a housing market which has locked them out for too long—it's really important to remember that the Treasury assumptions in the budget about the impact on the housing market are assumptions over the next couple of years and not just over the first couple of months. We have had, for some time now, upward pressure on rents. For some time now, partly because of a decade of neglect, we haven't had enough homes in our community, and we are taking the necessary steps. We are taking the necessary steps to build more homes, because we know that is the best way, over time, to put downward pressure on rents. Now, when it comes to migration, I understand that those opposite want to go about this in the most divisive way that they can, but they need to recognise that net overseas migration has come down 45 per cent since its peak. When we came to office it was absolutely rocketing, and we have taken steps to moderate that net overseas migration number, at the same time as we're investing almost $50 billion in the main issue in housing, which is housing supply. So, whether it's approvals, the investment numbers or the commencement numbers, they were going backwards when we came to office. We've been turning that around. It will take time to see the better housing market that we want to see, whether it's in rents, whether it's the impact on house prices over the medium term, or whether it's the share of first home buyers in the market. There is a lot of volatility there. A lot of that volatility existed before the budget, and we measure the impact of our policies over a period of the next few years and not just the first few months. Census 27 14:56 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. Why is it important that every Australian completes the census? 14:56 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I thank the member for Barton for her question. She understands the importance of evidence based policy and decision-making. The census is one of the most important snapshots that we take of our country. Every five years it tells us who we are, where we live and how Australia is changing. This is important, because governments, business and community organisations use census data to make decisions that affect Australians every single day. It helps us understand where new schools are needed, where our hospitals and health services need to grow, where transport infrastructure should be built and what services communities will need into the future, and, for the researchers and policymakers, it gives us a detailed picture of Australia that simply cannot be obtained anywhere else. The value of the census depends on all Australians taking part. This year, for the first time, Australians have been able to subscribe through myGov to receive census updates and access an online form. Those who did not subscribe through myGov will still receive instructions in their letterbox, with options to complete the census online or by post. Each census takes years of planning, consultation, testing, community engagement and field work. That effort is necessary, because the census works best when everyone is counted. The Australian Bureau of Statistics works with communities across the country, including people who can be harder to reach. Every person counted helps build a clearer picture of our nation, and that's why participation in the census is so important: because, whether you live in a capital city, a regional town or a remote community, your circumstances should be reflected in our great national picture. Accurate and complete information is vital, which is why it is so important to answer the questions thoughtfully and accurately. When I fill it out tonight, I will have to think very carefully about the following question: 'What are the main goods and services provided by your employer's business?' I'm still deciding whether I should answer 'a fairer property market', 'providing five tax cuts in three different ways' or 'strengthening Medicare'. But I'll let the House know which I decide on later. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Dr MULINO 132880 Can I say, Speaker: the opposition's very excited by the census. It's good to see! The census will showcase the diversity of our great nation, in occupation, gender, religion, culture or country of origin. I am proud that our party and our side of parliament is broadly reflective of who we are in this country. It has been five years since the last census, and a lot has changed in that time. Can I acknowledge the hard work, over a long period of time, of the assistant minister for Treasury, who has worked for many months on this project and helped to deliver such an important thing. To conclude, the census is an important document for our nation, and I encourage everyone in our great country to complete it this evening. Environment, Gas Industry 28 14:59 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is for the Minister for Resources. Renters expect to pay a bond before they move in and often a cleaning fee when they leave, but that isn't the case with oil and gas projects. Last month, another gas producer entered administration, making environmental clean-up, if it happens, the government's problem. The government has recognised the issue but not acted. When will the government ensure companies have to put money aside to fully fund the clean-up of their projects? 14:59 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for her question. I refer to that question. I think the member is referring to the voluntary administration of the Cliff Head project through Triangle Energy. We are monitoring that situation and working with Cor Cordis, the administrators of Pilot Energy, which is that company. On 17 July, NOPSEMA found general direction 2118 and 1947 to be breached, and NOPSEMA is exercising its powers under the relevant act to undertake actions where the breach directions to maintain critical safety and environment outcomes where required. What I want to be really clear about is that the Cliff Head facility is currently safe. It is not a crude production facility. The Australian government is engaging with NOPSEMA and other parties in relation to the ongoing regulation and management of safety and environmental risks. There are no immediate risks in that regard. The offshore facilities are hydrocarbon free. They stopped production just over two years ago. The wells have been shut in and secured, and they are remotely monitored. As to the cost of these things, I want to make it really clear that taxpayers will not be left to foot the bill if companies do not do the right thing in respect of this particular project but also—I'm sorry I can't see the member to address her question at the moment, because the Leader of the Nationals in the House of Representatives is in the way! What I want to make clear is insolvency does not excuse title holders from decommissioning responsibilities, and the government is considering all enforcement options to hold responsible title holders and related parties, very importantly, accountable. The Australian taxpayer will not bear any financial responsibility for decommissioning offshore oil and gas projects where title holders have failed to provision and plan for these activities, as they are required to do so by law. Before we came into government, the Labor Party in opposition agreed with the government of the time to implement legislation to make sure that there was a trailing liability for offshore oil and gas. That is a jurisdiction that the Commonwealth has in this regard, and that has been implemented. The government will continue to pursue all available mechanisms under the law to hold responsible title holders accountable for those offshore oil and gas projects. We will make sure they are safe for any people that are associated with them. Worker safety is of vital importance. The environmental side of this is very important, but this particular project is safe. And, really importantly, the taxpayer will not fit the bill, and the industry as a whole will bear the burden of the projects that they have left. Workplace Relations 29 15:02 Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australian workers? 15:03 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Hughes for his question and for his commitment to delivering for Australian workers. I'm pleased to report to the member for Hughes that the Albanese Labor government is delivering real change to improve and protect the pay packets of working Australians. We have, of course, backed and funded pay rises for early educators and workers in aged care. This important commitment finally recognises these workers who teach our children and care for our elderly. They have been undervalued for too long and they deserve a pay rise. This government has passed laws to make enterprise bargaining easier. Workers on enterprise agreements are benefiting from stronger wage growth. And of course we've now seen a historic record number of employees covered by enterprise agreements. Our government has also introduced same job, same pay laws so that workers' wages cannot be undercut by the use of labour hire doing the exact same job. And, because of these laws, more than 8,000 workers are receiving pay rises. Recently, I had the great privilege of visiting the Hunter, where I met with coalminers who told me these reforms are not only delivering pay increases of up to $40,000 a year but delivering direct, permanent employment. These laws are delivering not only fairness but also security for these workers. Since the Albanese government came to office, we've advocated for low-paid workers each and every single year as part of the annual wage review. It means that our lowest-paid workers on the national minimum wage are now earning more than $1,000 a week for the first time. Our government also legislated to protect penalty and overtime rates in the modern award safety net, ensuring these workers' pay packets wouldn't go backwards. We made deliberate wage theft a crime, providing an important protection for workers. We also introduced new standards to ensure gig workers don't have to rely on tips to get ahead. This Albanese Labor government is also committed to ensuring that workers are able to get a fair go and resolve workplace disputes swiftly and quickly. That is why this prime minister announced recently that this Labor government will establish a Fair Work court to make it simpler and quicker for workers to get what they are entitled to and deliver a more efficient process for employers seeking workplace resolution. It is only this Labor government that is committed to getting wages moving and pursuing real change for Australian— (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr Speaker, can I just add to the Assistant Treasurer's comments about filling in the Census tonight. It is very important that every Australian do that. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 29 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 31 of 2025-26, Reports Nos 1 to 4 of 2026-27 29 15:06 The SPEAKER 53517 I present a corrigendum to the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 31 of 2025-26, entitled Effectiveness of Commonwealth Home Support Program: Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. I also present the Auditor-General's performance audit reports No. 1 to No. 4 for 2026-27. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 29 DOCUMENTS Presentation 29 15:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 29 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 29 15:07 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Page proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's toxic taxes and economic mismanagement making life harder for everyday Australians. 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— 15:07 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page We've all spent the last four or five weeks in our communities. My colleagues—and it's been great to see them again on this side of the chamber—have all, without exception, been saying to me that, as we walk our high streets with our retail businesses, as we go to shopping centres, as we walk around our industrial estates and as we go to sporting events, everyone is telling us that they are doing it really tough. In fact, some of them are saying their cost-of-living pressures and the pressures on their houses, their budgets or their small business have never been so tough. That's what we are hearing unanimously, the length and breadth of this country, of how tough small businesses are doing it and how tough families are doing it with their budgets. What is this prime minister doing in response to this, besides making crass remarks about Kylie Minogue and the Japanese prime minister—it was atrocious—and not apologising for that? Besides doing that, what is the Prime Minister and this government doing around these extreme problems that businesses and houses and housing budgets have? We know what they're doing about this. Just three months ago, in the budget, when all these things were happening, their solution to cost-of-living pressures for households and family businesses was to do a few things, and they all included raising taxes. Why would that side of politics think that raising taxes is good for families and good for budgets for small business when times are tough? Because it's just in their DNA. They can't think of any other way except to take hard earned money off other people so they can spend it. What this has meant is we now have one of the highest capital gains taxes in the world. I'll repeat that: we now have one of the highest capital gains taxes in the world. What that side of politics has done is it has changed the risk-reward ratio in this nation. It used to be that, if you had a business, if you started a business and took a bit of a risk, you got the reward. That's what's driven this country for hundreds of years—you take the risk and you keep some of the reward. Well, that has now changed. Young entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs in this country now know that you take the risk and that side, the Albanese Labor government, will take the reward. That's now how this is working. Now, you might ask: What's their thinking? How would they arrive at that type of mentality and that type of thought process? Good question—I've asked that myself. Do you know what I've come up with as the answer to why they think like that? It's because not one of them, or certainly not, when you look at the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—neither of those people nor a lot on that side have ever worked in private enterprise. The Treasurer's and the Prime Minister's first jobs, outside of politics, were—wait for it—for a Labor minister. Their work record is: work for a Labor politician, work for a Labor minister, and then become a Labor MP. So they don't get it; they don't understand it. It's a DNA thing. A lot of people on this side understand what it means to work in private enterprise and to own or start your own business, when paying your salary and, indeed, the salaries of other people is up to your entrepreneurship. But those opposite don't understand it—they don't get that—which is why they thought raising taxes was a good idea. The other one, obviously, was the increased taxes on trusts. Again, they wouldn't understand, because they've never done it. Over 350,000 small businesses in this country operate under trusts, so they are now paying higher taxes. We have a shortage of housing; we have a shortage of homes being built in this country, so, of course, they think it's a good idea to raise a tax, or put a tax, on negative gearing in this country. They also thought it was a good idea—when you're building some units, or building some apartments, a lot of people buy off the plan. A lot of that is done through self-managed super funds. They've banned them from doing that and leveraging into that, because, again, they just don't understand. I'll repeat this, and I've said this before in this chamber. Not only have they done this—we can argue about the merits of why we think that's bad policy, and we'll reverse those policies. But the other shame about this is that they deceived. Every single person who's here right now, just remember—you deceived your communities and you deceived the Australian community. You said you wouldn't do this. Not only have you done this but, before the election, as the Prime Minister—he's on the record as saying he would not do this, and the deceit of that will not be forgotten. Well, the good news is that, on this side of the chamber, we understand the pressures on family budgets and we understand how small business works, or how business works, and that's why we have given a pledge for the tax-back guarantee. Now, what is the tax-back guarantee? We know what bracket creep is. Inflation is out of control in this country too because of this government, so people are going into higher tax brackets as they go into higher wage ranges. We have guaranteed that we will increase the tax ranges and increase bracket creep levels so that people don't pay higher taxes. That will be worth over $1,000 for the average household after four years, after we get into government and bring this in—a real tax cut, something that that side of politics just doesn't understand. The other thing that's happening—I have children; a lot of us have children. Some know people or have family members or friends who just can't afford—or there are not enough houses in this country being built. And it's been really exacerbated over the last five years. One of the reasons why the housing crisis has been exacerbated over the last five years in this country is that, in the first two terms, after six years of this government—we're coming up to the fifth year—it is projected that two million people will have arrived in this country. When you have two million people arrive with a net overseas migration and you're not building the houses for that amount of people, shock, horror, gasp—rents go up. Shock, horror, gasp—there's less housing supply for people, and rents have gone up. Again, the good news is that, on this side of the chamber, we understand that issue, and our policy will be to tie migration to new housing being built. We understand that and we will limit it to that. The other big pressure and the other thing causing issues for houses and businesses in this country is the inflation rate. I want to give you some core inflation rates, which strip away volatile fuel costs. I want to give you the inflation rates of a few countries: Australia, 3.6 per cent; France, one per cent; Japan, 1.6 per cent; Italy, 1.6 per cent; Canada, two per cent; Germany, 2½ per cent; UK, 2.6 per cent; and US, 2.6 per cent. What does that say? We have one of the highest inflation rates in the world. It's not me saying this. Prominent economists are saying that is the result of this government's reckless spending. It's not me saying it; that is economists saying it. Again, the pressure that puts on higher grocery prices and on budgets is astronomical. The other thing I want to talk about, because we can't forget this, is a big part of cost-of-living prices: the energy costs in this country. We remember, when you talk about deceit, that this prime minister said on numerous occasions—I think 90 times—that he was going to lower your energy bill by $250 per year. That should have come in by now, because that was going to be five years after they got elected. That should be by now. The average energy bill for the average family has gone up more, closer to $1,000, rather than down by $250. Again, that is deceit from this government. Why is that? That is the net zero 2050 folly of this government. The net zero 2050 policy of this government is putting pressure on energy prices in this country and risking the energy reliability of our transmission system. I remind everyone opposite that, when you're talking about carbon emission reductions, the three biggest emitters in the world—China, the US and India—are not signed up to net zero 2050. Why do I say that? Because Australia emits just over one per cent of carbon emissions, yet this government, in ideological folly, is risking the energy transmission system of this country and forcing prices to be higher because of that folly. I'll just finish very quickly. This is a government that is out of touch. This is a government that is arrogant. But we have the policies of linking migration to housing and the cost-of-living measures that we will bring in to make life better for this out-of-touch, arrogant government. 15:17 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Let's deal with the claim. Let's deal with the topic of this matter of public importance straight up. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've been self-employed. I've worked in the private sector. My colleague has worked in the private sector. So many here have worked in the private sector. On this side of the House, we understand the economy, we understand our society and we're working to protect all Australians. We believe in building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. We believe in easing cost-of-living pressures so Australians can keep more of what they earn and afford more of what matters to them and their families. And, on this side of the House, we believe in fiscal responsibility. Good economic management is not measured by slogans or scare campaigns. It's measured by whether jobs are being created, whether wages are growing, whether bulk-billing is growing, whether medicines are cheaper and whether a government is prepared to make decisions needed to secure Australia's future. On every one of those measures, the Albanese Labor government is delivering. Just five days ago, S&P Global reaffirmed Australia's triple A credit rating. At a time when many countries are facing economic uncertainty and fiscal pressures, it's a recognition that Australia has a government managing the economy responsibly, making disciplined decisions and maintaining confidence in our nation's finances. Global economic pressures are real. The impacts of global inflation surge, international conflict, supply-chain disruptions and economic uncertainty have been felt right around the world, and it would be deceitful of those opposites to not acknowledge that Australian families have felt those pressures too. The question is not whether those challenges exist; the question is how governments respond. Do you provide meaningful relief while maintaining fiscal discipline? We've managed the budget responsibly. We've been able to provide real cost-of-living relief and another tax cut that those opposite opposed—another tax cut just now for Australian taxpayers. When the budget is managed responsibly, we can provide real cost-of-living relief while keeping the nation's finances strong. We've delivered, as I said, tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, and Australians will receive another round of tax relief next year. That's real relief for workers and families. As a pharmacist, I'm particularly proud of our cheaper medicines reforms. This is real reform. In my electorate of Dobell alone, those reforms have saved local residents around $16.6 million. That's $16.6 million. The last time medicines cost $25 on the PBS was in 2004, more than 20 years ago, early in my career as a community pharmacist. We've frozen the cost of PBS medicines at no more than $25 and $7.70 for concession card holders. We've already saved Australians around $2.9 billion in out-of-pocket costs because of that freeze, and we've added or expanded more than 400 medicines to the PBS. That's real cost-of-living relief. As Diane from Noraville in my electorate said—and she's an aged pensioner—this really helps when you're a pensioner. This really helps. This is real cost-of-living relief. This is money staying in the pockets of Australian families, pensioners and patients. We've expanded paid parental leave. We've increased the minimum wage. We've strengthened Medicare. We've made urgent care clinics a permanent part of our health system. We've done all of this while reducing debt and helping bring inflation under control. That is what responsible economic management looks like. It doesn't look like scare campaigns. This is what responsible economic management looks like. Let's compare that with the record we inherited. Mr McCormack 219646 You were going so well! Ms McBRIDE 248353 I'll take that interjection. Let's compare that with the record that we inherited. When Labor came to office real wages were falling, inflation was surging, housing approvals were going backwards, business investment was weak, and budget deficit stretched years into the future, despite those mugs. Did you have one of those? Did you have one of those mugs, Michael? Did you have one of those mugs? Mr McCormack 219646 It was the golden age of democracy. Ms McBRIDE 248353 'The golden age of democracy,' I hear! Australians would say otherwise, and they did at the ballot box. Budget deficit stretched years into the future, and debt had doubled even before the pandemic. That was the reality. Despite the mugs and the slogans and the scare campaigns, that was the reality. Ms McBRIDE 248353 Since you asked, four years later, we've created 1.25 million jobs and—you'll be pleased to know—with around five out of every six of those jobs created in the private sector. This is how we're going now. We've delivered the lowest average unemployment rate of any Australian government in half a century. This is how we're going now. Real wages have grown in eight of the last 10 quarters. The national minimum wage has increased by more than 30 per cent, and I know, in communities right across the country, particularly for workers in aged care and in early childhood, the real difference that has made for parents and communities, including the early educators that I met at Glenning Valley early learning just on Friday, who are making a real and genuine difference to families. Business investment is stronger, and housing investment is stronger, but responsible economic management is not only about dealing with today's challenges. It's about preparing Australia for tomorrow. Nowhere is that responsibility clearer than in housing. We know that there is an intergenerational housing challenge facing this country. Too many Australians are working hard, doing everything right and still finding homeownership increasingly just out of reach. We could ignore that challenge. We could leave it for somebody else, like those opposite did. We could pretend that the market will somehow fix itself, but that wouldn't be good economic management. That wouldn't be responsible leadership. Leadership is addressing structural problems when they emerge and preparing for the future, and that is exactly what our government is doing. Before our reforms, when a first-time buyer turned up at an auction—and everyone has seen them in their communities across the country—they weren't just bidding against another buyer. Too often, they were bidding against a tax system that tilted the playing field against them. That's why we're reforming negative gearing. The current system is not working well enough for Australians, not working well enough for young Australians and not working well enough in communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Negative gearing concessions have done little to boost new housing supply, with around 83 per cent of investor lending flowing into existing homes rather than into new construction. By limiting negative gearing incentives to new housing, we're making sure that tax concessions support the construction of additional homes, of new homes, rather than simply driving competition for existing stock. It means that investment is still supported but those incentives will help build the homes that Australia needs. That's a fairer approach. That's good economic management. That's a smarter approach. These reforms are about building a stronger country, a fairer Australia and a more sustainable economy. They sit alongside our efforts to boost housing supply, reduce barriers to construction and help more Australians, particularly young Australians, achieve the dream of homeownership. Real economic management is not about avoiding difficult decisions. It's not about blaming others. It's not about mugs. It's about good economic management. It's about taking the difficult decisions. It's about supporting Australians in communities like mine and right around the country. It means tackling challenges, not pretending they don't exist. It means delivering change, not making excuses. And it means delivering real outcomes, not delaying decisions. It means delivering an economy where hard work is rewarded, where opportunity is shared and where every Australian, wherever they live and whatever their postcode, has the chance to get ahead. That is what this government is doing. That is what Labor governments do. That is what responsible economic management looks like, and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government will continue to deliver. I'll finish with Dorothy from Glenning Valley in my electorate, who wrote to me. This is what she said: It has always been Labor governments who see this country through its roughest times and provided protections for those that need it most whilst building the foundations for all social benefits. That is what our government is doing. That is good economic management. 15:28 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina This matter of public importance debate is on the government's toxic taxes and economic mismanagement making life harder for everyday Australians. It's brought to you by the member for Page, who represents a regional electorate. Like anybody who represents a regional electorate, they would know just how tough country people are doing it at the moment. But it's not just in the regions; it's right across this wide, brown land. I happen to like the member for Dobell, and she is the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. She is the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health. They are very important portfolio areas, and I genuinely wish her every success. But unfortunately—and it's not her fault, by the way—one of the very first things that this Labor government did was change the distribution priority areas for doctors, and that led to the departure of many of our fine general practitioners to the coast and to other peri-urban areas where they had plenty of doctors. Unfortunately, that has led to a rural health crisis. Real wages are falling. They genuinely are. People have less money in their pockets now to spend, less disposable income than before this really tawdry government came into office in May 2022. You only have to look at policies such as the widows tax, which is just cruel and unnecessary, and the private healthcare rebate being axed for over-65s. Then you have the algorithms determining aged-care assessments for older Australians. What is it that this government has against aged Australians—people who have paid their taxes, people who have done so much to make this country what it is today. We've got a government that says it cares but is turning its back on older Australians. It's not right, it's not fair and it has to change. We've had 15 interest rate rises. As was told to us today by the Leader of the Opposition in question time, mortgage holders have to find $29,000 more each year to pay off their mortgages than they did prior to this Labor government coming to office. Where is the equity of that? Tonight is census night. I have a bit of experience with these census days and nights. In 2016 the response rate by households was in fact 95.1 per cent; that's pretty good. But 95 per cent of households are probably now of less value than they were before the last budget. And do you know why? Because of the capital gains tax reforms that Labor said it wasn't going to do—and then on budget night we saw the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, introduce them. It's caused so much hardship and harm for those people wanting to put a roof over their heads. For those people who already have a roof over their heads who invest in themselves and their futures, the government's pulled the rug from underneath them. Don't take my word for it; there are plenty of others saying precisely the same thing. When it comes to regional Australians, we think of the farmers. In the budget, $191.6 million was taken out of feral pest management practices. That now means pigs, wild dogs, rabbits, mice and anything else you care to name that are killing sheep and taking away the profits of farmers are going to be running rampant thanks to this tawdry government. Then we get to water buybacks. Even though we're heading towards a trillion dollars worth of debt, this government found it necessary to buy $430 million more of water from irrigators, from productive use, from farming use and from food and fibre production. And what are they going to do? Flush it down the mouth of the Murray. That's what this Labor government does. I probably don't have time to talk about the $5,000 allied health cap for our veterans. But what do Labor do? They just say, 'We'll consult.' They should have consulted before the budget. They should have consulted on the widows tax. They should have consulted on the veterans allied health cap. It's simply not fair. It's simply not right. But it's so typical of this Labor government that never sees a toxic tax it doesn't want to introduce, that doesn't tell people before the budget what they're going to do and then implements things in the budget. 15:33 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson This MPI is quite the irony from those opposite. If you want to talk about making life for the everyday Aussie harder, look no further than yourselves. Your record on delivering practical measures to help everyday Aussies day to day is quite simply appalling. I'm going to list a few of the greatest hits. Who can forget robodebt. Who can forget the great bulk-billing freeze for three years, which made going to the doctor much more expensive for everyday Australians. Who can forget that wage growth literally flatlined under the coalition; in fact, you described it as a deliberate design feature of your very poor economic management. Who can forget cuts to TAFE when we are literally in a trade crisis now because you cut TAFE to the bone. When you talk about making life more difficult for everyday Aussies, you should literally look in the mirror. You also opposed our tax cuts. We've all just had a tax cut, on 1 July—and you voted against that tax cut. You also opposed pay rises for minimum-wage earners. You built a measly 373 social and affordable homes in your time in government over a decade—unbelievable! All in all, you've basically just left it up to us to help everyday Aussies with the cost of living and with getting ahead, and that's exactly what we're doing. The Albanese Labor government are committed to improving life for everyday Aussies and we are actually doing it in spades—cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, cheaper child care, $2,800 in tax cuts next year, 30 per cent off batteries, pay rises for low-paid workers, 20 per cent off HECS, free TAFE, now expanded paid prac, six months of full Paid Parental Leave. We know housing is a massive challenge facing Aussies, especially younger Australians and first homebuyers, and we're actually listening. They've been telling us as MPs for many years that it's been getting harder and harder, and we're actually delivering some change that will help them. We've delivered the five per cent deposit scheme, so first-time buyers only need a five per cent deposit and single parents only two per cent. I think we're up to about 280,000 first homebuyers who've taken advantage of that scheme. Our recent budget delivered tax reforms to make it easier for people to buy their first home by putting limits on negative gearing, which obviously supports more first homebuyers entering the housing market and will increase the number of actual owner occupiers in the housing market. We've brought the dream of homeownership back within reach, not just for investors but for everyday Aussies. We didn't stop there. Our budget also introduced the working Australians tax offset, an additional tax cut of up to $250 for working Australians straight back into their pockets. This is going to benefit over 13 million Australian workers—a tax cut that those opposite voted against. The tax cuts that we've introduced and the final one, the one next year, will add up to about $2,800 back into the pockets of everyday Aussies. As well as the tax cuts, we've introduced a $1,000 instant tax deduction for workers, which will result in an average of about $200 a year for 6.2 million Aussie workers. Over on this side of the House, we are very much focused on making life easier for everyday Aussies by focusing on measures to ease the cost-of-living pressures. We have demonstrated that over and over and over again. I just keep on repeating: 20 per cent off HECS, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, more Medicare. This is what making life easier for Aussies actually looks like. 15:38 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Well, Australians are living in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis and those opposite are congratulating themselves that the RBA governor held the rates today, but the reality of it is, under those opposite's watch, the interest rates have increased 15 times. During the break, when a lot of people were sunning themselves and doing whatever they were doing, travelling overseas, I spent the time in the electorate speaking to my people. I was at pop-up offices and coffee catch-ups and markets. Ms Wells 264121 Same! Mr WILLCOX 286535 And you were doing the same. That's excellent. Well done. It's good to see you were not travelling. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Let's stop taking the interjections. Mr WILLCOX 286535 Under those opposite, the interest rates have been way too high for way too long. Inflation has been high. The current rate of inflation is 3.8 per cent. The target rate is 2.3 per cent. Labor have lost control of the budget and they've lost control of the whole of the economy. Instead of spending all Australians' money, the Prime Minister needs to be spending some time pulling his Treasurer into gear rather than making crude comments about Kylie Minogue and crude gestures about the Prime Minister of Japan. The Prime Minister is making everyday Australians' lives harder with his toxic taxes and economic mismanagement, and now he's demeaning women. So I ask the Prime Minister to apologise to the Prime Minister of Japan, apologise to Kylie Minogue and apologise to all the women of Australia. While he's at it, the Prime Minister should also apologise to all Australians because under Labor Australians have experienced the biggest collapse of living standards in the developed world. And, folks, it's going to get worse. This budget has the highest tax take of a budget ever. High spending is Labor's way, and this is then pouring petrol on the inflation fire. And what happens with inflation? When you have inflation, your borrowing power, your buying power, every bit of money that you earn—you can't afford to buy as much. It's that simple. Those opposite are also going to drive debt over $1 trillion. In this budget we've seen broken promises on negative gearing, capital gains tax, trusts, and we've seen more and more toxic taxes added. But the Prime Minister never took these to the election. I've never seen anything that Labor's not happy to tax. They're happy to tax everything from the cradle to the grave. And why? Because of their insatiable appetite to spend. Another crushing blow to all the young people is that thousands of young Australians were actively enticed to buy their first home under the federal five per cent deposit scheme, taking on 95 per cent of debt. Young couples across the community stretched every single dollar so that they could get their foot on the property ladder, trusting this government was offering them a genuine leg up to homeownership. They signed contracts and took on heavy bank loans in good faith, believing that the market would remain stable and that their hard-earned deposit was safe. But, after encouraging these young buyers to max out their debt, Labor whacked them with toxic taxes on housing and investment, crashing entry-level valuations and trapping homeowners into negative equity. But Labor's suite of toxic taxes doesn't stop there. It's a direct assault on aspiration, locking young Australians out of the exact same financial opportunities that were afforded to older Australians and whacking heavy new taxes on housing, on savings investment and family small businesses, making it almost impossible for young people to build long-term wealth, to buy a home or to start local businesses. Instead of rewarding hard work and supporting ambition, Labor is penalising Australians and effectively pulling up the ladder on every Australian. The coalition has a plan to fix the economy and protect our way of life. 15:43 Ms URQUHART 231199 Braddon Labor is helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, while the Liberals' record tells us they would leave people behind. The opposition's criticisms are a hollow political attack from a desperate party that wants Australians to forget its record. When the Liberals were last in government, they kept wages low as a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. They left Medicare under pressure, failed to deliver serious relief for families and presided over years of cost-of-living strain, without a plan for everyday working people. Now, from opposition, they are again trying to talk down the economy and talk down the support going to everyday Australians. Labor's reforms are about helping workers keep more of what they earn, supporting young people to buy their first home and making the tax system fairer. Only Labor will deliver higher wages. Labor has backed pay rises for workers every year since coming to government. Since 2022, the minimum wage has gone up by more than $9,000 a year. This year, almost 2.7 million Australians on the minimum wage or modern award wages are receiving another pay rise, backed by this Labor government. It matters in electorates like my own. It means more money in the pockets of cleaners, retail workers, hospitality workers, carers and people doing essential jobs right across Braddon. Labor believes the people who work hard should be able to get ahead. Every taxpayer is better off under Labor. Labor is delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer. For the average worker, that means around $2,800 more in their pocket each year. Labor's first tax cut began on 1 July 2024, a second cut was introduced in July 2026, and another will be introduced from July 2027. Workers will also be able to claim a $1,000 instant tax deduction without receipts from the 2027 tax year, and, from the 2028 tax year, the new working Australians tax offset will deliver a permanent $250 cut to workers' tax bills. As a note to those opposite, this is what helping people keep more of what they earn actually looks like. Labor is delivering cost-of-living relief by strengthening Medicare and cutting the cost of medicines. In Braddon, Medicare urgent care clinics are now open in Devonport and Burnie, giving people free medical care. There are now 19 GP practices in Braddon that bulk-bill all patients, and around 95 per cent of patients are seeing a doctor for free with the bulk-billing incentive. Labor has also cut the price of prescription medicines, with most scripts now costing no more than $25, or just $7.70 for people with a Commonwealth concession card. That is practical cost-of-living relief for people who need it most. Those opposite should go and talk to those people, who need it most. Labor is helping families, parents, young people and first home buyers. Our five per cent deposit scheme is helping young people buy their first home sooner, with extra help for single parents and guardians, who may be able to buy with a deposit as small as two per cent. Labor is also making the tax system fairer so first home buyers have a better chance against investors. From 1 July 2026, parents welcoming a new baby or adopting a child can access 26 weeks of government-backed paid parental leave, with superannuation now paid on that leave so those people are not left behind. Family tax benefit payments are increasing too. Support payments have also gone up for young people who are studying, looking for work or caring for others. These are real measures that help people manage their budgets and plan for the future. The choice is very clear. When the opposition throws around slogans about toxic taxes and economic mismanagement, Australians should see it for what it really is: hollow criticism from a party with no plan to lift wages, no plan to strengthen Medicare, no plan to make medicines cheaper and no plan to help families keep more of what they earn. The Liberals had their chance, and Australians remember that—low wages, household pressure and weaker services. Only Labor will protect everyday Australians by backing better pay, cutting taxes, strengthening Medicare, making medicines cheaper and supporting the families that need it most. 15:48 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to speak in support of the MPI moved by the member for Page. It is a fact that, under Labor, Australia has experienced the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world, and it is a fact that inflation is still running out of control, well above the Reserve Bank's target band. It is not just key economic indicators telling us that Labor's economic mismanagement is making life harder for regional Western Australians; it is those very people—in their thousands—telling me in their own words that Labor is making life worse for them, not better. Throughout the Pilbara, during the winter recess, I heard directly from many regional Western Australian families, mothers and grandmothers in particular, who are worried about their children's future. In every conversation I had with a mother, the same themes and concerns came up: How will my child be able to afford a home? How will they be able to build wealth? How will my child be able to afford to have children themselves? These are the concerns of everyday Australian families. They are struggling under the weight of Labor's higher taxes and high inflation and interest rates—the end of aspiration—and working harder for less. We, in this place, must remember that we are not just making decisions for the next three years; we are making decisions for at least the next 30 years. On this side of the House, we understand this responsibility and we accept the honour of this. Our plan will fix the economy and protect our way of life for generations to come, so that our children can have the same, or better, opportunities to get ahead as past generations had. For too long, governments of both sides have merely looked only to the next election—often, creating policies merely to win votes, not to secure Australia and our future. Only the coalition has the leadership, the team and a plan to fix our economy and protect our way of life. Our priorities—lower taxes, cheaper power, less migration, more homes and putting Australians first—are the change that our country needs. While Labor voted again for higher taxes—earlier, only today—on this side, we are committed to bigger and better tax cuts every single year, under our tax-back guarantee, ending Labor's thief-in-the-night inflation tax by indexing tax brackets to inflation. Let's face it: this government has failed on housing policy. Homeownership is no longer in reach, and it's the primary concern of many parents, right around the country. We have fewer homes and higher rents, and confidence in the market has been smashed under this Prime Minister. As the party of aspiration and everyday Australians, the Liberal Party will put homeownership at the centre of the Australian dream again. We'll do this by capping migration at the number of homes built, to try and fix the 400,000 housing shortfall we have experienced under this government. Australia is simply not building enough homes—that is clear—and the situation is not going to improve while the member for Grayndler is sitting in the Prime Minister's chair. Instead, I support—and I think my colleagues here, on this side of the House, support—a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to help build up to 400,000 new homes; the five per cent deposit scheme being reserved for Australians only; slashing red tape, to cut the cost of a new home by $70,000; scrapping Labor's housing bureaucracy; and repealing Labor's housing taxes. So my message to all Australians is this. This is not as good as it gets, and I'm not going to cop it and neither should you. I'm fighting to put you first, to establish a future generation fund to pay down Labor's trillion dollars of debt, because the last thing I want is for your children and your grandchildren to inherit this economic mess that is being created by those sitting opposite. To those regional Western Australians hurting under this government's economic mismanagement, and those worried about their children's future: I hear you, and so do my colleagues. We know that Labor is making you poorer, not richer. The coalition is determined to have the policies for the next election and beyond. We're going to make our country a place where dreams do come true, where owning a home is possible and where hard work and ambition are rewarded. (Time expired) 15:53 Mr GREGG 315154 Deakin At a time when Australians are really under pressure, it is on the government to deliver real change. And that is what we've been focusing on. It's about delivering economic reforms that are about making Australia stronger and fairer for working Australians, making health care more affordable, making housing more accessible and making our tax system more equitable. The solution to the struggles and challenges faced by the Australian people is not a return to distortionary tax settings that made housing a faraway dream for generations of Australians—distortions that privileged investors over people looking for a roof over their head. Now, we've taken on the difficult task not for political ease—we can all attest to that. We've done it because it's the right thing to do, because we have to think for the long-term: 'What is right for working Australians? What is right for the country?' It's certainly not to divert investment from productive assets, from productive businesses, into existing housing—a situation that has seen the price of those houses quadruple over only a couple of decades, making the great Australian dream a nightmare for young people, who knew it just wasn't for them anymore, because we had a coalition government that spent 10 years finding every single excuse to kick the can down the road on every single challenge facing our economy and society. On energy, it's a whole lot of do nothing—a bunch of pamphlets. Then we've got the challenge of housing affordability. Nothing about that either—'Let's keep those 1990s distortions that have made the system even worse.' On energy, on productivity, on wages, they could not do anything to address the challenges. Why? Because they were afraid of showing a little bit of political courage and they were afraid of telling their backers that things had to change, because it's all too hard and because they were too busy fighting themselves rather than fighting on behalf of the Australian people to make a real difference. So we inherited a declining energy system where we had less reliable coal-fired power plants being increasingly relied upon and no real pathway for a 21st century energy grid that would provide businesses and housing with the affordable energy they need. Then they have the gumption to come into this chamber and propose more of the same—more kicking the can down the road. They say, 'Sweat the coal assets.' That's code for keeping prices high while we then go and adopt the single most expensive form of energy to ensure that high power prices are entrenched for the long term. It is absolutely outrageous. This government is about making a real difference to people's lives, and I see it in my own electorate of Deakin. We've seen the number of 100 per cent bulk-billing practices double. We've seen cheaper medicines save just people in my electorate about $20 million. We've seen 1,000 people in Deakin being able to get into their first home because of the support through the five per cent deposit scheme. We saw 20 per cent of student debt cut for about 20,000 residents in my electorate of Deakin. That is real cost-of-living relief. Whenever we talk about cost-of-living relief, you'll never find a group more keen to oppose it than the Liberal Party. They'll come here and express outrage, but they'll never back real cost-of-living relief. They've never met a wage increase that they agree with, because we know that wage suppression, keeping wages low, was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture for nine years. They oppose cost-of-living relief. They oppose higher wages, which means that Australians are paying more and earning less, every single time. Those structural challenges simply continue to go unaddressed because it was all too hard. This is just a repeat of history. I remember the last time the coalition started holding up blue pamphlets with slogans in them. They said, 'Oh, we'll get rid of the debt.' They got into office and doubled it before COVID. They had the little action contract they signed, saying, 'We're going to end the waste and we're going to pay back the debt.' They did neither, because they're not willing to do the hard work. They're not willing to bring about the real change that our society and our economy need to actually change Australian people's lives for the better. That is a tough job. We're also making sure that Australians are set up for success in the future, assisting small business with loss carry-back, with about $3.8 billion of tax improvements for small business. We're cutting red tape as well, cutting compliance costs by about $540 million a year, making sure that productivity rises, because we know that is the key to success. It's the way we get inflation down, and it's how we ensure that Australians continue to improve living standards. But this is tough, long-term work. It's not slogans. It's not simple alliteration. It's not making a speech that sounds like a really dull version of a Dr Seuss book. You have to more than rhyme your way into prosperity. It takes real work. It takes real work and real change. And it means grasping the nettle, doing the hard stuff and really keeping an eye and the focus on making sure that the lives of Australian people continue to improve over time, taking on the challenges of our day and setting ourselves up for success. 15:58 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey Somewhere tonight, a family will sit down at the kitchen table with the bank statements and work out what they will go without this month. This is the reality under this government. Nothing the Reserve Bank did this afternoon changes that. A rate hold is not relief. The Reserve Bank has shown once again it has no confidence in this government, holding interest rates at a 15-year high. Sixteen rate rises later, Australian families are paying the price. Synonymous with Labor governments, those opposite have lost control of the economy. They have run out of money and they are coming after yours. This is felt harder in regional South Australia than almost anywhere else. Every loaf of bread and every litre of diesel carries the cost of the road it travelled on. All Australians are paying for this government's incompetence, and they've had enough. Unlike the coalition, it is clear that those opposite have no plan to fix the economy. Last year, the Prime Minister and Treasurer proudly declared that we had 'turned the corner' on the battle against inflation. Well, if that was a corner, it's the longest corner in living memory. Inflation is still at 3.8 per cent—way above the Reserve Bank's target, and still at a 15-year high. The only thing that has turned is the story from the Labor Party. Australians have been hit with 16 rate rises under this government—the most recent, in May—and not one came off today. That is what happens when a government spends too much and loses control of the economy. Since Labor was elected, Australians have had the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. The budget is now forecast to be in deficit for a decade, and debt is about to pass one trillion dollars, because Labor cannot manage money; they can't run an economy. The only thing they know how to do is tax—and they're taxing everything. Labor's toxic taxes are an assault on aspiration. A young Australian gets ahead by buying a house, putting away money, investing it or starting a business. Well, Labor is taxing every single one of them. Then there is the widow tax. Labor failed a simple test when the parliament last sat. They had the chance to scrap it, and they voted to keep it. This is a tax that hits Australians at the worst possible time. Those opposite created the mess. They were warned about it, and they voted against fixing it. If the government agrees the widow tax is wrong, then there is no excuse for delay. Scrap this cruel tax, and scrap it now. On housing, Labor has delivered a trifecta of failures: fewer homes, higher rents and confidence in the market smashed. Labor's own budget forecast that these tax changes will mean 35,000 fewer homes. This country is still building 30,000 fewer homes a year than when the coalition was last in office. This is basic supply-and-demand economics. Those opposite haven't heard of it. Tax something and you get less of it—there is your first lesson. The coalition has a plan. We will lower taxes by axing every one of Labor's toxic taxes and introducing a tax-back guarantee. We will deliver cheaper power by scrapping net zero and making this country an energy superpower, like it was in the past. Not only will we cap migration to housing supply, but we will build more homes. We will put Australians first, establish a future generations fund, pay down the debt and deliver the nation-building infrastructure our regions have waited on for years. Australians aren't asking for much. They are asking for a government that can manage money so that living standards can be restored. The choice at the next election will be clear: a coalition government with a plan to fix the economy, restore our living standards and protect our way of life, or a Labor government that has failed this country at every corner. 16:03 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam Before I talk about how the Albanese government is managing the economy, let's consider the economic record we inherited from the coalition in 2022. For almost nine years, the coalition claimed to be the party of responsible economic management, yet, when the coalition left office, they had failed to deliver a single final budget surplus during their entire nine years in government. Then, straight after ousting the coalition, in the 2022-2023 financial year, the Albanese government delivered a $22.1 billion surplus—the first budget surplus in 15 years. Under Labor, Australia's debt is almost $200 billion lower than what we inherited. That is what strong economic management looks like. Labor is building a stronger, fairer and more secure future for Australia. We are tackling major structural challenges, like our housing crisis, head on. We are taking a responsible approach to managing the economy while investing in the areas Australia needs most. We are reducing the tax burden for over 13 million workers and supporting 75,000 more Australians into the housing market. Our government has focused on finding savings and reducing waste rather than simply increasing taxes or cutting essential services, which tends to be the basic approach of those opposite. The reality is that those opposite have no alternative vision or credible policy on anything, which is precisely why the Australian people have lost confidence in them. Responsible economic management means making sure taxpayers' money is being used where it can have the greatest benefit. A strong economy should improve the lives of ordinary Australians. That is why our government has introduced a range of cost-of-living measures. These include tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, cheaper medicines and an expansion of free health care available in communities all over Australia. Our government's tax cuts have been designed to provide ongoing relief rather than be a temporary payment. This means millions of Australians can keep more of what they earn and use it to support their families, pay bills or spend their money in local businesses. Another major strength of our government's economic strategy is our investment in Australia's future industries. Through our Future Made in Australia agenda, the government is investing in renewable energy, critical minerals, clean manufacturing and other emerging industries. We are doing this because Australia has enormous opportunity. We have some of the world's best renewable energy resources and huge reserves of critical minerals that are essential for batteries, electric vehicles, renewable technologies and modern manufacturing. This means more Australian jobs, more investment and potentially more export opportunities. Our government is also investing heavily in infrastructure. Major investments in roads, rail, housing, energy and regional infrastructure help create jobs in the short term while improving Australia's productivity in the long term. Our government is also investing in skills and education. Programs such as free TAFE are helping Australians gain qualifications in areas where our economy needs workers. This is an important economic investment because Australia's future prosperity depends on having a highly skilled workforce. The Albanese government has also taken action to strengthen wages. Since coming to government, we have backed higher wages for nearly three million of Australia's lowest paid workers every year—something those opposite would never do. Labor has also delivered the lowest average unemployment rate of any Australian government in half a century. Labor understands that we need to invest, plan and prepare for Australia's future. We are focused not only on the here and now but also on what Australia will look like in 10, 20 or 30 years, and that's why we're investing in clean energy, infrastructure, education, housing, skills and Australian manufacturing. These are the foundations of a modern and competitive economy. We're investing in a fairer Australia and in Australia's future. We live in the best country in the world, and Australia has enormous economic potential, and that's why we want our economic growth to be shared by all Australians both now and into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 This discussion has now concluded. BILLS 39 BILLS Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026 39

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026

Report from Committee 39 16:08 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the advisory report on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr WALLACE 265967 by leave—I rise today to present a report on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026. The bill seeks to strengthen Australia's anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing framework by addressing emerging financial crime risks, updating the definition of 'terrorism financing' and making a range of technical amendments identified through implementation of the 2024 reforms. The inquiry considered how Australia's legislative framework can remain responsive to rapidly changing technologies, payment systems and criminal methodologies. The committee received 19 submissions and heard evidence from government agencies, industry representatives, legal experts and civil society organisations. The committee found broad support for the objectives of the bill. Submitters recognised the serious harm caused by money laundering, terrorism financing, organised crime scams and other forms of financial abuse, and acknowledged the importance of ensuring Australia's regulatory framework remains fit for purpose. A central feature of the bill is the creation of a new power to restrict or prohibit the use of products, services, deliveries, channels or other mechanisms that cause significant harm to Australia's financial system or community. The committee concluded that this proposal addresses a genuine gap in the existing framework, particularly where risks arise across an entire sector or mechanism rather than from the conduct of a specific entity. However, the committee also considered evidence regarding the breadth and significance of the proposed power. To strengthen public confidence and accountability, the committee recommended that this power be exercised by the responsible minister acting on advice from the chief executive officer of AUSTRAC. The committee considers that this approach appropriately balances responsiveness to emerging threats with ministerial oversight of major regulatory interventions. The committee also recommended greater transparency regarding consultation processes undertaken before any restriction or prohibition is imposed, including publication of submissions, consultation activities and AUSTRAC's response to issues raised. The inquiry paid particular attention to evidence concerning cryptocurrency automated teller machines, commonly known as crypto ATMs. While evidence differed regarding the scale of the risks involved, the committee concluded that crypto ATMs can contribute to significant harm, affecting scam victims and increased money laundering and terrorism financing risks. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the minister, in consultation with AUSTRAC, consider as a matter of priority whether restrictions or prohibitions on crypto ATMs are warranted in the public interest. The committee also supports amendments updating the definition of 'terrorism financing' to ensure alignment with Australia's broader counterterrorism and sanctions frameworks and to reflect more contemporary threat environments. Beyond the bill itself, the committee identified broader issues relating to financial system resilience and traceability. In particular, the committee examined evidence concerning the continued operation of the bulk electronic clearing system, or BECS. The committee recommended that AUSTRAC, the Reserve Bank of Australia and industry stakeholders undertake further assessment of the money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with legacy payments infrastructure, and report back to the committee on progress. Recognising the substantial compliance obligations that have recently commenced under the tranche 2 reforms, the committee also recommended delaying commencement of new obligations arising from this bill until 1 July 2027. This would allow affected entities adequate time to develop systems, processes and compliance arrangements while supporting stronger long-term implementation outcomes. Ultimately, the committee recommended that, subject to the recommendations contained in the report, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026 be passed by the parliament. I thank the chair, Senator Ciccone; the committee members; the secretariat; and all those who contributed to the inquiry through submissions and evidence at the public hearing. I commend the report to the House. COMMITTEES 40 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 40 Report 40 16:14 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report Review of the listing of White Australia as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr WALLACE 265967 by leave—This review was conducted under section 114A.9 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, following the making of regulations in May 2026 specifying White Australia as a prohibited hate group. This was the second use of the prohibited hate group framework established by the parliament earlier this year, and the committee approached its task conscious of both the seriousness of the listing power and the need to ensure that the statutory safeguards enacted by parliament were properly applied. The committee carefully examined the material provided by the government, including a detailed statement of reasons, and considered submissions from a range of stakeholders expressing strongly held and at times divergent views. The committee also held an in-camera hearing to test the evidence and satisfy itself that the legislative criteria for listing had been met and that the process followed was consistent with the requirements of the act. Having regard to all of the evidence before it, the committee is satisfied that White Australia meets the legislative criteria for listing as a prohibited hate group and that the listing has been properly made. In particular, the committee accepts that White Australia has engaged in conduct constituting hate crimes, including using propaganda to incite hatred against minority and migrant communities and attacking a First Nations protest camp. The committee is satisfied that the listing is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community from social, economic, psychological and physical harm. Accordingly, the committee supports the listing of White Australia as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instrument. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 40 BILLS Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 40

Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025

Consideration of Senate Message 40 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 40

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026

Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Returned from Senate 40 COMMITTEES 40 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee, Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 40 Membership 40 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, Centenary of Parliament in Canberra Joint Select Committee 41 Appointment 41 16:17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the three resolutions of the House relating to: (a) variation of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (b) Powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence (c) The resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on the Centenary in Canberra. BILLS 41 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026, Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026, Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026 41

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027

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

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026

Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026

Assent 41 COMMITTEES 41 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs and Trade Joint Committee 41 Membership 41 16:18 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Speaker has received advice that the Chief Government Whip (received by the Speaker on 3 July 2026, pursuant to standing order 229(b)) and Chief Opposition Whip (received by the Speaker on 6 July 2026, pursuant to standing order 229(b)) had nominated changes in the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. In accordance with standing order 229b as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the discharges became effective on those dates. 16:18 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Ted O'Brien be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Question agreed to. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 41 Membership 41 16:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Speaker has received advice from the honourable Prime Minister nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. 16:19 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Ted O'Brien be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Question agreed to. BILLS 42 BILLS Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026, Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026 42

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 42 16:20 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and the related Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026, and I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia imports around 90 per cent of the medicines the country requires, while making up barely two per cent of the global market, creating vulnerability to local supply due to overseas manufacturing issues, shipping delays and rerouting; (b) throughout 2025, there were more than 400 medicine shortages listed on the Therapeutic Goods Administration's (TGA) Medicine Shortage Reports Database, driven heavily by global manufacturing constraints, single-source active ingredients, and rising international demand; (c) the number of substitution approvals issued by the TGA in order to deal with shortages of medicines has more than doubled since 2018; and (d) the bill fails to deal with the underlying causes of medicine shortages; and (2) calls on the government to develop a comprehensive medicine shortage policy that boosts sovereign capability to ensure more essential medicines are made locally, and set targets to reduce the number of medicine shortages in Australia". At its heart, this bill is about one thing: knowing sooner when a medicine is about to run short. It does a few sensible things to get there. It requires the pharmaceutical companies who supply our medicines to give at least 12 months notice before they permanently stop supplying one or as soon as they practically can. It requires them to keep the secretary updated if that plan changes, and it lets the secretary ask any supplier whether their product is available, running short or being discontinued. It keeps the medicines watchlist—the list of medicines whose shortage would hit hardest—current and up to date. The bill makes a second change as well, a more technical one. Right now, biologic medicines, things like hormones and immune treatments, which are made from living cells, are registered one by one, even when they are all but identical. A different bottle size means a separate listing. A different pack means more paperwork. This bill lets very similar biologics from the same maker sit under a single listing, the same way we already treat ordinary medicines and medical devices, and the companion charges bill simply sets the fees that go with those group listings. It is a commonsense change. It cuts duplication and it cuts costs and red tape for the sector. The bill does one more thing: it writes into primary law the power for authorised officers to enter and inspect clinical trial sites to make sure the goods used in those trials are safe for the patients taking part. The coalition will not oppose this bill in the House. The Senate has referred it to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. That is the right place to test the detail and to hear from the people this affects, and we reserve our position on any amendments until that inquiry work has been done. Here is the truth at the centre of this bill: earlier warning is welcome, but a warning is not a solution. This bill will tell a patient sooner that their medicine is about to disappear. It does nothing to stop it disappearing in the first place. That's the problem this parliament should be reaching for, asking questions about and investigating deeper. Australia imports around 90 per cent of the medicines we depend on. We make up barely two per cent of the global market, so, when a factory overseas has a problem or a shipment is delayed or supply is rerouted, we are at the very end of the queue. Right now, more than 400 medicines are listed on the TGA's database as being in shortage. Dozens of them are critical, and the warning system we already have is not reaching the people who need it. A RACGP newsGP poll of nearly 1,500 GPs found that 73 per cent first hear about a shortage from their own patients; from the TGA, only two per cent; and from the manufacturer, only one per cent. The doctor is often the last to know. Since shortage reporting became mandatory, a reform this side of the House delivered in government, the number of substitute medicines the TGA has had to approve has more than doubled. This is not a system getting healthier; this is a system under strain, and we have seen where this ends. In 2024, our public hospitals ran critically short of IV fluids, the saline that surgery and emergency care cannot run without. Operations were delayed. Patients were put at risk. The government was warned it was coming, but the national response group was not stood up until August 2024, after the shortage had already turned critical, and it was only in 2025 that the government announced a $40 million deal to expand manufacturing here at home. It was a welcome step but a step taken after the horse had bolted, which, under this government, we see far too often. As my colleague the shadow minister for health and aged care, Senator Anne Ruston, said at the time, what does 'a future made in Australia' actually mean if the Albanese government cannot even guarantee our supply of saline, which is essential to the operations in our health system? Australia can do better than lurching from one shortage to the next. We need to get ahead of this. This needs to be done with a real strategy, one that builds our own capability, makes more essential medicines here at home and sets clear targets to bring the number of shortages down. Patients depend on it. Clinicians depend on it. Our whole health system depends on it. That's why I've moved the second reading amendment. This bill will help Australians see the next shortage coming. The job of this government, which they keep dodging, is to stop it arriving at all. Earlier warnings are welcome, but a warning is not a solution. I commend the amendment to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Thompson 281826 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 43 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 43 16:26 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Farrer making a statement immediately and that the Member speak without limitation of time. Question agreed to, with an absolute majority. STATEMENTS 43 STATEMENTS First Speech 43 16:27 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Before I call the honourable member for Farrer, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to him all of the usual courtesies. 16:27 Mr FARLEY 62329 Farrer I rise today deeply conscious of the honour of representing the people of Farrer in this parliament. I rise with a simple belief: we all live within and across three generations. We inherit the Australia built by those who came before us. We enjoy the product of their toil, courage, enterprise and sacrifice. We're custodians of that inheritance for a short period of time. We carry an obligation to leave something stronger for those who follow. That obligation between generations is at the heart of why I'm here. Ultimately, the measure of this parliament will not be the announcements we make, the arguments we win or the headlines we generate. It will be this: did we leave Australia stronger than we found it? I'm a fortunate man. I was born into an exceptional, loving, hardworking family and raised among siblings, cousins, neighbours, sporting teams and, as every Australian child should have, a black-and-tan kelpie named Buster. My father, Keith, was the son of a First World War light horseman and ultimately an orchardist. Dad served as a naval seaman during the Second World War before building his life in agribusiness. My mother, Patsy, born in Sydney and raised in Narrandera, one of three daughters of an agribusiness entrepreneur and service provider, is an extraordinary mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. My mum is here today. Ninety-eight years young, she's lived through the governments of 23 Australian prime ministers, and today, somewhat improbably, she has one politician in the family. Mum, thank you. You are now a part of Farrer's political history as well. I grew up in Narrandera, in a community where people understood that belonging brought you responsibilities as well as privileges. I was schooled sitting in a classroom full of excitement, aspirations, seated alongside Australian Indigenous and new Australians from all reaches of the globe. Language, skin colour or lunchbox content did not discriminate in the classrooms, the sports fields or the school holidays. It moulded us all into the proud, contributing Australians that we are today. Football ruled winter; cricket, tennis and water sports occupied summer. But sports taught us something greater than how to win. Henry Mathieson, the local butcher, trained and mentored younger generations of people in Australian Rules. Tommy Lee, who arrived in Australia as a teenage refugee from Germany after World War II, championed the rugby league teams. Unique men. Different men from different origins, from different faiths, training us in different codes, but the same lesson: know your position; do your job; back your team mates; accept accountability and responsibility for the result. 'Accountability' and 'responsibility'—these two words are embedded in my life. I believe they belong at the centre of public life as well. My father, Dad, ran his business and our household with something approaching naval precision. Preparing for school was an evening operation: boots cleaned, kit packed, everything organised before dinner. And dinner was at seven o'clock. Not 6.55 or 7.05; it was seven o'clock, with approximately 15 seconds of elasticity either side. But dad taught me more than discipline. He was a people person, a friend of the farmers and a provider of emerging agricultural technologies, equipment, fertilisers and working capital transforming and assisting Australian agriculture. Some of my greatest education came from travelling with him through the Riverina, walking and inspecting crops, sitting around farmers kitchen tables and standing in machinery sheds listening to discussions covering seasonal conditions, commodity prices, sports and politics. At the age of 14, Dad gifted me a book: George Orwell's Animal Farm. That left a lasting impression on me that has never faded. It taught me early to question power, to question orthodoxy and to understand that noble language does not always guarantee ignoble outcomes. At 17, I left home to jackaroo at Boonoke in the New South Wales Riverina with FS Falkiner and Sons. Before I boarded the train, Keith, or Dad, passed to me a fraying copy of Rudyard Kipling's 1910 poem 'If'. He told me: 'Keep it close. There will be times in life when you need it.' He was right. I still have it within reach, positioned opposite Theodore Roosevelt's speech 'Man in the arena'. And Keith was definitely right: there are times in life where reading either gives personal or emotional perspective to your soul. And, as I boarded that train that day, a young woman came running down the station platform to wish me goodbye and good luck. That 17-year-old young woman is here today. That's my partner, Janice. Life has remarkable ways of completing circles. Long days, cold winters, hot summers, sheep, cattle, horses, bushfires, lamb marking, cattle branding, football, polo cross, B&S balls and, occasionally, the Conargo pub. That was our jackarooing life. There were 12 competing for the opportunity and career. Nobody owed you promotion; you earned it. Success was achieved beyond hard work. Being interested, being polite, being equitable, being presentable, being there and present, commitment, being curious and being there for the team, knowing the job at hand and accepting responsibility and accountability for the outcome of that job. Among the owners of FS Falkiner and Sons were Rupert Murdoch and his lieutenant Ken Cowley, and both remained generous mentors to me long after I left their employment. From there, life took my young family to north-west New South Wales. With a family of two—wife, Deborah, and daughter Emma—we were introduced to the challenges of north-west New South Wales at Collymongle Station. Daughters Kate and Sarah completed our family and were educated among the realities of Mother Nature's leverage over Australian agriculture. They are here today with me as well, and the next generation: Magnus, Archer, Wilhelmina, Charlie, Matilda, Jock and Primrose—my grandchildren. They are not incidental to what I say today; they are the reason for it. Building something unique at Collymongle Station, at the confluence of the Barwon and Gwydir rivers, I became part of an extraordinary period of Australian agricultural development. What began as a 62-hectare crop of cotton in 1982 grew into an enterprise cultivating tens of thousands of hectares; operating major cotton-ginning facilities, warehousing facilities and logistics infrastructure; and marketing Australian cotton to the international markets. Colly Cotton became a recognisable force in the global quality cotton markets and an annual case study at the Harvard Business School taught under the tutelage of professor Ray Goldberg, the father of modern agribusiness learning. It taught me what productive capital can achieve when people, soil, water, technology, finance and markets are brought together. It also taught me that the wealth is not created by government decree. I had the privilege of working alongside some remarkable people: Derek and Sam Shaw, Brian Fallon, Jeff Dewar, Lawrie Willett, Ken Webb and two absolutely unique men, Eugene Allison Rowlands—or Bucky, as we called him—and Phil Beal. They were great men. They were lieutenants on the right and lieutenants on the left. I later moved to California to lead Calcot, a large but financially challenged farmer owned cotton cooperative operating across California, Arizona and south Texas. That experience brought me into direct contact with American agricultural policy, Washington, farm programs, commodity finance, teamster union, international trade and California's never-ending contest for water. It reinforced another lesson: government policy is never theoretical to the people who must live with the consequences. A regulation in an office can change a business. A ministerial decision can change an industry. A poorly legislated policy can damage a community for generations or eventually collapse a nation. That lesson became painfully clear when I returned to Australia to lead the Australian Agricultural Company, AACo. AACo brought responsibilities on an enormous scale: land, livestock, employees, families and communities spread across northern Australia. At the core of agriculture is uncertainty. Drought is real. Flood is real. Markets rise and fall. Mother Nature just does not negotiate. What industry should reasonably expect, however, is that government decisions affecting their survival are deliberate, evidence based and conscious of consequences. The suspension of live cattle trade with Indonesia demonstrated what happens when policy is made at speed without adequately understanding the chain of consequences. The damage didn't stop at the farm gate. It travelled through businesses, transport operators, air operators, Indigenous enterprises and communities, employees, families, lenders, holidaymakers in Bali, boarding schools and regional towns. Domestic cattle markets collapsed from Roma in Queensland through to Dubbo and right down to Wodonga in Victoria and Powranna in Tasmania, writing off hundreds of millions of dollars in the value of the Australian herd in one trading day. Relationships painstakingly built with Indonesia were damaged, and Australia learned an important lesson: good intentions are not enough. Government must ask the next question and the question after that. What happens tomorrow? Who carries the cost? What are the unintended consequences? And what happens if we're wrong? How do we manage failure? That is not weakness in leadership; that is the discipline of leadership. Eventually I returned to Narrandera, my home town on the banks of the Murrumbidgee River at the gateway to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. I returned to find communities across the Murray-Darling Basin struggling with another enormous experiment of public policy. Many today would say the Water Act 2007 and its birth child, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, is a failing, expensive ideology—a set of political, economic and social doctrines that can't sustain a functioning society or deliver on its core promise when put into real-world practice or the next round of severe droughts. It leads to chronic systematic crises, economic collapse and widespread human suffering, causing society to ultimately and eventually reject or abandon the system. I support healthy rivers, healthy wetlands and environmental stewardship. Anyone who has spent a lifetime on the land understands that productive agriculture ultimately depends upon healthy natural systems. But stewardship and productivity are not enemies. The environmental policy cannot be considered in isolation from food production, regional communities, natural resilience and human wellbeing. Australia needs the courage to examine the Murray-Darling plan objectively—not ideologically, not defensively and not on the assumption that, because the government has spent billions and billions of dollars, every underlying model and decision must therefore be correct. We must ask: 'What has worked? What has failed? What environmental outcomes have we actually achieved? What economic capacity has been lost? What has happened to regional communities? What has happened to food processing capacity? And how much water is required to secure 40 million people by 2050?' but, more importantly: 'Is the Australian food chain prepared for the next great Australian drought?' because the greatest test of Australian water policy will not occur during a wet cycle. It will come when the dams empty, the rivers contract and 30 or 40—depending on what time—millions of Australians will be expecting affordable food on supermarket shelves. Water policy, therefore, is not simply environmental policy. Water policy is food policy and national food security. It's regional policy. It's economic policy. And, unquestionably, it's national sovereignty policy. I want Australia to undertake a serious assessment of how we manage this sovereign resource. International agreements deserve respect, but Australian governments must never outsource their fundamental responsibility to protect Australia's national interest first. We've particularly done that with our 2007 Water Act and our Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We should determine first what is necessary for Australia's sustainable environments, national food security, communities and sovereign resilience, and ensure any international obligation serves Australia first. Australia must remain master of its own destiny. There are other reasons for this to matter. Most Australians today have enjoyed an extraordinary period of relative security and prosperity under what was often described as the Pax Americana era. We built businesses within it. We traded and travelled with confidence. We expected global supply chains would function. We assumed shipping lanes would remain open. We assumed energy, fertiliser, medicines, technology and manufactured goods would remain available. These assumptions can be no longer taken for granted. The world has become more fragmented, more transactional, more technologically competitive and more multipolar. Artificial intelligence, semiconductors, energy, critical minerals, food, shipping routes and supply chains are becoming instruments of strategic power. Australia cannot be blind, deaf, arrogant or naive about that change. A sovereign nation must possess the productive capacity to withstand shocks and to survive on its own. That means baseload energy security and global competitive pricing of that energy. That means food security, water security, fuel security, agricultural inputs security, defence capacity, skills, manufacturing, critical infrastructure and financial resilience. Sovereignty is more than flying a flag above Parliament House. Sovereignty is capacity. It's the capacity to feed ourselves, power ourselves, finance ourselves, defend ourselves and make decisions for us—Australia. And that brings me down to national debt. Australia's governments collectively carry an enormous debt burden. Collectively, it's pushing $1.6 trillion. But debt in itself is not immoral. Used intelligently, debt can build productive assets that serve Australians for generations. Our forefathers borrowed to build infrastructure because they understood that productive assets could strengthen the nation. Our forefathers repaid their borrowings from the benefits and the surpluses that the infrastructure produced. The issue is not simply whether governments borrow. The issue is: Where do we spend? And what do we spend the money on? Every major debt-funded capital project should therefore face basic disciplines, similar to every competent business. What is the objective? What is the return, the timetable, the budget? Who is accountable? And what happens when it faults or fails? Australia should demand a greater accountability for major public investments, because debt is not free money. Interest and principal must be paid. And, if not, somebody inherits that liability. There's an old Yiddish proverb that's very relevant: 'Interest on debt grows without rain.' Those who have lived through drought understand the wisdom of that sentence. Australia has enjoyed one of the greatest commodity booms in history, and let's not forget that it wasn't so far away that we rode on the sheep's back. Iron ore, coal, gas, agriculture, minerals, critical minerals—global demand for the resources right beneath our feet has generated extraordinary national wealth. Future Australians are entitled to ask: What did you do with it? What productive assets did you build? What debt did you retire? What infrastructure did you leave? What industries did you strengthen, and what resilience did you create? These are all questions my generation must be prepared to answer. The Australian government is not a corporation. The Commonwealth government is not a private or for-profit corporation. We're a sovereign, independent, democratic nation with a constitutional monarchy. Citizens are not shareholders, and Australia is certainly more than a balance sheet. This government exists to serve Australia to create the framework of enabling prosperity. There are disciplines from successful enterprise that governments should never fear—competence, accountability, productivity, capital discipline, measurement, delivery and responsibility for results. Australia possesses extraordinary and many natural advantages, including capital and, more importantly, democratic institutions. Above all, we've invited talent from every corner of the world who choose to call this nation home and become contributing Australians. Our national generosity and kindness and humanity has offered opportunity of new life to those who have been discriminated and persecuted against. That same generosity and kindness must be guarded and respected as we open our welcoming doors. There are those who arrive onto our shores who want change and expect that change must be us and not them. We must, with expediency and with minimal cost, remove those who want to bring harm and disrespect to this great nation of ours. Our problem is not the shortage of national assets. Our challenge is to have the courage and the competence to use them wisely. We are temporary custodians. My generation is moving through the later chapters of its contributing life. Behind us are the millennial generations of X, Y and Z, then the alpha and the beta generations. They will inherit whatever we leave behind, and I return to the questions which I began with: Will they inherit an Australia stronger than we inherited? Will they be able to afford to own a home, passing it to the next generation without losing it to death taxes; to raise a family; to build a business; to afford food and energy; to find meaningful work; and to live securely? Will they inherit functioning infrastructure and productive industries or merely a massive debt incurred while we were talking about building them? These questions transcend beyond party politics. They belong to every member in this House, and Australia does not need smaller ambition. It needs greater ambitions and an aspirational, visionary future, but ambitions must be accompanied by discipline. We need a government culture prepared to confront difficult problems and not postpone them; a culture to prepare to be able to distinguish between investment and expenditure; be prepared to defend productive capacity, to reward enterprises and to demand accountability; and be prepared to say when something is not working, being courageous enough to change course. Changing course when the evidence demands it is not political weakness. It's leadership. I come to the parliament representing 126,000 square kilometres of an extraordinary section of Australia, a home to 160,000 citizens of which 140,000 are voting age, a home to many from different lands and cultures seeking a safe life and security with the opportunity of prosperity. Farrer contains farmers, manufacturers, teachers, nurses, tradespeople, business owners, retirees, young families, established Australians and new Australians. It contains some of Australia's greatest agricultural regions. Farrer grows a cornucopia of crops. Every day of every year a food or fibre crop is being harvested within Farrer. It contains communities that understand drought, flood, distance and adversity. It contains people, including myself, who are tired of being told that regional decline is inevitable. It is not, and I reject that premise. I campaigned on a simple commitment to Farrer—return productivity and capacity to Farrer. Those words are now my obligation: return productive capacity to our agricultural industries, strengthen our towns, improve our health services, develop skills, attract investment, protect and build water security, build infrastructure and create opportunity—make regional Australia somewhere our children choose to stay, not somewhere they must leave. If we can demonstrate that reform in Farrer, we can demonstrate something larger. Regional Australia is not a problem for government to manage; regional Australia is an asset for the nation to unleash. I stand here today in front of you as a member of One Nation. I represent every constituent in Farrer: those who voted for me and those who voted against me—and those who never dreamed of voting for me. That is democracy. Once elected, representation extends beyond the ballot box. Our national ambition should be equally broad. Australia must remain a country where the circumstances of someone's birth don't limit their future, where enterprise is rewarded, where work has dignity and success is respected, where those who need assistance receive it, where assistance becomes a bridge to opportunity and not a permanent architecture of, or for, dependence. And, most importantly, we should rebuild confidence in ourselves. We are one nation of extraordinarily fortunate people occupying an extraordinarily fortunate continent. We can manage our own destiny. No person arrives in this chamber alone. My life has been enriched by many extraordinary people. Jeff Dewar taught me fearlessness; Lawrie Willett, educated purpose and visionary presence; Bruce Parncutt, intellect and equity. My mate Eddie Jernigan taught me mateship and commodity commerce; Nick Burton Taylor, vision and a strong moral and commercial compass. And an exceptional Australian who's been a great mentor to me is Mr Bruce McIver. To my elder sister, Susan—I think Susan's in the audience today. You have been my champion during turbulent times—good times. Your ears and time have been generous to me. Your eyes have kept watch on what I'm blind to. So thank you. To my former wife, Debbie, the mother of our three daughters: thank you for the endurance, the patience and the commitment required through those enduring years. To Emma, Kate and Sarah and to your families: thank you. To Janice: thank you for standing on the Narrandera railway platform all those years ago and for being here today as another chapter begins. And to my mother, Patsy: your presence here today is a gift beyond words. To my campaign team, volunteers and supporters across Farrer: you have achieved something euphoric and historic, so thank you. To Pauline Hanson: thank you for taking the plunge into politics way back in 1995 and thank you for your unwavering commitment and dedication to One Nation and Australia—and the support for me. To my other One Nation colleagues, Senator Bell, Barnaby Joyce, Senator Roberts and Senator Whitten: thank you for your trust and the opportunity to serve alongside you. Above all, to the people of Farrer: thank you for lending me your voice. I intend to use it. I didn't come to Canberra at this stage of my life to build a political career. I've already had a career. I'm here because experience is of little value if we're unwilling to share it and put it to work. I've lived in the dust of drought. I've fought floods and experienced their devastation. I've enjoyed business success and I've learnt from business failure. I've traded into and across international markets. I've been bloodied by government intervention. I've prospered with good policy and I've been crippled and strangled by bad. I've seen communities prosper and I've seen communities bearing the consequences when decision-makers get it wrong. Those experiences have taught me that courage in public life doesn't mean shouting the loudest. Courage is accepting responsibility. It's asking uncomfortable questions and challenging your own side when necessary. It's listening when evidence contradicts your assumptions. It's making decisions where the benefits may arrive long after the next election. And sometimes it's standing alone. We will disagree in this chamber. We should. Democracy without disagreement is despotism, but disagreement need not diminish respect. We will argue strongly, we will question orthodoxy, and I will defend Farrer relentlessly. But I will work with any member of this parliament who genuinely wants to leave Australia stronger than we found it, because the challenges ahead are bigger than any political party. My grandfather's generation served. My father's generation built. My generation prospered from much of what they created. Now, we must prove ourselves worthy of that inheritance. We cannot promise our children an easy world. We cannot control drought. We can't control global conflict. We cannot control every market or technology disruption. But we can control how prepared Australia is to confront them. We can build rather than consume. We can produce rather than regulate. We can invest rather than spend and we can reform what's failing rather than defend it because change is politically difficult. We can again make intergenerational responsibility a central purpose of government. When my grandchildren someday look back at this period of Australia's history, I do not want them to ask, 'Why did they know what was happening and do nothing?' I want them to say, 'They saw challenges, they had the courage to confront them, and they built for us.' Australia has everything required to succeed on this rich continent. Our people are capable, our democracy is strong, and our opportunities remain enormous. What we require is confidence in ourselves, discipline in government, courage in leadership and a renewed determination to build the government framework that allows this to happen. The sun may be setting on a passing global era of history, but it does not have to set on Australia. Our task is not to preserve yesterday; our task is to build tomorrow for Farrer, for our children and our grandchildren and for generations of Australians whose names we'll never know but whose future will be shaped by the decisions we make in this chamber. That is our watch, that is our responsibility, and that's why I'm here. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Farrer. Thank you, Australia. BILLS 48 BILLS Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 48

Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026

Second Reading 48 16:58 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland At the outset, I'd like to acknowledge the member for Farrer for his fine contribution in his inaugural speech here in this place, and I wish him well and every success as he seeks to represent that magnificent community in regional New South Wales. In relation to the bill before the chamber this afternoon, I acknowledge from the outset the opposition will support the bill that was introduced to the House of Reps in July this year by Minister Collins. It's an important bill in some regards because, every year, millions of Australian travellers arrive and complete a two-page piece of paper as they reach the airport—the incoming passenger card. It's a paper card that's filled out. Many of us have probably wondered, 'Why are we still using a paper card in this manner?' It provides information about any goods they may be carrying, the places they've visited and their occupations—indicators of any potential biosecurity risk for our nation. The Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 provides for that information to also be collected through a digital Australian travel declaration model, sitting alongside the existing paper card system. Travellers can complete the new declaration through an airline app or web form before or during their travel, and that will generate a QR code which will be scanned by our biosecurity officers on arrival at their point of destination. This system has already been piloted on select Qantas flights into Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The legislation before the House this afternoon creates the legal basis for that digital declaration to operate alongside the system with which we're all familiar: the existing Australian travel declaration card. The legislation before the chamber also makes it clear that providing that information is mandatory. There is a potential civil penalty of up to 120 penalty units for a refusal to fill in the card or the declaration form. This mirrors the existing penalty under section 196 and extends the existing legislation to the digital pathway rather than creating any new punishment or any new offence. I will acknowledge that this is also distinct from the much higher penalty for knowingly providing false information, which allows for a civil penalty of up to 600 penalty units or a criminal penalty of 12 months imprisonment. Those penalties already apply and are unchanged by the bill before the chamber this afternoon. The bill also introduces a notice of intention requirement before the department can refuse or impose conditions on an approved biosecurity arrangement, such as treatment, fumigation or storage facilities. This is currently just administrative practice, but the bill legislates a guaranteed right to respond before an adverse decision, providing additional powers for the government in terms of protecting our biosecurity. It also retains the paper and verbal alternatives for travellers without a suitable device to fill in the digital travel declaration. And included in the bill is a minor technical fix, removing an incorrect reference in the inspector-general's information-gathering power. Now, those are the technical aspects of the bill, but I think there'd be many people who travel to Australia with very little appreciation of our agricultural sector or other industries who would receive that card as they approach their destination, saying: 'Why are we bothering with this? What's this all about? What is the point of having a declaration card?' The point, Deputy Speaker Boyce—as you well know, representing your magnificent electorate and its agricultural producers—is that this is about managing risk. This is about trying to stop additional incursions of invasive species and threats at our border. It is far more economically efficient to prevent an invasive species from entering Australia in the first place than it is to try to clean up the mess that occurs when we have an outbreak of an invasive species, whether it be a plant or animal species. The coalition support this bill because we back a strong and well-resourced biosecurity system and the sensible use of technology to help it run better. Providing modernisation comes with additional strength for what we're seeking to achieve. On the available information that the government has provided and the briefings provided to the opposition, we believe this is sensible modernisation that doesn't weaken our existing protections. The coalition will continue to examine and scrutinise how it rolls out to ensure that the technology is being implemented in a way which delivers benefits for the Australian travelling public and also for those who are exposed to the risks of biosecurity incursions. We believe that modernising the border pathway matters, but the coalition still has real concerns with what is actually happening on the ground in regional Australia today, where there are already established pests. Quite frankly, the Labor Party has dropped the ball on keeping Australians safe, keeping our agricultural sector safe and protecting our magnificent biodiversity. The greatest threats to biodiversity and agricultural production are the pest weeds and pest animals which continue to impact vast areas of rural and regional Australia today. The CSIRO has found that invasive species cost Australia more than $25 billion in lost agricultural production every year and that invasive species remain the greatest risk for the extinction of native species. That is an accepted fact. Environmentalists and the CSIRO all agree that it is invasive species which are the greatest risk to Australian biodiversity, not climate change or any other theory that might be put forward by some of the more extreme green elements in our nation. It is invasive species which we need to control to protect our biodiversity and our agricultural sector. As a nation, we need more boots and fewer suits. That's more boots on the ground undertaking practical environmental work, undertaking practical environmental projects, like controlling invasive species through trapping, hunting and those sorts of measures, and fewer suits making excuses for the lack of action. At a time when farmers are feeling the pressure from increased input costs for fuel and fertiliser, we can't afford to add to their social and economic stress by dropping the ball on invasive species. But that's exactly what this government has done in this year's budget. Whether it's pigs, deer, feral cats, rabbits, foxes, European carp, wild dogs, fire ants or any form of pest weed, the federal government needs to work in partnership with the states and natural resource management groups to control their combined impacts. As you know, Deputy Speaker Boyce, and as members on this side of the House know, the real environmentalists in Australia are the farmers, the trappers, the hunters and the Landcare and Coastcare volunteers, who get their hands dirty and undertake pest, weed and animal control work along with revegetation and other activities to support our native species. The federal budget should have prioritised those practical efforts, should have prioritised those projects which make a difference on the ground and should have supported the efforts of regional Australians to care for the environment while they provide the food security for our nation—but it didn't. $56.1 million has gone to the border technology program, yet the Albanese government has cut funding from the feral animals, pests and weeds program in this year's budget. Feral pigs, wild dogs, deer and other invasive species are increasing their impact across regional Australia, and we have a government cutting funding from the feral animals, pests and weeds program. One example I'll touch on briefly, just to give a practical demonstration of the cost of an invasive species and the real-life consequences, is feral pigs. Feral pigs are a genuine biosecurity risk. They may well become the vector animal to move disease through our nation. They are capable of carrying and spreading serious livestock diseases, and they move, unfortunately, too freely through public and private land. Reading media reports of the Walgett NSW Farmers Association branch president, who was reported to be personally paying more than $1,000 an hour for helicopter feral pig control every six to eight weeks—that's a cost being borne by a landowner. The pigs are moving onto farmland from a neighbouring national park. That's not a burden that individual farmers should be left to carry alone. I find in my state of Victoria that the worst neighbour to have is the state government. The state government, through its parks—either national parks or state parks and state forests—does not undertake enough feral animal control, whether it's of wild dogs or pigs, and the impact is being felt on the farming sector. Wild dogs are costing the livestock industry an estimated $302 million every year, according to the National Farmers' Federation, yet we have funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator running out at the end of September and funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan itself lapsing just a month after that. We have no indication yet from this government whether they'll support what is a tiny amount of money in the scheme of the budget—$250,000 a year for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator. It is a tiny amount of money in the scheme of the importance of the industry, yet the funding is running out in only a matter of weeks and there is no indication yet of whether this government will support a national wild dog action plan and coordination through the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator. Keep in mind, the government funds national coordinators for feral pigs, deer, rabbits, cats and foxes, so it doesn't make any sense to walk away from the wild dog coordination program now—unless it's the extreme Greens pulling the strings behind the scenes because they have some problem with the fact that we have to hunt, trap and kill these dogs in order to protect biodiversity and protect the agricultural sector. I call on the Commonwealth to understand that, while this is primarily a state responsibility when it comes to invasive species, the federal government has a role to play in terms of encouraging good behaviour by the states but also in terms of coordination, and ensuring that these nationally significant species in terms of our biodiversity are protected but also that our nationally significant agricultural sector is given the support it needs to flourish and to continue to feed our nation and other countries throughout the world. In closing, the coalition does support a modern border declaration system. We welcome it, but it does count for little if the government isn't guaranteeing ongoing funding for pest control that's already up and running in the community. Strong border protection and effective on-ground pest management are two halves of the same biosecurity system. Digital reform needs to be matched with real continuous investment—more boots and fewer suits—and investment in the frontline programs that our farmers, our biodiversity and our native wildlife depend on. The coalition will keep advocating for a coordinated national approach to feral animals, pests and weeds; working with our farmers; working with industry, peak groups and the states; and will continue to monitor how this bill's provisions operate in practice. Debate adjourned. Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 50

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 50 17:11 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I say, again at the outset, that the coalition will be supporting the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, which was introduced in the House of Reps by the minister in July this year. There are two schedules to the bill. Schedule 1 amends the Wine Australia Act 2013 to allow information sharing with the ACCC. Schedule 2 amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 2024. I stress, at the outset, that there are no financial impacts on the budget from the bill before the chamber. No additional costs will be incurred by growers, and, as per the explanatory memorandum, it's on that basis that the coalition supports the legislation as it was presented by the minister. What it does do, though, is give Wine Australia an explicit function to conduct grape and wine industry surveys, building on the existing national vintage survey. It does set up an information-sharing framework so Wine Australia can pass relevant information on to the ACCC, supporting the mandatory code once it actually starts operating. The bill before the House extends the act's existing civil penalty for misuse of protected information. It also covers this new ACCC information-sharing pathway. This isn't a new type of penalty; it's applying an existing safeguard to the new disclosure power. It does let ABARES share levy payer contact details with approved third-party contractors to improve participation in agricultural surveys. I would indicate, on that point, that this isn't a broad new information-sharing power. It narrows an existing restriction, with safeguards requiring third parties not to pass information on further and requiring only the minimum necessary information to be shared. Again, I stress that this bill doesn't change levies. It doesn't change who pays for them or how they're calculated. It is confined to information sharing and administrative housekeeping. It's important to note that this bill responds directly to the Emerson review. That was a review undertaken by the former minister Craig Emerson which found grape growers have too little bargaining power against large winemakers and that the existing voluntary code of conduct no longer works and is not fit for purpose. This isn't the mandatory code itself that we're debating today. It does lay the groundwork, though, in letting Wine Australia share information with the ACCC ahead of the code's planned start in January 2027, which I note does have the support of industry. It does matter in the sense that, with a mandatory code, we are more likely to see fairer commercial arrangements. Fairer commercial arrangements, where there's a power imbalance between grape growers and the end producers, are an important aim of this side of the House and, I would imagine, the government itself. What this bill won't do is address the real problems that the wine grape industry in Australia is confronting right now. The wine sector is currently carrying around 262 million litres more wine than it can sustainably sell. This is putting enormous pressure on prices right through the supply chain. The 2026 harvest was the smallest in 25 years, yet prices keep falling anyway. This goes beyond just one bad season. We are talking about a structural challenge facing the Australian wine grape industry, and it’s the growers in the warm inland regions which have been hit the hardest. Some have been unable to find a buyer for their fruit at all. This is coming in against a backdrop of global wine consumption falling to its lowest level in 60 years, and this is not a problem that I think Australia can fix by itself, but we can make sure our own market is as fair as possible. I say, in addressing the legislation before the chamber, that those opposite need to get out more and talk to growers on the ground throughout regional Australia. If they got out more and if they actually listened to the concerns of the industry, they would understand the depth and the breadth of the challenges our growers are facing right now. But this government, the Albanese government, is ignoring the warnings of a deepening crisis in Australia's wine sector, which is adding to the social and economic pressures on growers. I'm not one for exaggeration when it comes to such an important industry, but this is a crisis which the government has been warned about repeatedly. We had industry leaders, in the lead-up to this year's budget, putting forward a $139 million three-year package to address structural oversupply, to help rebuild demand and to support growers and winemakers facing prolonged financial distress. There's a mythology around the wine industry that it's all fancy vineyards and rich people with tax deductions driving their Range Rovers, having the holidays in the south of France and making money off the public purse through some tax dodge. That is not the reality of the industry, and that is not the reality of the people we are talking about right now in this place. Growers and winemakers are facing prolonged financial distress and bankruptcy in the face of circumstances which are beyond their control. It is not their fault. It is not their fault that there is an oversupply. It is not their fault that global wine consumption has dropped. It is not their fault that they are facing the circumstances they are facing. The industry took this package of $139 million over three years to the government. It sounds like a lot, but, in a budget of $850 billion per year, it's not that much. They took this package to the government and sought assistance with the government for a solution for the 262 million litres of wine in storage, which could possibly be repurposed for fuel use in the future. Sadly, at a time when the government should have been listening to the industry and seeking to reduce the stress facing the industry, the government cut funding for the industry in the budget. At a time when the industry was putting forward this modest package, the coalition was encouraging the government to consider it, because what we're talking about is a structural change. We're looking for opportunities for growers to be able to voluntarily exit the industry with some dignity and to minimise the economic impact on regional communities. If there's going to be a transfer of land use and if, in fact, there's no longer the requirement for that many grapes to be grown for wine in Australia and there's going to be alternative crops planted, an exit package, a transfer into new products or into new crops with dignity and voluntarily allowing growers to exit the sector, is something that governments have done before with other industries. This is not unheard of, and it would have been the responsible thing to do by the minister and the government, because we are talking about literally hundreds of smaller growers who would benefit from a very modest package that will allow them, again, to exit the industry, remove any redundant vines and infrastructure and perhaps reuse that land for other agricultural activities. There are precedents with restructuring industries, like the sugar industry. We saw it with the dairy sector. We saw it with tobacco industries, and the wine sector could return to a long-term sustainable industry if there were a coordinated transition plan put in place. That is what the coalition is seeking from this government. We're seeking a coordinated transition plan in consultation with the industry, and the industry itself has been very reasonable in its requests. Australian Grape & Wine chief executive Lee McLean has told the Albanese government that growers, winemakers and families are under the types of stress that they haven't seen in generations. He said: If government delays, the costs don't disappear. They re-emerge as business failures, abandoned vineyards, mental health crises and long-term regional decline. …   …   … The cost of acting now is modest. The cost of inaction will be far greater and borne by regional Australians least able to absorb it. In debating the bill before the House today, I call on the government to listen to the concerns of the Australian wine and grape sector and to assist them in allowing the industry to make this transition with dignity. As I said, it was a prebudget submission, it was fully costed. Mr McLean said it was bitterly disappointing for an industry under significant and sustained strain to see any support in the budget. They didn't ask for a handout; they are asking for support for a transition plan. They were disappointed that the government didn't heed the evidence, that the government didn't heed the warning signs. What did this government do instead? It cut the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants Program right when the industry could least afford it. So we have an industry under stress, through circumstances not of the growers making, seeking some level of support, a modest level of support over three years for an orderly transition plan, and what does this government do? It cuts just about the last bit of funding that was available to the sector. It cuts the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants Program. Is it any wonder that, in regional Australia, people are furious with this government. They are so angry with this government. They know that, after four years, they are worse off. They know Australia is heading in the wrong direction. They have been left behind by a Prime Minister who promised to govern for all Australians and simply doesn't do it. He had the opportunity in the budget to demonstrate a little good faith with the wine and grape industry, to demonstrate he understood his fellow Australians were under stress, through no fault of their own. But instead of providing a helping hand for these hardworking Australians, to get them through this difficult period in their lives, what does the government do? It cuts the funding to the very industry that had sought his help, had sought the Prime Minister's help. I say to the government: regional wineries are part of the economic heart of a lot of our communities in regional Australia. This isn't just about one commodity; it's about backing regional Australia more broadly. In relation to the bill before the House, we believe it is a sensible and worthwhile reform, but that's only one part of the answer. If this government is serious about the future of this industry, then it needs to listen to the growers, it needs to listen to the stakeholders and the representative groups and it needs to back them with real support. It should not keep cutting programs and adding costs to our farmers that they can ill afford. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour. Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 52

Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026

Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026

Second Reading 52 17:24 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) affirms that cash is critical national infrastructure, and that access to cash remains essential for millions of Australians, particularly older Australians and those in regional and remote communities; (2) notes that when a natural disaster strikes, the power goes out, or communications networks fail, it is cash that keeps working; (3) expresses concern that the Government has failed to act sooner, noting that: (a) the risks to the cash distribution system have been evident since the ACCC approved the Armaguard and Prosegur merger in June 2023; (b) by Easter 2024 the system was brought to the brink of crisis, requiring an emergency meeting chaired by the Governor of the Reserve Bank to secure a rescue package; and (c) the Government has acted only in the final weeks before the ACCC's enforceable undertaking expires in September 2026, and that delay has placed the ongoing strength of Australia's cash system at risk; and (4) expresses further concern about the Government's ongoing failure to address bank branch closures, and its lack of any plan for when the moratorium on regional branch closures ends on 31 July 2027". We won't be opposing this bill. I note the minister in the chamber, and I acknowledge his presence. Cash is a critical piece of national infrastructure, and it's right to protect it. As the minister well knows—but, for the chamber, I'll go through a little bit of the history of how we got to where we are today—in June 2023, the ACCC approved the merger of Australia's two largest cash-in-transit companies: Armaguard and Prosegur. That decision handed a single company control of 85 to 90 per cent of the market, a private monopoly over how cash physically moves around this country. The ACCC only allowed it with a temporary three-year undertaking, setting conditions over the merged entity until September 2026. In September 2023, the merger was finalised. In October 2023, just three weeks later, Armaguard approached the government, the RBA and major banks saying that, if it didn't get an extra $190 million over three years, it would no longer be viable. By Easter 2024, the risks were laid bare. Armaguard called for a bailout. Coles decided to pause cash deliveries and limited instore cash withdrawals. Shoppers faced the real prospect of not being able to get cash in certain places that they normally would have. It took an emergency meeting chaired by the Reserve Bank governor and a $50 million rescue package from banks and major retailers to keep the trucks going. With the ACCC's enforceable undertaking on Armaguard about to expire in a month's time, the government has turned up with a plan. I acknowledge the plan. I support the plan. But I must admit that it is at the eleventh hour. I would suggest that the government should have acted on this sooner than it did. This bill creates an emergency regime so that cash can keep moving. This regime would be managed by the RBA, with similar emergency powers to what APRA have for banks and insurance companies and the financial market infrastructure regime. It also provides the ACCC with the power to require fair and transparent pricing; approve the terms offered to the banks and retailers; and set service standard levels, instead of a monopoly setting its own terms. My side of politics always leans towards lower regulation, for private enterprise to work things out and for less government interference. But monopolies are, in a sense, a market failure, and we can't have a monopoly setting prices without close monitoring and controls. It's not fair for Australians that rely on cash. There would also be risks to our broader economy if we were to have a cash crisis. So I say to the minister these are sensible powers within this bill, the same kind we already use to protect the banking and insurance industries, and we support the minister and the government in doing this. This bill does raise a wider topic, though, which I'd just like to touch on. It's good to have cash flowing around and cash getting delivered to where it needs to be in Armaguard trucks, but I think this bill doesn't necessarily put enough cash mandates onto the retail sector to make sure people can use cash where they want to. Labor did do a cash mandate, which commenced in January of this year. I personally don't feel it goes wide enough; it covers supermarkets and fuel, but there are limits of up to $500, and it's only between certain hours at some places—between 7 am and 9 pm. For example, it doesn't cover pharmacies, so there are potentially some pharmacies where older Australians can't pay cash for their medicines. Also, I think it raises issues around ATMs and bank closures. We've seen over 800 bank branches close since 2022, Deputy Speaker Boyce, and I'm sure probably some of them have been in your community. There have been some in my community. Some of these banks and retail branches were in places where they were the only branch operating. There is a moratorium currently on regional bank closures, but it only applies to the major banks, many of which have already left some towns. It expires on 31 July 2027. I do note that Westpac have unilaterally agreed to extend the moratorium until 2030, which is welcome. I encourage the government to have a plan for what comes when this moratorium ends. It's June 2026, and the moratorium ends in less than a year. In conclusion, we support the government. I support the minister and the work he's done on this and on passing the bill quickly, because the undertaking runs out in September. But I had hoped the government would have acted quicker. This will guarantee delivery but not necessarily your right to use cash in as many places as I think it should. And we need a plan for regional bank closures after the moratorium. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299498 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Violi 300147 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:29 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise to speak on the amendment to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026. At their heart, these bills are about something very simple—Australians who want or need to use cash should still be able to use it. That includes older Australians, people on lower incomes, small business and people living in regional and remote Australia. It includes every Australian who has ever stood at the checkout during a power outage, a communications failure or a banking system outage and has discovered that their phone or bankcard suddenly cannot buy anything. We live in an increasingly digital economy, and that is not going to change. Most Australians now use cards, phones or online banking for much of their daily spending. But digital payments becoming more common does not mean cash has stopped being important. The Reserve Bank's 2025 Consumer Payments Survey found that around 15 per cent of payments were still made using cash. About half of all Australians use cash in a typical week. Older Australians and lower-income households use cash more often than other groups. About one third of Australians said they would face financial hardship or major inconvenience if cash became difficult to access or shops stopped accepting it. That should tell us something. The future of payments cannot simply be designed around people who have the newest phone, reliable internet, a bank account that works perfectly and easy access to digital services. A modern payment system has to work for everyone. That means protecting choice, it means protecting access, and it means making sure no Australian is pushed out of the economy simply because they still use cash. That is why the Albanese government has committed to maintaining access to cash for as long as Australians want to use it. We've already introduced the cash acceptance mandate. Since 1 January this year, supermarkets and fuel retailers that meet the relevant criteria have been required to accept cash between 7 am and 9 pm for purchases of $500 or less. Requiring a business to accept cash is only part of the job. The cash still has to get there. A supermarket still needs cash for its registers. A petrol station needs to be able to deposit the cash it receives. A bank branch needs notes and coins. ATMs need to be stocked. Businesses need cash collected, counted, processed, stored and transported. The system behind the scenes is called the cash distribution system. Most Australians will never have much reason to think about it, and that's probably a good sign. When an essential system works properly, people generally do not spend their day thinking about it, but, if it stops working, people notice very quickly. The challenge is that our use of cash has fallen over time, and that creates a difficult economic problem. The trucks still have to travel, cash still needs to be stored safely, workers still need to collect it, processing centres still need to operate, security still needs to be maintained, and Australia is a very large country. Moving cash around Perth is one thing; moving it across regional Western Australia is another. A declining number of cash transactions does not mean those costs disappear. In fact, it can mean the cost of handling each transaction goes up. At the same time, Australia's cash-in-transit industry has become highly concentrated. The sector is now centred around one dominant provider. That combination creates risk. Cash is still an essential service for a large group of Australians, but the commercial system needed to move that cash is becoming harder to sustain. Government cannot simply wait until the system fails and then start looking for a solution. These bills create a framework before we reach that point. The framework has two main regulators—the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Reserve Bank will be able to designate a provider that has a significant role in Australia's cash distribution system. The idea is not to place unnecessary regulation on every small operator. It is to focus oversight on providers whose failure could have a serious impact on access to cash. The ACCC will then have an important role in overseeing the commercial side of the system. It can approve standard terms for services and pricing. Those terms can provide a baseline offer for customers using cash distribution services. Designated providers will also be required to negotiate in good faith, and that is important. Where one provider has a major role in a market, customers need confidence that prices and service conditions are fair, transparent and non-discriminatory. The ACCC will also be able to set service level standards. Those standards can deal with issues such as where services are available, how often they are provided, how quickly they are provided and how they are priced. Businesses will also have access to dispute resolution and arbitration if negotiations cannot be resolved. That gives both sides a pathway to settle the dispute without allowing a breakdown in negotiations to threaten the wider cash system. There are also reporting and record keeping requirements so the regulator actually has the information it needs to do its job. During the transition into a new system, the ACCC will have additional powers and to issue directions where necessary. That provides a bridge to the longer term standards being developed. This framework is particularly important for regional Australia. Distance changes the economics of cash distribution. A cash delivery service travelling hundreds of kilometres to reach a regional community operates on exactly the same basis as a service travelling between sites in a capital city. But Australians living outside a major city should not lose reasonable access to cash simply because of their postcode, nor should a small business in a regional town be placed in the position where accepting cash becomes impossible because it cannot get reasonable collection or delivery services, and that is why fair pricing and reliable service are both important. You cannot forever rely on customers in profitable metropolitan markets to subsidise expensive regional routes. That is not a long-term stable answer. The better answer is a transparent framework that recognises different costs, different regions and different customer needs while supporting the long-term viability of the entire system. I now turn specifically to the amendments before us. Those amendments deal with the interaction between this new cash distribution framework and the road transport contractual chain orders, the RTCCOs. The name sounds complicated but the principle is not. The road transport contractual chain orders are made by the Fair Work Commission. They can set the minimum standards for people and businesses within a road transport contractual chain. Their purpose is to help ensure road transport operations are safe, sustainable and financially viable, and that can include both price and non-price conditions in commercial arrangements. There is good reason for that. In road transport, commercial pressures do not stop when the contract is signed. If prices are pushed too low or unrealistic delivery demands are imposed, that pressure moves down the chain. Eventually, it reaches the people doing the work. A transport business still has to pay for vehicles, it has to pay for fuel, it has to maintain those vehicles, it has to meet safety requirements, and workers need enough time and resource to do their job safely. You cannot build a safe transport industry on contracts that only work if someone at the bottom of the chain cuts corners. That is why these orders exist. The cash distribution framework has a different purpose. It is designed to keep cash distribution reliable, sustainable and accessible. In most cases, the two systems should operate alongside each other without difficulty. One regulates key parts of cash distribution. The other sets standards within road transport contractual chains. But there is a possibility that an obligation under the cash distribution framework could clash with an obligation imposed by the road transport contractual chain order. The amendments deal with that possibility before it becomes a problem, and that is sensible law-making. The amendments make clear that the new cash distribution framework is not intended to override these Fair Work Commission orders. Where both systems apply, regulators will need to take the relevant order into account. When the ACCC is approving, changing or revoking standard terms, it must consider any relevant contractual chain order. The same principle will apply when the ACCC sets service standard levels. It will apply when the ACCC exercises relevant interim powers, and an arbitrator will also need to consider a relevant contractual chain order when making a decision. That means industrial standards are not treated as an afterthought once commercial decisions have already been made. They are brought into the decision-making process from the beginning. The amendments also allow the ACCC to consult with the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. They support information-sharing between the agencies; again, this is practical. If two regulators are dealing with overlapping legal duties, they should be able to speak to each other. We should not create a system where one regulator is required to make a decision while pretending another regulator does not exist. That would be an impressive way to create paperwork and not much else. The amendments also establish a clear process if a designated cash distribution provider believes it cannot comply with both systems. The provider will have to notify the ACCC. It will need to explain why complying with the cash distribution requirement would cause it to breach the relevant contractual chain order. It will also need to explain the extent to which it does not intend to comply with the cash distribution obligation. That gives the ACCC an opportunity to address the problem early. Where possible, the two requirements can then be brought into line. But if a genuine conflict remains, and the provider cannot comply with both, the road transport contractual chain order is protected. The provider will not be penalised under the cash distribution framework for failing to comply with an obligation where complying would require it to breach the Fair Work Commission's order. That creates certainty and protects the authority of the Fair Work Commission, and it avoids putting businesses in the absurd position of being punished whichever law they follow. This is also an important protection for workers. Cash does not move around Australia by itself. Behind every ATM refill, every bank delivery and every collection from a business are workers. Somebody drives the vehicle, somebody handles the cash and somebody works within the security system to keep those people and that money safe. A sustainable cash distribution system cannot be built by weakening the standards that support safe and viable road transport work. If the price paid for moving cash is pushed below a sustainable level, that pressure does not vanish; it lands somewhere else. It can land on wages, it can land on vehicle maintenance, it can land on staffing, it can land on schedules and, eventually, it can land on safety. The amendments recognise that keeping cash distribution financially sustainable and keeping road transport work sustainable are not opposing goals; they should reinforce each other. There is one important limit to these amendments: they do not apply to the Reserve Bank's crisis readiness and crisis resolution powers—and that distinction is necessary. The bills give the Reserve Bank powers to act where a critical cash provider is facing serious financial trouble or where essential cash services may stop. Those powers can include issuing directions, appointing a statutory manager and transferring a business or shares where the legal tests are met. These are emergency powers. They are designed for situations where delay itself could cause serious harm. Applying the same conflict process to those crisis powers could prevent the Reserve Bank from acting quickly enough. That does not mean the road transport contractual chain orders disappear during a crisis—the Reserve Bank would still be expected to consider relevant legal obligations—but the amendments do not create a legal barrier that could prevent urgent action where Australia's access to cash is at risk. That is the right balance. There is a wider point here about resilience. Australians sometimes hear about the fall in cash use and assume cash is becoming less useful. But there is another side to that story: cash becomes particularly useful when everything else stops working. During a telecommunications outage, cash still works. During some power outages, cash still works. During natural disasters, when networks and digital systems may be disrupted, cash can become extremely important. Recent natural disasters and payment outages have highlighted this role. A resilient economy does not rely on a single way of paying; it has back-up systems, and cash is one of those systems. These bills are about keeping the system available. They recognise the way Australians' pay is changing. They do not try and stop the change, but they also recognise that progress does not require us to abandon people who still rely on cash. They support fair and transparent pricing. They provide minimum service standards. They give businesses a pathway to resolve disputes. They provide the Reserve Bank with tools to respond if a critical provider is in serious trouble. These amendments make an important clarification: the new framework must work alongside Australia's industrial relations system, not cut across it—and the road transport contractual chain orders exist for that reason. I commend the bills to the House. 17:44 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to support the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, which will provide a legislative framework to regulate Australian cash distribution services. Currency has been with us for centuries, for more than 2,000 years. It was the Lydians who created the earliest stamped coins. They did that in around the seventh century BC, and the Lydian empire was in what's now western Turkiye, but that was 700 years before the birth of Christ. Then, of course, we have the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians, from 1500 BC, developed trading networks across the Mediterranean. They were originally bartering goods, and they transitioned to weighted out pieces of copper and silver and coal and even jewellery units by around 300 BC. Over time, cities developed mints, crafting predominantly silver coins showing prominent local kings and gods as symbols they could rely on and that they could trust in. They could trust that unit of measure for the goods that were traded. Thousands of years later, Australian coins and notes are produced by our own Royal Australian Mint less than five kilometres from this place. We too have come to rely on this currency and the symbols used on our coins and banknotes to denote their authenticity. Of course, we have the late Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on our coins, and then we have on our notes everyone from Dame Nellie Melba. My favourite particular note is the $10 Australian note, the blue note. On one side is Andrew 'Banjo' Paterson and on the other is Dame Mary Gilmore—true great Australians. Cash, as the previous member said, works, particularly in crisis. When the power's out and when telecommunications are out, cash still works. Cash is important. It's particularly important in regional Australia. It's particularly important in areas where there are emergency risks. My daughter is currently studying, and she's living in a cyclone-prone climate. I said to her, when she moved up there, 'Make sure you have just a little purse that you don't touch in case of emergency that's got cash in it, because, if a cyclone comes through and you don't have power for days, you can still at least go and buy items.' Older Australians and those living in the regions and those without reliable connectivity still rely very heavily on cash as the trusted means of transacting in our communities. The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2025 found that around one in five Australians are excluded or highly excluded and that around one in 10 are highly excluded from digital access. Digital exclusion rates are much higher for older Australians, particularly those aged 75 years and over, and those who did not complete secondary school. We find that this also includes public housing residents and First Nations people. Digital exclusion remains higher outside capital cities. In South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland, access, affordability and digital availability are lower than the national average. I note my electorate of Mayo is the oldest by median age in the state of South Australia and one of the oldest in the nation. Very many people in my community will keep cash at home and will use cash as the basis for their saving and their spending. While the gap between the digital ability of older and younger Australians is indeed narrowing, some of my older constituents, I must say, are not confident about digital banking. They are concerned about scams and they want to rely on cash and, indeed, chequebooks. Unfortunately, banks are doing everything within their power to make sure that chequebooks are a legal tender of the past. This puts them at serious disadvantage if access to cash is lost. Regardless of digital inclusion, some older Australians and marginalised Australians do find it easier to rely on physical cash, and, in communities, as I said, experiencing emergencies and natural disasters—we certainly had that during the bushfires in my electorate—cash is king, and it's sometimes the only way that you can buy things when everything else fails. What does this bill do? This bill is part founded on recommendations of the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport committee report, and that report was called Bank closures in regional Australia: protecting the future of regional banking. The Senate committee report and the government's response both recognised that access to essential banking services is integral to our economic and social fabric. I just want to say, with respect to bank closures: my community has experienced too many bank closures. It's always rather galling when you get that contact from the CEO or the state manager of a particular bank to tell you that they're closing, and then, of course, in the next fortnight you read about the bonus bumper profits that they've made as a bank. I think banks have a social licence, and they should be in regional Australia. Regional Australians deserve to have face-to-face banking services. To ensure that Australians have access to fit-for-purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term, the government has committed to draft legislation for a reliable cash-distribution regulatory framework, as part of taking action to ensure that regional communities are not left behind by banking closures, including regulated cash distribution to support access to those services so that they can continue to serve the needs of Australians. We haven't even talked here about the needs of small business as to having access to cash. When you think of them, particularly in the regions but also in metropolitan Australia, every bank and every service station—everybody—needs to have a till, working, with cash in the till. And Australians deserve that. In addition, the cash acceptance mandate requires certain fuel and grocery retailers to accept cash payments in person for transactions of $500 or less between 7 am and 9 pm. For this to be achieved, all of those services need to have reliable cash distribution. So what will this bill do? It will enable the RBA to designate entities with crucial roles in cash distribution—for example, Armaguard. It will grant the RBA crisis readiness and resolution powers to protect continuity of critical cash-distribution services. It will empower the ACCC to oversee designated cash-distribution entities, including approved standard terms and service level standards. It will also help ensure designated entities can continue, by providing critical cash-distribution services in difficult circumstances. Stakeholders, including banks—those banks still left in regional Australia—supermarkets and Australia Post have expressed broad support. The Armaguard group have argued that the legislation will cause harm to the cash-distribution industry, raising concerns about ensuring fair pricing. But I see that the government has included provisions requiring banks and supermarkets et cetera to negotiate pricing with such services in good faith, and that provision is made for dispute resolution. I agree that we do need a new regulatory approach, so that supermarkets, fuel retailers and banks, and the communities they serve, can rely on having cash at hand—just like the Phoenicians. It's an important step towards providing safeguards for communities—particularly regional communities like ours in Mayo—to ensure ongoing access to cash. Bank branches, as I said, have been ripped out of our regional communities. In my community, I'm thinking of Lobethal, Hahndorf, Yankalilla, Strathalbyn—the list goes on. Our chequebooks and cheque accounts are being phased out, and we can't afford to lose cash too. We need to protect access to cash so that everyone may have access to cash, so that they have that purchasing power, when it's their preferred or, indeed, perhaps their only option. And that is why I commend this bill to the House. 17:53 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. The bill has, as its core purpose, a determination to protect Australians' choice when they participate in the commercial marketplace at the checkout and to ensure no-one is excluded from participation in the face of the changing way Australians pay for goods and services. We are all consumers. We all need to purchase goods and services for personal or household use. We all need to buy cars, fridges or washing machines. We all need to hire a plumber or an electrician or get dental work done. Australians participate in the consumer marketplace by contracting to agree to pay a certain amount of money in exchange for the provision of goods or services all day—thousands of consumer interactions, contracts and exchanges all day, every day. You cannot live and participate in life today without being a consumer. Some people consume more than others. But, whatever transactions Australians participate in as consumers and whatever the number of transactions Australians participate in, the system must be fair, simple and trustworthy with contemporary and effective protections in place. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, the Albanese Labor government has delivered for consumers by rebuilding the structures that make the consumer marketplace fair and more equal for everyone who participates in it. This has been a strategy prosecuted at a regular cadence by this government. For example, in late 2023, the Commonwealth strengthened the unfair contract terms regime, meaning it's now illegal to include, apply or rely on unfair terms in standard-form contracts with consumers and small businesses. It is fair to say that most Australians have probably encountered a service which contracts on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, often with a one sided arrangement with one party bearing all the risk and no reward. Another key aspect of this government's reforms is the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre and the first scams prevention framework, which operate to put clear and meaningful obligations on banks, telcos and digital platforms to prevent scammers from acting before they act. John, an elderly gentleman, lives in Campbelltown in my electorate of Sturt. I met him whilst I was out doorknocking. John was retired. After 40 years of working in a physical job, he had a number of aches and pains and a few mobility issues. He was up for a chat. John told me that he had received a phone call out of the blue from PayPal seeking to do an identity check. John, who lives alone, was happy to get the call and happy to oblige by providing his name, address and bank details, which resulted in John being scammed to the tune of more than $5,000. John told me he didn't even have a PayPal account, but the scammer was so convincing and he just wanted to help. Consequently, John had thrown his mobile phone away. He'd stopped using the internet and had also, in his words, 'ripped the landline out of the wall' so he couldn't be scammed again. John being scammed resulted not only in him losing a serious amount of money but in becoming even more isolated. Already lonely, John had chosen to cut himself off from the digital world out of fear. Because of this, he no longer wants to use a credit card or participate in the digital marketplace. He only trusts cash. Stories like John's are all too common. Scams and scam cities are growing and becoming more sophisticated, and business, banks and other participants offering goods and services in the consumer marketplace must take proactive steps to stop scams, not just deal with the aftermath when savings are decimated and lives are destroyed. Stories like John's demonstrate that there is still a clear need for cash in our economy. This government has already made it mandatory for major supermarkets and fuel retailers to accept cash for essential purchases, because Australians who want or need to use cash deserve access to the marketplace. This bill firms up this commitment, particularly for older Australians like John but also for small businesses, those who live in regional communities and those who rely in an urgent and unavoidable way on cash during emergencies and service outages. Cash use is reducing, but it is still a feature. I have seven local government areas in my electorate, and I visit the respective mayors regularly at their council chambers. Without fail, every time I do, there is someone, usually an elderly Australian, paying a bill over the counter using a bag of cash, often in small denominations. The cash distribution system must continue to serve Australians, and, in drawing on guidance from the Council of Financial Regulators and the ACCC, this bill will ensure the cash distribution system continues to serve Australians for years to come, because we know that a substantial portion of the Australian population would face genuine hardship or major inconvenience if cash were to become harder to access or use as a payment method. It is right that maintaining access to cash is a key priority in the government's strategic plan for Australia's payment system. Appropriately the cash distribution regulatory framework complements the cash acceptance mandate that commenced earlier this year on 1 January. This obliges supermarkets and fuel retailers to allow customers a reasonable opportunity to pay in cash at certain retail sites. Cash must be accepted for in-person payments when transactions are $500 or less and between the hours of 7 am and 9 p.m. This mandate reflects the fact that cash is a fundamental feature of economic inclusion, the resilience and sustainability of the payment system, and a store of value, particularly in times of crisis and uncertainty. There are three key elements of the framework prescribed in this bill. Firstly, powers are provided to the Reserve Bank to designate entities that have a significant role in the cash system or those that provide critical cash distribution services. This is targeted regulation designed to keep the framework proportionate and avoid placing burdens on smaller providers or new market entrants that do not provide critical and essential services. The second feature enables the ACCC to oversee these designated entities, including the fair and efficient pricing of cash distribution services, because access to cash is made more challenging without accessible and fairly priced cash distribution services. This oversight is intended to support the long-term economic viability of the cash distribution sector. The third feature of the framework gives the RBA powers to ensure continuity of critical cash distribution services and help prevent disruptions before they occur. To do this, the Reserve Bank needs appropriate powers to act promptly and with urgency to sustain critical services and resolve a crisis. These crisis and resolution powers include powers to make directions, appoint a statutory manager or transfer the business assets or shares of a cash distribution service provider in crisis. In addition, up to $400 million in funding support is available to ensure the continuity of cash distribution services is available but only as a last resort and where relevant entities, resources and recovery tools are insufficient to address losses or threats to the availability of cash. These crisis and resolution powers are subject to clearly defined triggers for intervention and are separate from the Reserve Bank's day-to-day monitoring and regulatory functions. The powers reflect the crisis and resolution frameworks already applying to other critical services in banking, insurance, and clearing and settlement. We also know that the availability of cash in an emergency such as a flood or a bushfire, both of which happen with frequency in this country, is critical. Further system outages or cyberattacks may also impact the electronic payments and banking system, making cash the prime or only payment mechanism. Cash provides instant access to essential goods and services—food, shelter, health care, clean water. When people receive cash, they can quickly and effectively meet their most urgent needs. A cash-based disaster recovery program can reach more isolated and affected people and can also reduce operational costs and the environmental footprint, allowing disaster recovery budgets to go much further. We also know that people in crisis overwhelmingly prefer cash over prepackaged assistance because cash gives people back control over their lives at a time where they may have limited control because of a disaster. Instead of receiving standard or 'one size fits all' packages that may not meet their specific needs, cash recipients can buy exactly what they require, and this flexibility allows them to address challenges as they arise, whether it's purchasing medicine for a sick child, materials to fix a damaged roof or other essential supplies. Cash also preserves dignity. If you've had to flee or if you've lost your house, everything that can be done to restore dignity to what is a tragic and potentially dehumanising situation must be done, and this includes access to cash. Cash assistance allows people to make their own decisions and meet their needs through normal activities, like shopping at the local market or the local shop, and this change from passive recipient of assistance to active decision-maker can have a profound impact on mental wellbeing during the aftermath of a crisis. And it's not just the individuals who benefit. Money spent in local markets and shops and with local service providers helps to stimulate economic recovery in crisis affected areas. As payment methods change and the digital age becomes even more entrenched, the Albanese Labor government is acting to ensure the marketplace is available and accessible to everyone, not just to those who can easily adapt to the digital marketplace. This bill protects not only vulnerable Australians but all Australians and Australian businesses by ensuring the availability of cash and shoring up the cash distribution and payment system so it enjoys long-term resilience and sustainability. I commend the bill to the House. 18:06 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Cash is still part of everyday life in my electorate, not as a relic or a last resort but as ordinary commerce. Walk through Cabramatta, Fairfield, Liverpool or Canley Heights and you will see businesses taking cash across the counter, families doing their weekly shop and people using cash to manage everyday costs. I send money home to relatives in Vietnam as well. I use cash; I hand over cash at a money transfer business in Cabramatta, knowing that my aunty, who lives in a province in Vietnam, will have cash on the other end. For many people in my community, cash remains part of how they earn, trade and pay. The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 is therefore not a debate about the past; it's about whether the system that gets cash into tills and ATMs will continue to hold up. The bill gives the Reserve Bank power to designate cash distribution providers whose disruption could threaten the continuity of cash access. It gives the ACCC oversight of relevant agreements and commercial terms, allows it to set service standards and provides a pathway for disputes to be resolved. It also establishes crisis powers: directions, statutory management and the ability to transfer a business or its assets. In a qualifying crisis, up to $400 million in Commonwealth funding support may be available, subject to ministerial authorisation, to help keep cash moving if a critical provider fails. I acknowledge the government for taking this step. The cash-in-transit sector has consolidated to the point where it rests largely on one set of shoulders. The court-enforceable undertaking secured by the ACCC when Armaguard and Prosegur merged expires in September this year. When it lapses, the specific safeguards around service levels, geographic coverage and price increases will fall away. Doing nothing is not a neutral choice, and therefore I support the objective of this bill. There are three parts of the framework that I welcome. First, it should be proportionate. The framework is intended to focus on providers whose role is significant to the national cash distribution system. A small local operator servicing a handful of businesses should not face the same burden as a provider whose failure could affect communities across the country. Second, I welcome the ACCC's role. For a small business with limited options for cash collection, delivery or ATM servicing, there can be very little bargaining power over fees and service conditions. Transparent arrangements, service standards and a practical path to resolve these disputes can make a real difference. Third, I welcome the crisis management regime. We have all experienced payment outages. Of course, the Telstra outage is a very recent example. When terminals go down, transactions can continue only where cash is available in the till. People do not care about the corporate structure of a cash-in-transit provider. They want to know whether they can buy dinner, fill the car and get to work in the morning. There are parts of this framework I'll be watching closely. First, the powers are significant, and significant powers need accountability. The definition of a cash-distribution service is broad. Under the bill, the minister may make rules to include further services connected with cash or its availability or exclude service from the definition. The Reserve Bank may designate a constitutional corporation that provides cash-distribution services where it supports a significant part of the system, where disruption could threaten continuity or where it otherwise has a significant role in the cash-distribution system. Flexibility is needed, but it must be matched by transparency. When a provider is designated or the rules are changed, affected businesses and communities should be able to understand the reasons and the likely impact. Consultation should be meaningful. Appropriate review processes should be accessible, and parliament should be properly informed where public money is committed. Second, we need to be alert to the cost of compliance. The explanatory material recognises that designated entities may face significant costs in establishing new systems and reporting processes. The risk is that some of those costs are passed through the supply chain to banks, retailers, local businesses and, ultimately, consumers. A cash-resilient distribution system is important, but resilience must not come at an unreasonable cost to the small businesses that rely on cash every day. The bill gives the ACCC an important role in overseeing commercial terms, including pricing. The government and regulators should use that role to monitor the effect of this framework on service fees and access costs, especially for small businesses and communities with limited alternatives. Third, the framework must serve all communities that rely on cash. The bill rightly recognises the importance of cash for older Australians and people in regional and remote areas, but the policy discussion cannot stop here. Outer suburban culturally diverse communities like Fowler must also be seen. We are in metropolitan Sydney, but that does not mean everyone has the same access to digital banking, payment systems or financial information. The Reserve Bank and the ACCC should measure cash access in a way that identifies communities with high cash reliance, limited digital confidence or language barriers, not only communities that are geographically remote. If they rely only on national averages or a simple regional-versus-metropolitan divide, they risk missing places like Fowler. Separately, the cash acceptance mandate that commenced in January is important, but it has a limited reach. It applies to certain grocery and fuel retailers, while small businesses with aggregated annual turnover below $10 million are generally exempt. Many local retailers also fall outside the relevant grocery and fuel categories altogether. I'm not asking to place new obligations on small business; I'm asking that we do not tell ourselves the job is finished. I support the objective of this bill. I want it to work, but the government and regulators must be clear about who they are measuring. Cash used in south-west Sydney is not marginal, and we've heard from the previous member how important cash is to society. For many people and businesses in my electorate, it remains part of everyday life. Keep cash available, keep it affordable, and count my community in the data. 18:13 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton Think about the last time you paid for something. Maybe it was your coffee this morning. It could have been your sandwich from the trough at lunch. Perhaps it was a sneaky snack this afternoon. How did you pay for it? I suspect most of you simply tapped your phone or pressed your smartwatch against the terminal, but I reckon there's at least one person in this chamber right now who reached for their wallet, who sifted through a few notes and coins and handed over a $10 note instead. I bet that each of you know many of those people in your communities and in your families, because, while digital payments now dominate everyday transactions, cash is far from obsolete. In 2025, the RBA found that one in every 10 Australians still used cash for most of their purchases. Often that one out of 10 is one of the most vulnerable people in our community. Cash usage is particularly strong amongst seniors, lower income earners and regional Australians. In fact, about 15 per cent of all payments were still made in cash. While Australians have enthusiastically embraced electronic payment systems, it's important that we continue to support those of us who prefer cash. The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 are designed for this purpose to ensure that Australians have access to cash for as long as they want to use it, because, while we have to embrace new technology with gusto, we cannot leave Australians who still want to use cash behind. The Albanese Labor government is committed to protecting Australians' access to cash and by extension protecting people's rights to choose how they pay for goods and services. While the modernisation of payment systems has been rapid and has certainly aided in productivity and ease of payment for many, it is important to us that no-one is left behind. Cash is more than just a method of payment. It plays an important role in ensuring that all Australians can participate fully in the economy—regardless of their age, regardless of their income, regardless of their location, regardless of their circumstances and regardless of their level of digital literacy. For many people—particularly those groups I mentioned earlier, such as older Australians, those on lower incomes and residents of regional and rural communities—cash remains a practical and trusted way to manage everyday expenses. Everyone deserves to have confidence in our economy, and that means that everyone deserves to have confidence in our payment system. That includes cash. Think for a moment about Australia's vast geography and dispersed population. These factors create unique challenges in maintaining access to essential services for people living in regional, rural and remote communities. The significant distances between population centres combined with lower population density can make it more difficult and more costly to deliver services consistently and affordably. We know that access to reliable banking services remains a major concern for many Australians, particularly those in regional areas. Consumers in these areas have provided feedback that maintaining access to cash and face-to-face banking services is necessary to give communities more practical options to manage their financial needs. Cash is also vital to help bolster the resilience of our payment system. Electronic systems can be adversely affected during power outages, natural disasters or system disruptions. In these circumstances, cash provides a reliable fallback, ensuring Australians can still purchase essential goods and services when they need them the most. In my electorate, on Brisbane's south side, we know what a natural disaster looks like. We know what it feels like. If you live in Oxley, Corinda, Rocklea, Fairfield, Yeronga and many more suburbs, you've experienced floods. When the chips are down and times are hard, all you are looking to do is recover and help your community and your neighbours. Making sure that you've got a reliable source to pay for things that you need is critical. Cash can also provide a sense of security and certainty in times of economic uncertainty. It remains widely accepted as a store of value and gives people confidence that they can access and use their own money whenever it's necessary. For these reasons, maintaining access to cash is not simply a matter of preserving a traditional payment method. It is about protecting choice, supporting financial inclusion and ensuring that Australians are not disadvantaged as our economy becomes increasingly digital. This bill implements a regulatory framework for Australia's cash distribution network. It is designed to ensure that key participants in the cash distribution system operate in a way that is transparent, accountable and sustainable. By providing greater regulatory oversight of critical cash distribution services, the framework will help safeguard the infrastructure that Australians rely on every day to access and use cash in their daily lives. The bill also introduces a crisis management and resolution framework for providers whose services are vital to the circulation of cash throughout the country. This will strengthen the ability of government and regulators to respond to significant disruptions and help maintain the continuity of cash services during periods of stress or during periods of operational failure. At its core, this legislation is about securing the future of cash in Australia, reflecting Labor's commitment to the Strategic Plan for Australia's Payments System. The Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will administer the regulatory framework. Part 2 of the bill concerns the application of the framework to apply to the critical cash distribution service providers, as identified by the RBA. Part 3 of the bill provides for the development of ACCC approved standard terms and conditions relating to both service delivery and pricing arrangements. These standard terms are intended to establish a consistent minimum service offering that designated entities must make available to their customers. This baseline framework will apply unless it would be unreasonable in the circumstances or indeed when an entity and its customer have agreed to alternative arrangements through direct negotiation. The framework is designed to promote greater certainty, consistency and fairness across the provision of designated cash services while still allowing for that flexibility to accommodate the differing needs of customers and service providers. Where alternative arrangements are sought, designated cash providers will be required to engage in negotiations in good faith. This includes taking reasonable steps to reach mutually acceptable outcomes and ensuring that proposed terms are fair, transparent and based on objective criteria. Providers must also avoid discriminatory practices, ensuring that customers in comparable circumstances are treated equitably and have access to services on reasonable commercial terms. The next part of the bill implements dispute resolution and arbitration pathways for businesses relying on cash distribution services, and this is complemented by part 5 of the bill, which enables the ACCC to establish mandatory minimum service level standards. A sustainable and effective cash distribution sector depends on pricing arrangements that are fair, transparent and capable of reflecting the varying costs of servicing different customer groups and different geographical locations. Recognising that the cost of providing services can differ significantly between metropolitan, regional and remote areas, the framework seeks to ensure that pricing is established in a way that supports both equitable access to services and the long-term financial viability of providers. To strengthen oversight and accountability, the bill introduces reporting and recordkeeping obligations for designated entities in relation to both service agreements and access agreements. These requirements will provide regulators with timely and accurate information about marketing practices, servicing arrangements and compliance with the framework. In addition, during the initial transition to the new framework, the ACCC will be granted temporary supplementary powers in relation to cash distribution services. These transitional powers are intended to provide regulators with the ability to respond quickly and effectively to operational challenges or to market disruptions that may arise as new arrangements are implemented. They will enable the ACCC to intervene when necessary to address urgent concerns, to support market stability, and to help ensure that cash distribution services continue to operate efficiently and reliably during the implementation phase. Let's talk a little bit more about the features of the framework that will address preparedness for crises, because part 6 and part 7 of the bill implement resolution powers which ensure that cash distribution services will continue to operate if a crisis occurs. This means that, where the relevant legislative criteria are satisfied, the RBA will be authorised to intervene in relation to a service provider that has been designated as critical to the operation of Australia's cash distribution service. These providers are intended to safeguard the continuity and stability of essential cash services when there is a risk of significant disruption. These resolution powers can be triggered in a specific range of circumstances, including in situations where a designated provider becomes insolvent, enters external administration, experiences severe financial distress, or proposes to significantly reduce, suspend or cease the delivery of critical cash distribution services. The RBA will be granted a range of resolution tools such as the power to appoint a statutory manager to oversee the entity's operations and the facilitation of the compulsory transfer of critical functions or assets where necessary. The bill also provides for additional measures including temporary moratoriums and stays on certain actions, the suspension of contractual termination rights and the provision of temporary government financial support. These measures are standard practices in crisis resolution frameworks in the financial sector, and at its core is the recognition of the importance of ensuring continuity of services that are critical to the functioning of the economy and the financial system. The bill further bolsters two related initiatives: the cash acceptance mandate and supporting the viability of bank branches in regional and remote Australia. This ensures that customers who rely on cash continue to have practical and reliable payment options for essential goods and services. The framework also plays a vital role in supporting the long-term sustainability of banking services and branch networks in regional, rural and remote Australia, where access to face-to-face banking remains particularly important. This is a bill that works for both business and consumers. For businesses, it provides greater certainty that cash services will remain reliable and available, allowing them to continue accepting, handling and transacting in cash when required. For consumers, it will help preserve access to an important payment option and provide confidence that they can get cash when they need it. The Albanese Labor government is putting Australians first by safeguarding access to essential financial services, supporting regional communities and ensuring that no Australian is left behind as the payment system continues to evolve. 18:29 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Look, these bills are okay as far as they go, but if the government is trying to ensure that no Australians are left behind in our financial system then these bills fail; they don't go far enough. As I travel around my electorate in the heartland of Australia, I am constantly stopped by people who are very concerned about the phasing out of cash in this country. Indeed, many of my constituents believe that the big corporations and even small businesses are deliberately trying to phase out cash in this country. In the last parliament, I introduced the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill. That bill would have mandated that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept, and, crucially, must accept, cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. In response to that legislation, the government introduced its own cash mandate. But I tell you what: it's not even cash mandate lite. It's worse than that. They basically said it only applies to supermarkets and fuel retailers, like petrol stations, when transactions are $500 or less, between the hours of 7 am and 9 pm—and there is an exemption for small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million per year. So it doesn't apply. When I took that proposal to my constituents, they basically came back and said: 'That's ridiculous. All you're doing is creating cash islands with these supermarkets and fuel retailers.' We need a proper cash mandate, which my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill would have delivered. This is a huge issue for people in my area. There are many reasons why people need to use cash. Many senior Australians simply don't want to use cards for their transactions. Not everyone is able to use online banking services. Many find managing accounts and cards online to be stressful and confusing. Cash is often used in rural areas by individuals who do not have ready access to banking services. A lot of people are concerned about additional fees. Many Australians now understand that these banks and financial institutions charge you for using card transactions. It's passed on to consumers, and it is an insidious tax that is added to transactions just for tapping a card. The use of cash is declining. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia's 2022 Consumer Payments Survey, the ongoing decline in cash use in Australia has accelerated since the 2019 pandemic. It is a huge issue for people who have contacted me expressing their fears that cash is being phased out or will soon disappear. In 2022, the overall value of cash transactions stood at 13 per cent. Many constituents of mine are worried that they're going to be locked out of the financial system and that businesses will simply refuse to accept cash—and I'm with them. I don't want to see cash use declining. The reality is that the Reserve Bank Act 1959 provides that banknotes are legal tender, and the Currency Act 1965 provides that coins are legal tender, but there is no legal requirement for banknotes or coins to be accepted for transactions in Australia. If you, as a business, don't want to accept cash, all you need to do is put up a sign saying, 'We're not going to accept cash in our business'—that's it. This is a very worrying development, and constituents in my electorate continue to be very concerned about it. Many Australians prefer cash as a means of managing their budgets. How can we teach our kids the value of cash if they don't know what it is? Others worry about the privacy risk and the risk of fraud associated with using cards. Many Australians have been the victim of fraud and unauthorised transactions relating to cards and the accounts linked to them; I have been myself. Some people just don't want corporations knowing every single thing they buy. Some people are happy for corporations to know that, but others are not—and that should be their choice. People should have the freedom to choose whether they use online banking, card transactions or cash. With respect to financial literacy, cash can be extremely useful in teaching valuable lessons about budgeting, making choices and understanding the value of money. My Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill is all about freedom—the freedom for Australians to choose how they will pay for transactions. Also, think about life in the country and the endless connectivity problems that we seem to have—the black spots that we have and how often the internet and mobile phone services go down. We had a massive outage in the Central West just a couple of weeks ago. Connectivity can be disrupted for many days—sometimes longer—rendering electronic payments unusable. This is a huge issue for country people. Cash remains a dependable means of exchange that does not rely on electricity or internet access. If you live in country Australia, you experience these outages all the time. For many people in our area and many older Australians, cash is not just a convenience; it is a lifeline. In these times of economic uncertainty and rising costs, cash is an essential tool for managing finances and actually sticking to a budget. So I would implore the government to rethink this whole flawed cash mandate that they have brought in. My Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill would bring back that mandate—that businesses, in face-to-face settings, must offer to accept and must accept cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. There are exceptions. My bill actually contained exceptions and exemptions, and they included that offering to accept cash would pose a reasonable security risk; that it would be contrary to another law of the Commonwealth or to a law of a state or territory; that it would be contrary to Commonwealth, state or territory health advice, such as advice provided during a pandemic; or that cash in the form of change is needed but is not readily available. Many seniors have been calling for legislation to keep cash king in Australia and to protect the use of cash. Many people do not trust corporations when they seek to phase out cash, and I'm talking about many corporations. Local councils are now phasing out cash transactions, so you can't pay for your council rates with cash. I agree, and I'm worried about it. I was very disappointed when the Treasurer introduced this flawed cash mandate, because it did nothing to satisfy the concerns of constituents in our area, the great electorate of Calare, but also of people right around Australia who are following this issue really closely. I don't think the government understands how seriously people are viewing this issue. I don't think just creating cash islands for transactions under $500 at the major supermarkets is the answer. That's not keeping cash king in Australia; that's just nodding your head to a few concerns so you can pump out a few talking points and move on. But it is doing nothing to allay the legitimate concerns that many people across Australia have about the phasing out of cash. Most people believe that, if cash is legal tender, it should be accepted, and have worked on the assumption that that is the law. But it is not the law in this country. So I would implore the government to rethink its flawed cash mandate and to have a look at my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill. It was introduced to this House in good faith, and I worked with the government in good faith for a long time on it. But I didn't feel that there was meaningful engagement, and I've said this publicly. When the government announced this cash mandate, I think I was told the day before or something like that. There was no real engagement. I'd been crying out to work with the government on producing something meaningful, so I was very disappointed that this was supposed to be in answer to my bill. It just turned out to be a flawed and rather empty announcement. I was very disappointed about that, and I think people right around Australia were disappointed in that. We, on the crossbench, the Independents, want to work with the government to get outcomes. Publicly, we were trying to get the government to a point where we could get a meaningful outcome here. I know Kerry Peck, who hosts the morning show on 2BS in Bathurst, was very keen for the Treasurer to work with me on this. I know he'll be listening to this broadcast and he'll be shaking his head over the fact that this really important bill and cash mandate were ignored by the government. So, tonight, I am moving an amendment to the government's legislation—to the amendment moved by Mr Hogan. What my amendment does, basically, is call on the government to immediately introduce a cash mandate, providing that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept—and must accept!—cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. That is my amendment. We have to keep cash king in Australia. We are losing cash before our eyes. The big corporations are phasing it out before our eyes, and the government is assisting them with this weak and ineffective cash mandate it has imposed upon Australia. It's not good enough. We need to do better. If government MPs and opposition MPs listen to their constituents, they will hear the calls for a genuine cash mandate that actually effectively keeps cash circulating in our economies. I tell you what: if you're a foreign government and you ever wanted to do damage to Australia, just turn off the internet; turn off the mobile phone reception, because without cash the economy of Australia stops. There is a valid national security reason as well for bringing in a genuine cash mandate, and I don't think the government appreciates it. Whenever our electronic transactions go down, for whatever reason, people panic. There's literally a panic: 'Oh, what am I going to do? How am I going to buy anything?' But, if you have cash, you can still get through. That's why we need to keep cash king in Australia. So it is with great pleasure, but also with sadness, that I have to move this amendment tonight. I move: That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "calls on the government to immediately introduce a cash mandate providing that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept, and must accept, cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000". And I implore the government, the opposition and all right-thinking MPs to back this amendment in and keep cash king in Australia. We have to do it, and this is our moment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S Is the amendment seconded? Ms Boele 26417 I second the amendment. 18:43 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide It gives me great pleasure to be standing here to speak about the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. This bill is exactly about that: the framework and distribution of cash. When you think of the distribution of cash, those of you that are around my age, who started working many, many years ago, all remember the security vehicles that would drive around and drop off our pay cheques in a little yellow envelope. Handwritten on that envelope were the hours that had been worked, overtime, tax paid et cetera, and it was all cash. Usually on a Thursday lunchtime, you'd get paid, wherever you worked, and cash was immediately put into your pocket. Then, you would have to go off and bank it or pay your bills. It was all done via cash. Of course, that was many, many years ago, and it's all changed. Technology has transformed the way that we do our banking, our shopping, our purchasing and how we conduct our everyday transactions—and it has been much easier. For me, for example, it's much easier to have the phone and to tap when I buy a cup of coffee and to have direct debits out of my bank account to pay the bills. I'm sure it's the same for many, many people across our nation. But that's not to say that cash is not required. Many people depend on actually having cash. You can see how things can go wrong when our internet system goes down and when our telecommunications systems go haywire. We saw that, not that long ago, when a couple of banks' systems went down and you were not able to do transactions and pay for goods that you required. It caused havoc. The way that we pay and payment methods may be changing, but one thing remains clear and that is that millions and millions of Australians still rely on cash every single day. Especially for older Australians and pensioners, cash remains a trusted and familiar way to manage the household budget. For many people living in regional and remote areas—as you would know, Deputy Speaker Claydon—cash remains a practical necessity. For Australians facing financial hardship, cash can provide certainty and control over day-to-day expenses. When technology fails—and it has failed; we've seen it fail—when systems go offline and natural disasters disrupt services, cash becomes more than a payment method; it becomes an essential safeguard and an absolute necessity. That is why access to cash matters, and that's why this legislation before the House is so important. The bill before us, together with the accompanying Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, seeks to ensure that Australians can continue to access and use cash for as long as they choose. It complements the government's cash acceptance mandate, which came into effect on 1 January 2026, and it reflects a simple principle. That simple principle is that Australians should never be forced away from cash because the system that supports it has been allowed to weaken. For many years, the cash distribution network has come under increasing pressure. When I talk about the distribution network, again, I talk about those vans that everyone is familiar with—Armaguard, previously Prosegur—and would have seen driving around the place, distributing cash. They're picking up cash from banks, taking cash to banks and taking cash to businesses so there that is cash available to basically keep those cash transactions going. But fewer transactions in cash are now conducted and the infrastructure that supports cash distribution has become increasingly difficult to sustain. Service providers have consolidated. Competition has been reduced. Today, much of Australia's cash distribution system depends on a near-monopoly provider. That creates risk for all the people who rely on cash; risk that essential services could become less reliable; risk that communities, particularly those outside major cities, could experience reduced access to cash; and risk that Australians who continue to rely on cash could be left behind. This bill is about addressing those risks before they become problems, and it establishes that framework to place Australia's cash distribution system on a more sustainable footing. Importantly, it also recognises that access to cash is not simply a commercial issue; it's also a public interest issue. The ability to withdraw cash, deposit cash and access basic cash services is an essential part of economic participation for many Australians. Therefore, this legislation provides the regulatory tools that are necessary to protect that access. It establishes a mechanism for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to oversee critical cash distribution services and, when they go wrong, to be able to step in. When they need to see changes, they can step in again. It provides the Reserve Bank of Australia with crisis readiness and intervention powers to ensure the continuity of services should serious risks emerge. These measures are particularly important for regional and rural Australia. In many communities, bank branches have unfortunately closed, financial services have become harder to access and cash services are increasingly concentrated in fewer locations. For those Australians in rural and regional areas, access to cash is not a matter of convenience; it is an absolute necessity and it is a matter of inclusion. It's about ensuring people can continue to participate fully in the economy regardless of where they live. That's why the transitional arrangements contained in the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 are equally important. These provisions will ensure that, during the introduction of the new framework, safeguards remain firmly in place. As I said earlier, it gives the ACCC temporary powers to intervene where there is a significant risk to ongoing cash access, creating an important bridge between the current system and long-term arrangements established by the legislation. At its core, the bill recognises a simple reality, and that reality is that, while Australia's payment system may continue to evolve—and it will evolve—the government has a responsibility to ensure that those who rely on cash are not left behind, whether it's the pensioner paying for their groceries, the small business managing daily transactions or the family living in a regional community where digital alternatives are not always there or not always reliable. Australians deserve confidence that cash will remain available when they need it, and that is exactly what this legislation seeks to secure. We've seen many banks close lots of their local branches. We've seen ATMs disappearing. Walking down Rundle Mall in my electorate, in Adelaide—there used to be half-a-dozen ATMs in the major CBD shopping strip of Adelaide. I think I can count three or four, if that, now; they've all disappeared. The banks have basically put them out of action, because they're using less cash. We've seen bank branches shutting, and we've also seen face-to-face banking services gradually reduced. Banks often argue that these changes reflect changing customer behaviour and the rise of digital payments, but I don't actually believe that. I think people want to be able to walk into a bank and actually speak to a human being. We're dealing with people's finances. You want to feel confident. You want to know that you've spoken to someone and that someone is taking action on whatever that particular transaction that you've requested is or whatever the inquiry is. I see some discrepancies when it comes to banks saying that it reflects changing times. I think it's a cost-saving measure from banks, and you can see it from the thousands of jobs that have been offshored because it's cheaper to create work overseas than to pay Australian workers. I feel that when they make profits of billions of dollars through the Australian community they also have a duty to the Australian community, whether it be creating jobs, offering services on a human-to-human basis or a whole range of other things. They're not just commercial entities; they get a special licence from governments to operate, and there should be some payback—and I'm not saying there isn't. They do great work. They loan money to people. But, at the same time, let's not lose track of one of the reasons why they're there. They're institutions. They are playing a vital role, and they've played a vital role in the lives of all Australians, but with that role comes a responsibility to ensure that people can continue to access basic banking services, including cash. In my own community, I've seen firsthand how these changes are affecting people. My own bank has closed several branches in recent years. Like many Australians, I have found it increasingly difficult to find somewhere to walk into and to speak to a person. Recently, I visited a major bank headquarters in Adelaide expecting assistance with an inquiry I had, only to discover that there were absolutely no tellers at all but machines that you press buttons on to get a ticket and then expect someone to perhaps give you access to their services. That experience highlights the directions that many banks appear to be taking, but it also demonstrates the growing disconnect between what some institutions are offering and what many Australians still need. The issue is not confined, obviously, to individuals. It's affecting local businesses as well. In my electorate, a constituent of mine whose name was Mary, who operates a Bakers Delight bakery in one of South Australia's largest shopping centres, contacted me last year regarding increasing difficulty of accessing cash. As a small business, many of their customers were pensioners, and they pay by cash. Every morning, they'd go into the branch in that shopping mall, get their cash float, take it back to the shop, do their banking et cetera, only to find out, when Mary went to her bank one particular morning to deposit her takings and obtain the cash flow and change for the following day's trade, that the service was no longer available, and she was directed elsewhere. When she approached the other banks, she was informed that they could assist but only if she became a customer to their bank. She was effectively being asked to move her entire banking relationship that she'd had for many years simply to access cash. When she finally located another branch of her own bank willing to provide the service, it was seven kilometres away, and, every day, she was forced to make that additional journey simply to obtain the cash flow and change needed to operate her small business. Then she was informed that the service was ending there as well after a few months. This is not about convenience. Mary's situation was not just about her convenience. It was about the ability to run a small business and how that small business functions. It was very important that she had access to cash. We're also seeing cash refused in some everyday situations. For example, I've heard stories of families taking their children with friend's children—in other words, taking friends' kids as well along with their family—to concerts and kids events in Adelaide, and these friends of the kids arriving with cash that their parents had given them to buy food and drinks during the interval or during the break of the event. When they went to purchase something, they were told cash is not accepted—not because they didn't have money, because they've got the cash, and not because they couldn't pay, because they've got the cash, but because the venue had decided that only cards would be accepted. This was a story that was relayed to me by parents of these kids. What messages are we sending when a young Australian turns up with perfectly legal tender and is told that it cannot be used? We know that, as Australians, we value choice, and most Australians use digital payments every day, and many, as I said, enjoy, like myself, the convenience of tapping that phone and that option that they have, but there should be an option for people that want to use cash. We need to have that option, as I said. Technology should expand choice not remove it. Progress should include people not exclude them. In a country as fair and inclusive as Australia, every single citizen should retain the right to access, use and rely on cash for as long as they choose, because cash is more than a payment method. It is a matter of choice, accessibility, independence and dignity. 18:58 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 is one that is incredibly important for all Australians. At first glance, this legislation may appear to be about logistics or oversight and compliance, but, when we strip away the legal language, this bill is about something much more fundamental. It's about ensuring Australians continue to have a choice at the checkout. It's about protecting the resilience of our payment system, and, most importantly, it's about making sure no Australian is left behind as our economy continues to evolve. There is an old saying, that cash is king—and we've heard it many times in here today. For some people, that expression sounds outdated. For others, it remains as true today as it has ever been. Technology has transformed the way Australians pay for goods and services. We can tap our phones, tap our watches or pay with a fingerprint online. We can transfer money in seconds from one side of the country to the other. It's no secret that the growth of digital payments have made life easier for millions of Australians. They create convenience and a high level of efficiency. They have opened opportunities that were unimaginable only a generation ago. None of that should be dismissed, and we should always welcome and encourage progress and innovation. But progress should never come at the expense of inclusion. The measure of a successful payment system is not whether it embraces the newest technology; it's whether every Australian can participate in it with confidence. That is precisely what this legislation seeks to achieve. Before I entered this parliament, I spent over half a decade working in the cash-in-transit industry. I saw firsthand the enormous operation required to keep Australia's cash economy flowing every single day. I worked across north-west Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, transporting currency between Reserve Bank facilities, commercial banks, retailers, businesses and automated teller machines. Most Australians never see that work, and nor should they. When the system works properly, it operates quietly in the background. Cash simply appears in an ATM. A supermarket receives its change before opening, and once again before closing. A local cafe has enough float to serve its first customer. The bank has sufficient cash available on hand when someone walks through the front door. Most people never stop to consider how that happens, because behind every $20 note withdrawn from an ATM sits an extraordinary logistics network. There are armoured vehicles travelling thousands of kilometres every week, with highly trained crews who work long hours under strict security procedures. Cash processing centres count, verify and package millions of dollars every day. Routes are planned with military precision. Security systems operate around the clock. Every link in that chain matters. If just one part fails, the effects ripple throughout the entire economy. My time in that industry taught me something that has stayed with me throughout my working life. Cash is not simply a currency; it is the unofficial infrastructure of this nation. I just want to say a quick shout-out to all my past colleagues that I worked with at the Mildura depot, but also those I had the great fortune of representing as the local branch organiser in South Australia at the Pooraka branch—so many fantastic people I've worked alongside of and helped represent with their industrial matters, who have made a fantastic contribution to this country in making sure that, when people go to an ATM at a bank near them, they can get the money that they rightly deserve to be able to take out of those machines. So well done, guys, and keep up the good work. Cash is every bit as important as the roads that transport it. Without a functioning cash system, Australians quickly discover just how much they rely upon it. The reality becomes especially apparent during natural disasters. When communications fail, when power is interrupted, when internet services become unreliable, cash often becomes the only reliable means of payment. In those moments nobody asks, 'Cash or card?' because there is only one answer to that. It's easy to assume in our day-to-day life that, because many of us tap our cards every day, everyone else must do the same. That's simply not the case. The Reserve Bank found in 2025 that approximately one in every 10 Australians still relies on cash for their most important purchases. Around 15 per cent of all payments across the country continue to be made using cash. Those are not insignificant numbers. They represent millions of Australians—like elderly citizens who have managed household budgets with cash throughout their lives, or those on lower incomes who find cash helps them budget more effectively by physically seeing what they have available to spend. Many live in regional and remote communities where reliable telecommunications cannot always be taken for granted. Others simply value the privacy and certainty that cash provides. None of those Australians should ever be made to feel as though they are somehow behind the times. None of them should lose access to cash simply because the supporting infrastructure has been allowed to disappear. Technology should expand opportunity; it shouldn't remove choice. That principle sits at the very heart of this legislation. Australians have always had a unique relationship with cash. It forms a unique part of our vernacular. Every one of us knows what it means to have a bit of 'shrapnel' rattling around in our pocket. We know exactly what someone means when they pull out a 'redback' if you're in Victoria or a 'lobster' in other parts of the country or a 'pineapple' to pay for something special. I know my grandfather used to have plenty of 'redbacks' in his back pocket, wrapped up with an elastic band. Those expressions have endured because cash has been woven into the fabric of Australian life for generations. They are reminders that money is not merely an electronic transaction; it is something Australians can hold, they can count and they can trust. That trust deserves protection. The Albanese government has made a clear commitment that Australians will continue to have access to cash for as long as Australians want to use it. This legislation delivers on that commitment. It complements the government's cash acceptance mandate, which commenced on 1 January this year. That mandate requires supermarkets and fuel retailers meeting prescribed criteria to accept cash between 7am and 9pm for purchases of $500 or less. Protecting the right to pay with cash is one side of the equation. Making sure businesses can actually obtain cash is the other. That is exactly what these bills seek to achieve, because a mandate requiring businesses to accept cash means very little if those same businesses cannot access notes and coins at a reasonable cost. That is why the Cash Distribution Framework Bill and the accompanying Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill are so important. Together, they establish a modern regulatory framework designed to support the long-term sustainability of Australia's cash distribution system. They recognise that, while Australians continue to value cash, the industry responsible for distributing it has come under increasing pressure. As electronic payments have grown, the volume of cash moving through the system has gradually declined. This has led to commercial pressures. Today, Australia effectively relies upon a near-monopoly provider for many critical cash distribution services. Whenever an essential service becomes dependent upon a single major provider, governments have a responsibility to ensure appropriate safeguards exist. That is not about interfering in the market; it is about recognising that some services are simply too important to fail. Cash distribution is one of those services. The framework before the House acknowledges that reality. Rather than waiting until a crisis emerges, it establishes regulatory settings that allow the sector to return to a more sustainable footing while ensuring Australians continue receiving reliable access to cash regardless of where they live. The legislation establishes a comprehensive framework built upon practical measures rather than an unnecessary bureaucracy. Oversight of designated critical cash distribution providers will be shared between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Reserve Bank of Australia. Each regulator has a clearly defined role, as each brings expertise appropriate to the responsibilities entrusted to them. The ACCC will oversee commercial arrangements within the sector. It will have the ability to approve standard terms covering services and pricing, ensuring businesses are treated fairly and transparently. Those standard terms will create a baseline offer for customers while still allowing providers and businesses to negotiate alternative arrangements where appropriate. Importantly, designated providers will be will be required to negotiate in good faith. That obligation matters. Businesses should never find themselves at the mercy of opaque pricing structures or discriminatory treatment simply because there are limited alternatives available. Good-faith negotiations promote fairness. They promote transparency and confidence through the supply chain. Businesses using these services will also gain access to formal dispute resolution and arbitration pathways. That provides certainty not only for providers but also for the thousands of Australian businesses that depend upon reliable access to cash every single day. The framework before the House is about much more than regulating an industry. At its heart, it's about protecting confidence in Australia's payment system, confidence that businesses will continue receiving the cash they need, confidence that communities will continue accessing banking services, and confidence that Australians can continue choosing how they pay for everyday goods and services. The bill establishes a practical regulatory framework designed to place the cash distribution sector on a sustainable footing for decades to come. Oversight of designated critical cash distribution providers will be shared between the ACCC and the Reserve Bank of Australia, with each regulator bringing expertise to different aspects of the framework. The ACCC will oversee the commercial operation of designated providers, including the ability to approve standard terms covering pricing and service delivery. Those arrangements are intended to provide certainty for businesses while ensuring providers continue operating on fair, transparent and nondiscriminatory terms. Importantly, designated entities will be required to negotiate with customers in good faith. That obligation should not be underestimated. Businesses, particularly those in regional Australia, often have very limited alternatives when it comes to accessing cash distribution services. A requirement to negotiate fairly helps create confidence across the entire supply chain while ensuring commercially negotiated outcomes remain the foundation of the sector. Should disputes arise, businesses will have access to formal dispute resolution and arbitration processes. The ACCC will also be empowered to establish minimum service standards following public consultation, recognising that Australia's geography presents challenges unlike almost anywhere else in the world. Delivering cash to a business in the middle of Sydney is vastly different from servicing a town hundreds of kilometres from the nearest regional centre. Those differences deserve to be recognised within the regulatory framework. The bill also requires designated providers to maintain appropriate reporting and record keeping obligations. Good regulation depends upon good information. By improving transparency, regulators will be better placed to identify emerging issues before they become significant disruptions. Equally important are the safeguards established, should the unexpected occur. Essential infrastructure cannot rely upon hope alone; it requires preparation. The cash distribution framework introduces crisis readiness and resolution powers, enabling the Reserve Bank of Australia to intervene where a designated provider becomes insolvent, enters administration or proposes ceasing critical cash distribution services. Those powers include issuing directions, appointing a statutory manager and, where absolutely necessary, facilitating the transfer of services to maintain continuity. Similar crisis management arrangements already exist across Australia's banking and financial services sector. Extending comparable protections to the cash distribution network is simply responsible planning. The accompanying Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill ensures that the transition to the new framework is equally well managed. Schedule 2 provides the ACCC with temporary directions powers, should a significant risk to cash access arise during implementation. Those powers are deliberately limited. They expire after 24 months and exist solely to bridge the gap, while longer-term commercial arrangements are established under the new framework. This legislation also complements the government's broader reforms protecting cash access. The cash acceptance mandate, which commenced on 1 January 2026, requires eligible supermarkets and fuel retailers to accept cash for transactions up to $500 during standard trading hours. Protecting the right to pay with cash is only meaningful if businesses themselves can obtain notes and coins. Alongside commitments from the major banks to pause further regional bank closures, together with strengthened investments in Bank@Post, these reforms form part of a broader strategy to ensure Australians retain access to essential banking services regardless of where they live. Markets are excellent at driving innovation, but governments have a responsibility to protect inclusion. Cash remains an essential part of Australia's economic resilience. It supports people during natural disasters, telecommunications outages and emergencies. It remains the preferred payment method for many older Australians, lower-income households and regional communities. No Australian should lose access to cash simply because the infrastructure supporting it has been allowed to decline. These bills recognise that simple principle. They protect choice, strengthen resilience and, most importantly, ensure Australians will continue to have access to cash as long as they choose to use it. 19:14 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I thank the member for Spence for that speech. It was interesting to hear cash described as 'unofficial important infrastructure for the nation'; I would absolutely agree with that. Realising that one in 10 people use cash for the majority of purchases does indeed say that this is important infrastructure. It's interesting because these days you can pay for your coffee with the tap of your phone, the flick of your watch or even, as I learnt today, a ring on your finger. The pace of change within the digital economy has been extraordinary, and it has, indeed, made our lives more convenient, but, like all things, these advancements don't always work 100 per cent of the time for 100 per cent of the people. For example, when your iPhone or smartphone goes dead or your watch battery dies or when your ATM card stops working at the local cafe because the chip has broken or the machine goes down at your local cafe, cash is the one thing that still works. I remember when my husband went shopping with the two kids at the local grocery store, and he had a couple of cards on him. He doesn't have his cards on his mobile phone, and neither of his ATM cards worked, and he'd bought about 30 bucks of groceries. He was standing there with two little kids and was like, 'Okay, I can't pay for this. I'm going to have to leave,' and a stranger then went and paid for his groceries, which was very gracious. The thing that I always do is have $20 in the back of my phone. Let's see, do I have it today? Oh, I don't know! My hot tip is that it's useful to make sure that you've got a little bit of cash on you at all times because cash is a universal currency. Luckily, my husband was able to give the kids lunch that day, and I have to say that cash has a really important role. In a world where more of our daily lives are automated and made seamless, often this is at the expense of human interaction, and we can lose sight of the moments that cash still creates, such as a someone paying for a stranger's groceries or chatting with the person at the till as someone counts your change or joking about the mental maths of calculating the right amount of change, which I love doing and I'm teaching my son how to do that as well. Cash gives us more chances to connect with people around us, and many older Australians rely on this. It's what small businesses fall back on when the terminal fails. It is what gets tucked into a birthday card—and Grandma Mary, who lives in Warracknabeal, is known for still slipping in a $20 note for birthday cards—or when you've got a raffle tin at the footy club or when you hand over $5 for a punnet of strawberries at local farmers' markets. My preference for weddings is making sure that you put green notes in the wedding card. That's a tip for punters at home. For any parent running the sausage sizzle or a cake stall or a teenager earning their first pocket money through a babysitting job or making lemonade for the neighbourhood, which is something that regularly happens in my neighbourhood, cash remains essential. It is still how a large amount of ordinary life gets paid for. In 2025, the Reserve Bank of Australia reported that around one in 10 Australians use cash for most of their purchases. That's nearly 2.8 million people, particularly consisting of older Australians, lower income households and those in rural and regional communities. No-one should be left behind in payment systems. That is why the government is introducing the Cash Distribution Framework Bill. This bill will establish a regulatory framework for cash distribution so that systems that get cash into ATMs, into bank branches and into the till at the local IGA can keep on running. Right now, that system is under real strain. Demand for cash has been falling over two decades. The cash-in-transit sector, the businesses that physically move cash around the country, has consolidated down to one dominant provider with a market share of more than 90 per cent. This has consequences. In parts of regional Australia, it has already meant that there are fewer ATMs and that the ones that remain are often further away. For someone in a country town, it can mean a long drive to withdraw cash. For an older Australian without a car or without the ability to make that trip easily, it can mean going without or relying on neighbours or a family member to get to the nearest branch. Access to cash should not depend on how far you live from the nearest town or how many suburbs away the closest shopping centre is. Through the framework of this bill, the Reserve Bank will have the power to designate an entity as significant to the cash distribution system, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will have the power to oversee the terms to ensure that providers do not manipulate or take advantage of their dominant market share. The bill also provides regulators with information-gathering and enforcement powers they need to actually make this framework work in practice, including civil penalties for entities that do not meet their obligations. We know that maintaining a cash network is getting more expensive to run as fewer people use it for everyday transactions. This framework does not pretend that these problems disappear. What it does do is put fair rules around how those costs are shared, instead of leaving a near-monopoly provider free to set its own price and its own priorities and instead of leaving regional and vulnerable Australians to simply lose access because the market found it convenient to withdraw. There is also a question about what happens if a provider gets into real trouble. This bill gives the Reserve Bank the power to step in before that happens. If a designated provider is at risk of becoming financially unviable, the bank can issue directions, appoint someone to manage the business or oversee its transfers so that cash distribution does not simply stop while a company works through insolvency in the background. These powers mirror the crisis and resolution framework that already applies to banks, insurers and clearing and settlement facilities in Australia's financial system. This bill builds on commitments that this government has already made. Since January 2026, major supermarkets and fuel retailers have been required to accept cash for everyday purchases. Last year, the Treasurer secured commitments from Australia's big banks to hold off regional bank closures until the middle of 2027. This bill follows those decisions to make sure that Australians who rely on cash are not left behind. We are also building resilience in our economy. When the power goes out, when the internet stops, when a flood or bushfire takes down the local network, cash still works, especially Australian cash, since we have our fancy polymer notes, which are waterproof. When a community faces a natural disaster, there is usually no signal and no power. Card readers don't work. Online banking doesn't work. During these times, Australians rely on cash to buy fuel, food and water and pay for emergency repairs and to get by in the days before power and communications are restored. A payment system that only works on a good day is not a resilient payment system, and this bill treats cash distribution as the piece of critical infrastructure that it indeed is. Cash still matters to millions of Australians, and the system that delivers it should not be allowed to fail simply because it became less profitable to run it. That is the standard that this government holds itself to across the board, not just on cash. The Albanese Labor government understands that inclusion is not just something you achieve once; it's something that you work on every day. It shows up in the decisions we make and in the people who make them. This is the most diverse parliament in Australia's history, and, for the first time, women make up more than half of the Labor caucus. That matters because, when the people at the table come from a diverse range of backgrounds, the injustices facing everyday Australians are less likely to be missed. It is why we made cash acceptance mandatory at the check-out. It's why we kept bank branches open in the regions. It's why this bill exists—to make sure that the systems behind the till keep working for the people who need it most, not just for the people who had the privileges of adapting to the digital age. Access is not something you legislate once and move on from. It is something that you keep on building into every part of government. This includes something as ordinary as how people actually pay for their groceries. Cash is an important part of the Australian economy. We will make sure that all communities continue to have access to this. Because of these amazing changes, I commend the bill to the House. 19:24 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane I remember when I started my first paid job. I was babysitting or pouring tea at the local church event. I then progressed to working at the supermarket and then the hospital. I always got a pay packet, and it always had notes and coins in it—predominantly notes, thank goodness! I'd take out what I needed for the week to buy my groceries or pay my rent, and I usually needed a little bit of that for some fun on the weekend. When I had the time, I raced to the bank to deposit what I had left over. Today, though, many of us don't use the amount of cash that we used to. But cash is still extremely important to every Australian, regardless of where they live, how old they are or how they choose to pay for their everyday purchases. As the saying goes, 'cash is king'. That may sound counterintuitive, especially when, for many Australians, our pay is automatically deposited into our accounts. We tap our phone card. We pay with our watches. All of this is becoming second nature. Digital payments are fast. They're convenient, and they're increasingly common. But, despite this technological change, cash does remain essential. For older Australians, people living in regional and remote communities, vulnerable people escaping family, domestic and financial abuse, and anyone caught in a power outage or a telecommunications failure, cash is not old-fashioned; it is essential. It's essential for our local schools and charities who fundraise—selling cakes, homemade gifts and raffle tickets—or for the little local entrepreneur who might be selling lemonade at the roadside. The Albanese government recognises this. Rather than allowing Australians to drift towards becoming a cashless society, our government has acted to ensure Australians continue to have access to notes and coins for essential purchases. That's why—and we heard this earlier tonight—we've introduced Australia's first national cash acceptance mandate. From 1 January this year, most major supermarkets and fuel retailers are legally required to accept cash for in-person purchases of up to $500. The rules apply between normal hours, 7 am to 9 pm, with exemptions for many genuinely small businesses. This reform sends a clear message: cash remains legal tender, and Australians who choose to use it should not be excluded from buying life's essentials. Our approach is practical. This government understands that digital payments are growing rapidly. Most Australians now pay electronically most of the time, and Labor is not trying to reverse technological progress. Instead, we're making sure that progress doesn't leave people behind, and that reflects the really important Labor value of 'no-one left behind'. Economic modernisation should improve people's lives, not create new forms of disadvantage. For many Australians, cash isn't simply a preference; it's how they budget. There are some who still do what I did when I first started work. Many households deliberately withdraw a weekly amount of cash. They know what they've got to spend, and it helps them manage their budget and their spending. Using notes and coins allows families to avoid overspending and stay within a budget. Labor recognises that people should remain free to manage their finances in a way that works best for them, and the reforms also recognise that Australia's payment system must remain resilient. In recent years, we've all experienced technological failures, bank outages, internet failures, power blackouts and natural disasters. It was only a month ago that the entire Telstra network, pretty much, went down. This affected everyone from the joggers who were out on their morning run trying to buy a coffee afterwards to the Uber drivers who were taking people to the airports and were wanting to use their platforms and get paid and elderly residents who might be lining up at the chemist to buy their essential medicines. So many more jobs and ways of working and living were affected. When electronic payment systems fail, cash continues to work. There's no internet requirement, no mobile signal, no battery and no software update required. Cash provides an important back-up during emergencies. Labor's reforms help ensure Australians can continue purchasing food and fuel even when digital systems experience disruptions. These reforms are particularly important for regional Australia. Many rural communities still experience unreliable telecommunications. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S Member for Brisbane, you'll have leave to continue your remarks tomorrow. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 71 19:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Violence against women and children remains a national emergency. We do not lack the evidence about what needs to change. We have had inquiries, reviews, national plans and hundreds of recommendations, yet there is something clearly obvious. The failure is implementation. Too often women escape one form of abuse only to encounter another through housing, child support, the legal system, migration processes or technology. Our measures of success cannot be how much money is announced or how many programs are launched. That is what government tends to do. It must be whether fewer women and children are being killed, injured, made homeless, impoverished or forced to navigate systems that make them less safe. I've heard directly from frontline services in Warringah about where the system is failing. At a domestic and family violence roundtable I convened, services describe rising demand, too little crisis and transitional housing, complex legal needs and women being turned away because services were already at capacity. These organisations do extraordinary work, but frontline services cannot compensate for a fragmented national system. The scale of violence remains unacceptable. Twenty-three per cent of Australian women have experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15, 22 per cent have experienced sexual violence, and 16 per cent have experienced economic abuse by cohabiting partner. Violence is often perpetrated through economic abuse, systems abuse and technology facilitated abuse. Child support can be withheld or manipulated to maintain control. Technology can enable stalking, surveillance, impersonation, image based abuse and coercive control. Dating apps can still give perpetrators repeated access to potential victims. We still don't have mandatory ID verification. We cannot keep asking women to identify the danger, navigate the system and manage the risk created by perpetrators. We need a national system that shifts the responsibility back where it belongs—onto perpetrators and the institutions with the power to intervene. First, housing must be treated as safety infrastructure. Leaving violence payments are important, but come on! They cannot solve a lack of safe and affordable housing. Second, economic safety must be treated as a key part of physical safety. Child support should be an early priority for reform. It should be easier and safer to move from private collect to agency collect when arrangements break down. Enforcement of payments must improve, and, if child support is not actually being paid, government should not treat it as though it has been received and create a debt on, too often, the women. Otherwise a parent can be hit twice—first by not receiving the child support and then by losing the government assistance payments on the assumption that they did and being assumed to have incurred a debt. We also need stronger digital protections. Dating apps should have a statutory duty of care to protect users from foreseeable harm. That should include robust identity and age verification requirements, stronger systems to identify and remove perpetrators, and safeguards to stop banned users simply creating another profile. These protections should not depend on inconsistent voluntary policies. Children must be recognised as victims-survivors in their own right and have access to appropriate therapeutic support. Migrant women and women on temporary visas must have access to interpreters, culturally safe services and secure pathways so visa status cannot be weaponised against them. Perpetrator interventions, information-sharing and accountability must be stronger and more consistent nationally. We need system reforms that make it harder for perpetrators to continue abuse and easier for victims-survivors to become safe and independent. That means secure housing, economic security, safer digital platforms, properly funded frontline services and clear accountability. I continue to support a national royal commission into domestic violence, because we need to examine the repeated recommendations that have not been implemented by government and where systems continue to fail, which includes the Albanese government. Violence against women and children is preventable. What is missing is not the evidence; it is the urgency and accountability to act on what we already know. It was shameful of the Prime Minister to describe a royal commission into domestic violence as a lawyers' picnic. We need to elevate this issue and act on the recommendations, and we need accountability as to why government—this government—has not had the political will to act on the many recommendations that it already has before it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S I give the call to the member for Solomon. Exercise Pitch Black, Veterans 72 19:35 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Thanks, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour. It's awesome to see you in the chair. It's been a very busy time in the defence and veterans portfolios, and I want to update the House on some of the things that we were doing during the break in sittings. Firstly, there's Exercise Pitch Black. The Royal Australian Air Force has conducted another extremely successful Exercise Pitch Black—of course—taking full advantage of Darwin's beautiful dry season to host the exercise, which wrapped up on Friday after a few weeks. Held every two years, Pitch Black is the Air Force's largest international exercise, featuring complex simulated combat scenarios across one of the largest military training areas in the world. This year, over 100 aircraft and personnel from 21 allied and partner nations participated in Pitch Black, all with a view to strengthening regional and global interoperability. Participating countries included: our four treaty allies—the USA, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and New Zealand; our Five Power Defence Arrangements partners—Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the UK; regional partners, like Brunei and the Republic of Korea; Indonesia, with which we now have the treaty on common security; and the three countries for which I'm proud to be the parliamentary friends chair—Canada, the Philippines and Thailand. Our Quad partners Japan and India were there, as well as some of our NATO partners: Finland, France, Germany, Sweden and Spain. Exercise Pitch Black is important for maintaining currency, strengthening our ability to work together and increasing both regional and global security. A special mention goes to my friend the member for Dunkley, Jodie Belyea MP, as well as the members for Mallee and Flinders, who came along to experience Exercise Pitch Black through participation in our ADF Parliamentary Program. Moving on to veterans, it was recently my distinct privilege to open the Ipswich veterans and families hub. Our government continues to roll out veterans and families hubs, and on 29 July I represented the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Matt Keogh MP, to open the veterans and families hub in Ipswich, Queensland. I was there with my good mate the member for Blair, the Hon. Shayne Neumann MP, and I'd like to pay tribute to the work that Shayne did to bring about the establishment of the Ipswich hub. Much like the highly successful Veteran & Family Wellbeing Centre in Darwin, the electorate that I'm proud to represent, this Ipswich hub is also a collaboration between Queensland RSL and Mates4Mates. I'd like to acknowledge the RSL Queensland state president, Major General Stephen Day DSC, AM (Retired), who spoke so eloquently at the opening. This hub in Ipswich will support one of the largest veteran communities, with around 10,000 veterans and their family members and 5,000 serving ADF members. The opening of this hub also comes just a few weeks after the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency went live right here on the grounds of Parliament House on 1 July. This is all a testament to our government's efforts to set veterans and their families up for success as they transition to civilian life after their time in uniform and for the years that follow. I also want to reflect on another opening I went to whilst I was in Brisbane, and that was of REFORGE. After the Ipswich opening, later in the day, I attended the official opening of the GO2 Health REFORGE veteran rehabilitation centre in Brisbane, which is just down the road from Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera. Their integrated rehabilitation model brings together medical, physical, psychological and occupational care to improve recovery, function and return-to-work outcomes for veterans and others undergoing rehabilitation. GO2 Health will also establish facilities delivering integrated health services at the Ipswich hub, and they'll go live in April next year, providing connected health services to our veterans and their families, to whom we, of course, owe so very much. I'd like to acknowledge the co-founders from 2nd Commando Regiment, Dr Kieran McCarthy and Rod Martin—who is, incidentally, a black belt in karate—and also the chief operating officer, Owen Paulson, veteran of 3 RAR. Well done, fellas. Gold Coast: Infrastructure 73 19:40 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I rise tonight to speak about two issues that are incredibly important to my community on the Gold Coast: disaster recovery funding and the completion of Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 3. They are very different issues, but they have something in common. They both ensure that communities that I represent have the infrastructure and the support they certainly need to grow to withstand the challenges ahead and have that certainty about what is in the future. As a Gold Coast representative, I know just how exposed our community is to natural disasters. Ms BELL 282981 I will get back to the light rail stage 3, the member for Riverina. We have seen the devastating impact of cyclones, severe storms, flooding and other natural disasters on families and on businesses and the toll that it takes on local infrastructure and, of course, our economy. When disaster strikes, people don't care which level of government is responsible for what. They just want help and they expect governments of all levels to work together to help them get back on their feet. That is why I am so bitterly and deeply disappointed and concerned about the Albanese government's proposed changes to the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. The current arrangements provide an important safety net for communities like mine when recovering from those disasters. Any reform should strengthen that safety net not weaken it. The Albanese government proposes a new fifty-fifty Commonwealth-state cost-sharing model, despite significant concerns from Queensland and other jurisdictions. Labor cannot simply shift more of the costs onto state governments, local councils like the Gold Coast City Council and, ultimately, local ratepayers and call that reform. The coalition has been clear: Canberra must step up when Australians are facing the consequences of natural disasters. The government has sought to justify its proposal by pointing to the Colvin review, yet nowhere in that review did it recommend a blanket fifty-fifty funding split. It did, however, call for improved cost-sharing arrangements that recognise the different capacities and circumstances of each state and each territory. The government sat on this review for over a year only to ignore recommendations and push ahead with their own agenda. Not good enough. I stand here tonight with my colleague the member for Riverina, and when he was the Deputy Prime Minister of our great country— Mr McCormack 219646 A golden era! Ms BELL 282981 A golden era! The heydays of November 2019, when we stood at the Broadbeach light rail station and declared that the federal government would put $157 million into that light rail project, to send it to Burleigh Heads. Mr McCormack 219646 Yes, I remember it well. Ms BELL 282981 And guess what? On Sunday it was finished, and we had the very first light rail tram leave Burleigh station at six am and head towards Brisbane, which was very exciting for my community, and I want to thank the former deputy prime minister for coming to the Gold Coast and for advocating so very hard for my community when he was the minister. It is a significant milestone. The project was made possible through the combined funding and efforts of the Queensland government, the City of Gold Coast and the Commonwealth under the Morrison government. Despite Minister Watt's poor memory last Friday at the press conference, I will remind him that it was, as I said, the former coalition government who committed $395.6 million in total to deliver light rail stage 3. Minister Watt, it was not your gaffe-prone boss who actually committed that almost $400 million to Gold Coast Light Rail. Since my election in 2019, I've been a strong advocate for the project because I know how important reliable public transport is to our growing city. The new light rail stage 3 will be tested this weekend with the Pacific Air Show on the Gold Coast. Of course, another great coalition government minister at the time, Mr Peter Dutton, who's no longer with us in the parliament, signed off on the first Pacific Air Show on those defence assets. I will be riding the light rail all the way to Surfers Paradise from Miami on Saturday—on Friday, probably, and on Saturday—to the Gold Coast Pacific Airshow. I look forward to that event. What it does tell me is that the Gold Coast only wins when we have a coalition government and when we have a Liberal National Party government. The rest of the time, we are ignored by Labor governments. I say congratulations to all of those involved in Gold Coast light rail stage 3 for the launch that occurred just this weekend. Montgomery, Mr Bob, Barnett, Mr Neil, Majkowycz, Ms Jill 74 19:45 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Montgomery, an extraordinary man who, at 82 years of age, recently completed a 5,300 kilometre cycling trek from Broome in Western Australia to his home in Bowral in New South Wales. Bob undertook this incredible feat alongside his grandson Tom to raise awareness and funds in support of people living with motor neurone disease. Sadly, Bob passed away on 3 August, just one day after he completed his inspirational ride. Through this ride, Bob raised over $127,000 for Motor Neurone Disease New South Wales, having previously raised $300,000 from five other long-distance rides he undertook across Australia. I was fortunate to meet Bob and his wife, Jenny, before Bob set off on his ride, and I learned about his charitable work and his life. Jenny was an incredible support to Bob on his rides. It was a true team effort. Bob's compassion and motivation to help suffers of motor neurone disease began after he witnessed his cousin die from the disease. Many Australians have been deeply moved and inspired by Bob's story. As a testament to his empathy for others and his enthusiasm, Bob's last ride prompted a huge outpouring from the community in awe of his remarkable life and how he inspired others. Bob was an accomplished sportsperson, businessowner and a devoted husband, father and grandfather. On behalf of everyone in the Whitlam electorate and the many thousands of Australians who were touched by Bob's incredible fundraising efforts, I want to acknowledge Bob's generosity, kindness and enthusiasm. I also offer my condolences to his wife, his daughters and his grandchildren. Bob Montgomery will be remembered as a hero and a gentleman. I rise to acknowledge the dedication and community spirit of Neil Barnett from Kembla Joggers, which is based in my electorate of Whitlam. Kembla Joggers is one of the largest and most respected community running clubs in Australia. Kembla Joggers attracts athletes of all ages and abilities and are well known for their friendly, non-elitist approach to the sport of running. Neil Barnett embodies the spirit of Kembla Joggers. Neil has served on its committee for 35 years, with 32 years in either the president or secretary roles. Neil first served as president of Kembla Joggers in 1992 at the tender age of 23. Neil was recently awarded an Australian Athletics gold service pin by NSW Athletics for his more than three decades of service to the sport of athletics. Neil is also a life member of Kembla Joggers, given his role in helping to make Kembla Joggers the incredibly successful running club it is today. Unsurprisingly, Neil is also an outstanding runner, competing in half-marathons and at the state level. The Illawarra and wider New South Wales athletics community have benefited from Neil's decades of service. I acknowledge the enormous impact he has had in helping to foster the health and fitness of tens of thousands of people through his involvement with Kembla Joggers. Thank you, Neil. I rise today to recognise Jill Majkowycz, a champion for people living with arthritis. Jill has devoted 35 years of her life to supporting people with arthritis through her involvement in the local Warilla-Shellharbour branch of the Arthritis Movement, which recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. The Arthritis Movement operates throughout New South Wales and Queensland and is dedicated to improving lives through innovative care, support and relentless advocacy for those impacted by arthritis. Jill joined the Warilla-Shellharbour branch in 1991 and served as a committee member, and, from 2012, she served as president. Under Jill's leadership, the Warilla-Shellharbour branch has raised funds and sponsored events, including walkathons and camps, with a particular passion for supporting children and teenagers living with arthritis. Jill received a NSW Volunteer of the Year Award in 2024 for her tireless work for the community. Jill would want me to recognise those who she has worked closely with over the years. Her colleague Sheila Morris deserves a special mention given her 25 years of service, including as secretary of the Warilla-Shellharbour branch. Arthritis affects thousands of people across my electorate of Whitlam, many of whom would be left alone to cope in isolation without Jill's selfless support. Thank you, Jill, on behalf of the people of Shellharbour and Warilla and the Whitlam electorate for your tireless service to our community. Shepparton Line Upgrade 74 19:50 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I am so pleased to inform the House and everyone that later this month the great city of Shepparton in the great area of the Goulburn Valley in what will soon again be the great state of Victoria will be receiving nine passenger rail return services between Melbourne and Shepparton. That came from five services, which was manifestly unacceptable for a city the size of Shepparton. This has taken a long time to get right. The Shepparton rail revival was never just about trains. It was always about ensuring that a growing regional city with some of the greatest industry in the world—food processing, manufacturing, farming—receives the same opportunities and connectivity as other major regional centres. Better rail means better access to jobs, education, health care and opportunities across the Goulburn Valley. The project happened for a number of reasons. Firstly, it happened because the community refused to accept being left behind and the substandard rail that was being delivered. For years local residents, businesses, community organisations and advocates, including the Committee for Greater Shepparton, of which I was the CEO at the time, played a key role in making sure everyone who had some power knew what needed to be done and was encouraged to do it. There was a first step in 2017 with Victorian government funding and a $10 million federal coalition commitment to improve the rail line. That got the line better. But the real game-changer was stage 3. Stage 3 set the line up to be able to take those extra trains with passing loops and signalling upgrades. Stage 3 was a $400 million project, and the coalition government, led by the member for Riverina when he was the Deputy Prime Minister, committed 80 per cent of the funding—$320 million. Now, just for those who are interested in federal-state infrastructure funding, that was 80 per cent from the federal government. This government wants to reduce that to 50 per cent for these infrastructure projects. That means that, because of the state of the finances, particularly in states like Victoria, nothing will be built. That funding announcement by my colleague the member for Riverina, the then deputy prime minister—when he was at that dispatch box, he even mentioned my advocacy; it was a great thrill for me to be mentioned in this place before I got in here—meant that the project could go ahead. There were some delays because, frankly, delays are a part of what the current Victorian government does. The Victorian government promised, with that funding that was announced in 2020, that the project would be finished in the last quarter of 2023. Well, here I am in August 2026 saying we've finally got it done and it's about to happen. There's a lesson there that state governments can do a lot better than the current Victorian government when delivering projects on time. The federal coalition's role was key in unlocking this project and making it happen. I want to thank the previous coalition government and the former deputy prime minister, who sits beside me right now. That is what happens when you have a government that cares about Australia's regional growth and is prepared to fund the infrastructure that makes that regional growth happen. Productivity benefits. The people, the professionals, who will now move to the Goulburn Valley because there is that extra rail service will mean more doctors and more agricultural professionals. It'll grow our industry and provide a much better service and lifestyle for the people of Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley, because they'll have access to what will soon again be, when the coalition wins in November, the great City of Melbourne. In closing, we should thank everyone who has fought for this outcome. There are a lot of community campaigners, members of parliament, the Greater Shepparton City Council, local businesses and the rail users who refused to accept what was substandard who we should thank. When you come up here and you're an advocate, it's great to have someone listen to you. It's really good to get. My predecessor Damian Drum, the former member for Nicholls, got me in the door to see the Deputy Prime Minister—a good Dockers man. Damian Drum got me in to see Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack. It's great to be listened to, but, jeez, it's amazing when the person who you advocate to goes into parliament and actually gets something done, and the people of Shepparton will thank that government for this. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 75 19:55 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Last week, I was very proud to host Assistant Minister Ged Kearney in Dunkley for an important family violence roundtable as part of the second national action plan to end violence against women and children. The roundtable brought together 19 organisations from across the family violence sector, alongside representatives from local and state governments, including Paul Mercurio, the state MP for Hastings. This event provided an opportunity to hear directly from those working on the front line every day, supporting victims-survivors, protecting children, responding to crises and helping families rebuild their lives. While each organisation brought a unique perspective, there was strong agreement on one key point: while crisis responses remain essential, we must do more to prevent family violence before it occurs and intervene earlier. The Albanese Labor government has committed more than $4.4 billion to ending violence against women and children. That investment is making a real difference through crisis services, emergency accommodation and support programs. However, participants made it clear that, if we are serious about ending family violence, prevention and early intervention approaches must remain central to the program. The discussion was grounded in the reality facing our local community. In Frankston, family violence incident rates rose from 139 incidents per 10,000 people in 2022 to 166 per 10,000 in 2024. This is significantly above the Victorian average of 135 incidents per 10,000 people. These figures are a reminder that communities like ours continue to face significant challenges. One of the strongest messages from the roundtable was that children and young people must be recognised as victims in their own right. Too often, they are viewed only as part of the family unit rather than as victims-survivors whose experiences require recognition and support. One story shared on the evening has stayed with me—a family violence refuge worker described a five-year-old child who had developed a plan to help keep his mother alive during violent incidents at home. No child should have to learn survival strategies before they have even started school. Participants also challenged the language we commonly use. We often say children 'witness' family violence, but children are not simply witnesses. They are experiencing that family violence too. If a parent lives in fear, so too do their children. The language we use shapes how we understand harm and how we design responses. Another issue was the complexity of navigating support systems. Victims-survivors are often required to repeat their stories to multiple agencies, forcing them to relive their trauma again and again. We must continue improving information sharing and service coordination so that support is centred on the needs of those seeking help. Jackie Galloway, the CEO of Peninsula Community Legal Service, highlighted the need for stronger coordination across jurisdictions. Representatives spoke about the disconnect between state family violence systems and family law processes. Better integration would deliver safer and more consistent outcomes for families. The challenges facing frontline organisations were also discussed. Short-term funding creates uncertainty and forces organisations into a cycle of grant applications rather than service delivery. Sustainable funding provides stability for organisations, staff and, most importantly, the families that rely on their support. Participants also reflected on the growing impacts of loneliness and isolation. Isolation is often caused by perpetrators as a form of coercive control, but it also weakens the community connections that help keep people safe. I thank every organisation that participated in the roundtable and acknowledge the vital work they do every day. Their expertise, compassion and honesty are helping shape a stronger response to family violence. To Family Life, the Orange Door, Anglicare, SECASA, Good Shepherd, OzChild and Brotherhood of St. Laurence, thank you. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 76 NOTICES Presentation 76

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 12:32.

 

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 81 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Renewable Energy 81 12:32 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Today is an absolutely genuine grievance. I had the displeasure in the last couple of days to return to my electorate and once more see the infliction on us by the intermittent power industry—the wind towers, the solar panels. It is an absolute swindle that is on not only regional Australia but also the people of Australia, with power prices they can't afford pushing people, through poverty, into their cars, decimating heavy industry, destroying such things as the Tomago smelter, putting major industry at risk and making our nation poorer. I also had the capacity to go to England, where I saw a country that has been completely destroyed by their ludicrous following of the intermittent power swindle and their quest for net zero. They now have basically deindustrialised England. As I went around, I met people who just couldn't run their air conditioners. I remember going to a hotel, and one of the things that you noted everywhere was that there were no air conditioners. We asked the hotel whether they could put on the air conditioning, and they said they'd have to take it to the management. Even when we offered them 50 pounds, they wouldn't put it on. The last hotel I stayed in was the Radisson. It's hardly a cheap place, but no air conditioning. Why? Because England has butchered their power grid system, and now they're suffering the sins. It is economically a whole basket case. Their social security bill is about equivalent to their total tax take. And guess what? We're doing it to Australia. We are doubling up. There are other countries that have done the same. Obviously Germany has managed to deindustrialise itself, and it now, by reason of their bizarre view, will also follow intermittent power of wind towers and solar panels. So we can look beyond Australia to see what's coming our way. We've had the promise from the intermittent power industry, the swindle factories, of local employment. In my area there's a town called Kentucky. It's a village of 301 people, which is getting a little bit of an influx of people. They're going to come in demountables; we call them dongas. That's 1,200 beds going into a village of 301 people, none of them local. A large proportion—and good luck and God bless them—are from the Philippines and Bolivia. I don't know how that's going to go in Kentucky, but my suggestion is 'not very well'. Then down the road is Walcha—Walcha Road—another village probably of around about 50 people. They're getting 800 people coming in demountables. Our district is losing its mind over what is being done to us. You are dividing us up with transmission lines. You are basically devastating the landscape with wind towers and solar panels. You can go to other areas, such as Barley Fields near Armidale, where so many people have said that we used to look out over paddocks, cattle and the countryside, but now we look over a black sea of photovoltaic cells. The value of our place has crashed. It doesn't have the value any more. Yet we have the absurdity of these liars turning up, telling us, 'The value of your place will increase.' We put it to them and say, 'Why don't we get a valuation now and a valuation after your swindle factory goes in, and you can pay us the difference?' Of course they won't do that, because it's premised on a swindle. It's premised on the same swindle which is the secret capacity investment schemes—secret taxpayers' money. But it's secret; no-one's allowed to see it. There are even the budget papers not for publication. What other forms of spending do we have, away from defence, that the Australian taxpayer pays for but is not allowed to see the details of? Of course, we now have even more. I have as an example—because they ring me up—one person who is living in a house that they have leased off the council for years on a place. The transmission line people turn up with two bodyguards to remove them from their place. This is what you're doing to Australia now. There were two bodyguards to remove them from their house. This is the benevolence of the intermittent power industry, the renewables. This is how beautiful it is. In another place in the Upper Hunter, a family I can give a name to, the Crouches, found the intermittent power swindle factory industry's transmission lines actually on their place. They'd gone through the sign that said 'no trespassers'. They'd gone past the sign, saying it was a biosecurity issue. They'd driven over their fences and cut them. They found them on their place and said, 'What on earth are you doing on private property?' And they said, 'We're working out where the transmission lines are going to go.' They said, 'Did you ask permission?' No, they don't. That's what's happening to us. That's why we hate it. It wasn't just that. The other people have said, 'We just arrived back at our house, and here were complete strangers, uninvited.' It was the transmission line company Energy Co. Now we're getting reports back about this swindle factory. The way the swindle works is they invest the money, then the Commonwealth taxpayer—us—pay them a guaranteed return of about 80 per cent of their costs. They're building as large as possible and just cutting the corners on some of the fundamental parts of it. The cabling in some of the swindle factory's solar precincts is not up to specification. And, as it's not up to specification, it's causing fires and has to be dug back out and replaced. There are whole sections of these swindle factories that just don't work, but it doesn't worry them, because the Capacity Investment Scheme covers for it. Why do people hate Australia so much to do this to us? What did regional Australia and Australia in general do to deserve this happening to them? How on earth is this better than a coal-fired power plant? How on earth is this better than the alternative? If you want swindle factories, you can put them on North Head. You can put them on Middle Harbour. They'll work there perfectly well. You can put them off your beaches. They'll work there. But you don't want them, because you know what a blight, what a parasitic industry and what a parasitic piece of infrastructure they are. And this is the hypocrisy of it. You want it for somebody else, and you want somebody else to pay for them. That's the taxpayer. You demand that we use that product. You create legislation so we have to use that product. I don't know how much worse socialism can get, but that's about the pinnacle of it. Anybody who stands behind the swindle factories is a socialist. They believe in socialism. They believe in the power of the government to determine the outcome explicitly of one of the fundamentals of your economy, which is energy. The only reason we don't have coal-fired power stations is we created the legislation to put them out of business. Additionally, I went to the Hunter Valley, where the Labor Party are going to take a total bath. They are going to take a total bath in seats. They know it, Chris Minns knows it and the polling knows it. They're going to absolutely take a bath because they've gone to those people and said: 'Your industry is evil. Coalmining is evil.' The Safeguard Mechanism has created an environment where they have to shut down coalmines. So people who had houses, had kids in their local Catholic school, had a car—they're all, apparently, evil, and they're going to be put out of a job. The Labor Party is putting labourers out of a job. This is the idiocy of the swindle factory and the idiocy of the intermittent power industry. What I can say is all these secret agreements—wink, wink, nod, nod. 'We won't tell anybody about it. We'll be down here as lobbyists. We're all righteous. This is all about global warming.' It's got nothing to do with global warming; it's about a select clique of people making an extraordinary amount of money. That is secret. And, if it's funny, table it. Let's see it. Let's see the transparency of it. But you'll never do that. You'll never do that, will you? You should, but you won't. When it's all over, because it's so above board—you say it's above board—you'll have no problem with us having a royal commission into it. You'll have no problem having a royal commission into it. There are already people who died constructing the wind towers; you've got no problems with that—no. So let's have a royal commission. You're on notice. All these secret agreements are going to come out, and you'll have to stand behind them and explain them. How did you get that return? Who did you know? What was behind that agreement? Why did that happen? Why did it go that way, not this way, in your path? How did you formulate this? Why did you keep it secret? You're on notice. So get involved with the swindle industry—go up to your eyeballs in it—but be ready to go before a royal commission and explain it. If a brief can be put together by a royal commission that suggests corruption, then you'll be able to spend some time at His Majesty's pleasure in a facility of somebody else's choosing. Racism 82 12:42 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith In my family home, three of Peter Drew's 'Aussie' posters hang above our dining table. To me, they say something simple about this country: Australia belongs to all of us. Belonging is one of the most basic promises a country makes to its people. Racism breaks that promise. Sometimes racism enters public life through words spoken, including, sometimes, in this place. Sometimes it's pasted across a wall. For a decade, Peter Drew's 'Aussie' posters have appeared on walls across Australia. He launched the series in 2016 and has sprung up around the nation ever since about 5,000 of these posters, each printed and coloured by hand. Over the past few weeks, many have popped up across my local community in Brisbane, including several near my home in Norman Park. I was heartened to see these renowned works of art appear in my very own community. On Sunday, two racist far-right nationalists continued their petty campaign cowardly in the night by pasting hateful material across these posters. They attempted to hijack this art about belonging and turn it into a threat, suggesting to Australians of colour, 'You are not one of us.' But they are so very wrong, and my community is calling them out. On Sunday, I was travelling between community events in West End and Cannon Hill when I saw these defaced posters. I felt anger. It wasn't the kind that settles and fades but the kind that lands in your stomach and propels your limbs to act. So I went home, I grabbed a stepladder and the best tool available—which was a squeegee on a long pole—and I took my tallest son. He asked where we were going, and I told him, 'To fight racists.' He jumped in the car so quickly—quicker than you could believe, that little fella. As we started removing the hateful material, Jacob—a neighbour and a community member who I don't know—drove past, and he stopped his car to come and help us. Scott brought a tall ladder and a paint scraper, thanks to his wife, Sonia. Locals shouted out, 'Thank you!' They put their hands on their hearts in gratitude. Racism has absolutely no place in our community. These far-right nationalists tried to tell Brisbane who belongs. Brisbane answered them loud and clear. I will not repeat the names of the far-right nationalists. Let Hansard instead record Jacob, Scott and the community that refused to let hate speak for Griffith. Peter Drew's work has been part of my family life for years. One of the first gifts I gave my husband was a set of three 'Aussie' posters. Together these posters could not be more quintessentially Australian. Together they read 'Aussie, Aussie, Aussie.' They hang in our dining room. They have watched over meals, heartfelt conversations and family celebrations. My children have grown up underneath their faces. The portraits come from records held by the National Archives of Australia and show people forced to apply for certificates of exemption from the dictation test under the White Australia policy. The dictation test operated from 1901 to 1958. Until its abolishment, not one person passed it. Non-white Australians needed exemption papers to travel or risked being locked out of their own country. Officials photographed them, recorded their features and often took their handprints. Peter Drew took those records and put them in public view. Beneath each face he placed a single word: 'Aussie'. It was an act to challenge exclusionary definitions of Australian national identity. Australian identity does not belong to one race, one faith or one family story. To deface this work with racist material is not clever. It is not satire or debate. It's a deliberate attempt to alienate and to intimidate. I call it for what it is: racism. Griffith rejects it. Peter's work opens a conversation about Australians who are excluded from our national story. Far-right nationalist ideology tries to intimidate Australians who are living here now. Peter's iconic work represents the inclusive, warm, welcoming Australia that I believe in and challenges the narrow, exclusionary definitions of Australian identity that are pushed by our political opponents. In 1996, when I was 15, now senator Pauline Hanson used her first speech here to claim that Australia was 'being swamped by Asians'. Those words frightened families and gave others permission to say their quiet, ugly part out loud. At 16 I helped establish Young Australians for Anti-Racism and Reconciliation. I have opposed Senator Hanson's politics ever since, and I will keep doing so. If this is the political boss fight to be had, I have been preparing for it my entire life. Political leaders carry a heavy duty. Our words can draw Australians together or put a target on our neighbours' backs. Fear and division weaponised for political gain can become slurs on a wall. Nothing weakens our social cohesion more than people who use our differences to try to drive us apart. And any honest account of belonging in Australia must begin with the people who have always belonged here. Our First Nations people are first Australians and the oldest continuous cultures on Earth. Every non-Indigenous family story in Australia begins with arrival. Some came in hope, some fled war or persecution, and others came through colonisation, dispossession and violence. I was raised to welcome strangers, to include others and to stand beside people doing it tough. I was also raised to face the truth of our country and our history. That truth runs through my own family. My ancestors were Queensland pastoralists who perpetrated terrible violence against First Nations people near Bundaberg and Gin Gin. I cannot change that history, but I can choose the responsibility I carry forward. We honour that responsibility through our actions today. People should feel it in their daily lives through safety, access to health care, legal help and fair treatment. That was a focus of a recent roundtable I hosted with the Assistant Minister for Immigration and member for Kingsford Smith. Together we met with representatives from five organisations that support migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum in my community, and I'd like to briefly highlight their work. Multicultural Australia helps new Queenslanders settle, work, study and access health care, including families and unaccompanied humanitarian minors. The Romero Centre helps refugees and people who are seeking asylum to find housing, work, migration advice and mental health care. The Refugee and Immigration Legal Service, or RAILS, is Queensland's only community legal centre specialising in refugee and immigration law. And for more than 40 years the Immigrant Women's Support Service has helped migrants and refugee women, children and young people affected by domestic, family and sexual violence to find safety and regain control. Finally, World Wellness Group's clinic cares for more than 3,000 people a year, including people without Medicare. I would like to thank them all for the incredible work they do for our community. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:49 to 13:03 Ms COFFEY 312323 Migrants and refugees strengthen Griffith and Australia. They run businesses, care for patients, teach children and build homes. Many have survived things no person should endure. They helped others build safer lives. The child translating a letter at the kitchen table can grow up to write laws in this place. The nurse who arrived as a refugee can care for us in our hardest hour. The new neighbour can become the person we call when everything falls apart. The far right wants Australia to fear these stories. My community sees friends, colleagues and neighbours. We all have a duty to call out racism whenever and wherever we see it. We can leave racist messages standing or we can pull them down and say who we really are. On Sunday, my community's answer was simple: you do not own the word 'Aussie'. You do not decide who belongs. You do not speak for Griffith. Those racist far-right nationalists tried to paste a smaller Australia over the real one. Our community peeled it back. Not today racists, not today. Senior Australians 84 13:04 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee There is bipartisan understanding in this House that older Australians want to age at home. There is no controversy there. Our view is that basic services such as gardening, lawn mowing and home maintenance can assist that to occur. But I have a particular grievance about something that I know for a fact is occurring not just in my electorate but across Australia, and, as usual, it is worse in regional Australia. I want to address the total disregard this Labor government has for our ageing population. Once again, they are fabulous with the spin, not so good at the delivery. On Thursday 30 July I organised a community meeting—a forum—at North Park Hall in Stawell in my electorate because residents in the Grampians Community Health region had received a very concerning letter from the health service. From the very start I want to make it crystal clear that my grievance is not with the health service. They have worked sensibly and constructively with me on what I am about to tell you. My grievance is with Minister Rae and the Albanese Labor government, who will leave regional Australians dying in their homes. Grampians Community Health wrote to residents across the region that their home maintenance and gardening support services at home would be cut from their current hours of approximately two hours every six weeks. The letter reads: From 1 August 2026, gardening and home maintenance funded by the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) will change. All GCH CHSP clients will get a maximum 2 hours gardening and home maintenance each financial year. Yes, you heard that correctly—two hours a year. I don't know how long it takes for your lawn to grow and how often your home needs cleaning, but I guarantee you two hours a year just won't work. It will not cut it. It won't work for you, and it certainly won't work for our elderly. The letter continues: This is due to very high demand but no additional government funding. We are doing everything we can to access more funding from the Australian Government. The letter goes on to explain that people will have to pay out of pocket for more than their allotted two hours a year. I can hear people as they listen to this saying, 'That is ridiculous,' and they're absolutely right. It is ridiculous. Copies of this letter started flooding into my inbox when it went out, so I approached Grampians Community Health, and I fully respect the awful situation the Albanese Labor government have put them in. The funding envelope for Grampians Community Health was never adequate. They were having to retrofit funding streams for respite care with an exemption to meet the existing demand. I understand the government has refused to allow the exemption to continue. Worse still, the government has granted funding to other providers not based in the area, including Kirinari, which is based in Albury-Wodonga. For those who don't know how far Albury-Wodonga is from Stawell, I invite you to look it up on a map. It is hundreds of kilometres away. The background here is also that Northern Grampians Shire Council, like so many in my electorate and in regional Australia, were, until recently, providing these home support services due to the need in the community but simply couldn't afford to continue. To their credit, Grampians Community Health had picked up the responsibility. I want to support them in whatever way I can. Sadly, it appears the Albanese Labor government does not want to support them. I organised the community meeting at Stawell and met with other Grampians Community Health clients who came to see me at my mobile offices in Avoca and Talbot to discuss the situation. There, at the Court House Hotel in Talbot, I met with Lajos Horta, also known as Lou, who is in his 90s. Lou is legally blind. Lou warmly held my hands and shared his view of the Albanese Labor government. He said: I have lived in this country 70 years and have never seen such incompetence. Lou was referring to the government's inability to provide him the help he needed to stay at home. He and his partner, Carol, applied 18 months ago for Commonwealth home support. Eighteen months later, they are still waiting and now, sadly, Lou is in palliative care. The Prime Minister, as then leader of the opposition, referred to the aged-care system as a 'national disgrace with unforgivable neglect' when we were in government. Yet, under his government, wait lists have exceeded 230,000 people—vulnerable people waiting for home support so they can age at home. Sadly, 5,000 people have died while waiting. I do not want Lou adding to those statistics. Today, we see Labor's own aged-care minister in Western Australia calling out this government's and Minister Rae's failure. Simone McGurk says the scheme 'had not lived up to its promise' and that access to aged-care home services are 'unacceptable'. In Western Australia, the assessment algorithm has been so inflexible, it left a patient with Alzheimer's and their 92-year-old carer waiting for nine months for services to start. I remind you, Deputy Speaker Payne, that Lou and Carol have been waiting over 18 months already, and now he is in palliative care. This is outrageous. The coalition has moved a private member's bill in the Senate to restore human oversight into the assessment process so that cases like Lou do not happen again. Labor said it would put the care back into aged care, but despite his spin at the despatch box, Minister Rae is clearly failing in his job to ensure our vulnerable get the care they need and deserve. Just look at the pathetic excuse for a comment on today's story out of Western Australia: When contacted for comment, a government spokesman said the Albanese government had "spent four years repairing the mess the Coalition left behind" and acknowledged "there's more to do". Yes, you're right. There is more to do. That's all those opposite have got for older Australians: blaming the natural party of government, the coalition. Labor have been so abysmal in delivery in government that all they've got is to blame the coalition, despite being in government for over four years, and the situation has got worse on their watch. The Labor spokesman goes on: We're bringing down wait times for home care and it's having a material impact for older people … That is patently untrue, and a gutless assertion to be made by the faceless man because the minister yet again can't be bothered turning up. I'm meeting the minister this sitting fortnight, and I make it clear here as I will to him there in his office that what he is presiding over is a national disgrace and literally, for the likes of Lou and Carol, his excuses to not pass the pub test. Newcastle Electorate: Albanese Government 85 13:12 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Last year, I stood in this place to talk about how the Albanese Labor government was delivering for the people of Newcastle. I spoke about the investments we were making, the promises we were keeping and the future we were building together. Twelve months later, I rise again to provide an update. In Newcastle, delivery hasn't slowed. Indeed, it has accelerated. Over the past year, we've continued investing in the things that matter most: strengthening Medicare, building the infrastructure our growing city needs, supporting local industry, creating good, secure jobs, protecting our environment, backing our schools, TAFE and university, and investing in the community organisations that make our city thrive. That is what good government looks like. It's about showing up, listening to communities and getting on with the job, and that's exactly what this Labor government continues to do for Newcastle. Health care remains one of the clearest examples of the difference Labor makes. Every Australian deserves access to quality health care, regardless of what they earn or where they live. Over the past year, six fully bulk-billed clinics have been announced for our region, making it easier for thousands of families to see a doctor without having to worry about the cost. Our Medicare urgent care clinic in Charlestown is gearing up to celebrate its third birthday later this year. In that time, it has seen more than 31,000 locals—people who have received free and timely treatment closer to home without the need to go visit a busy hospital emergency department. We're also strengthening the future healthcare workforce. Our expansion of paid prac payments means students studying clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry will all have access to payments while on prac. This builds on the paid prac that we've already delivered for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students. For students in Newcastle, that means more opportunities to finish their qualifications and begin serving the communities they already call home. Newcastle has always been a city that embraces change. From steelmaking to advanced manufacturing, from coal exports to clean energy, our city has never been afraid to evolve. Today, Labor is helping Newcastle lead Australia's clean energy transition. We're backing innovative companies like MCi Carbon, whose world-leading technology is turning industrial emissions into valuable building materials, creating highly skilled local jobs while reducing emissions. We're investing in 12 community batteries, helping the city of Newcastle store and make better use of the renewable energy generated at the Summerhill Solar Farm, rather than letting that good clean energy go to waste. Families are also benefiting from our cheaper home batteries, with more than 3,000 Newcastle homes now storing clean energy and lowering their household power bills. But they're also helping all of us that don't have solar because they help stabilise that grid system for us. The Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub continues to gather momentum, helping ensure our region remains an industrial powerhouse well into the future. At the University of Newcastle, construction has started on the future skills hub, preparing the next generation of workers for advanced manufacturing, clean energy and emerging industries. We're also supporting solar manufacturing at Black Hill and backing innovative Newcastle companies like Kardinia Energy to develop cutting-edge patented solar technology. I also want to acknowledge the new Steel River Estate battery in Mayfield West. While not federally funded, projects like this demonstrate the confidence that industry has in Newcastle's future as Australia's renewable energy capital. Importantly, we're also protecting the natural environment while building this cleaner future. Labor honoured our commitment to permanently stop the destructive PEP 11 offshore gas permit, protecting our coastline, tourism industry and the marine environment. Now we're getting on with protecting even more of Australia's precious oceans, expanding marine protections to preserve biodiversity and ensure future generations inherit healthy oceans. Infrastructure is more than roads and bridges. It's about getting people home sooner, supporting economic growth and ensuring that our city can continue to grow for decades to come. This year, we've celebrated the completion of the Hexham Straight upgrade, improving safety and traffic flows for the tens of thousands of motorists who use it every day. The M1 to Raymond Terrace extension is on track for completion this year, the Newcastle Inner City Bypass is nearing completion, and upgrades to Old Maitland Road in Hexham are about to kick off. Together, these projects represent a transformational investment stretching from Rankin Park through Jesmond, Sandgate, Hexham all the way through to Tarro, Beresfield and Raymond Terrace. The Albanese Labor government is investing more than $1.5 billion to make road journeys safer, smoother and faster across our city. We're also progressing upgrades to Ironbark Creek, to improve flood resilience and water flow in and around the Wallsend CBD. Planning continues for high-speed rail, as we work towards connecting Newcastle to Sydney with fast, reliable rail. Earlier this year we announced the development phase and last month appointed Bechtel as the delivery partner. This is nation building infrastructure taking place in Newcastle, the birthplace of Australia's high-speed rail. The replacement of the Hunter Street bridge over Cottage Creek is also progressing, while upgrades to Parkway Avenue are making it safer and easier to choose active transport. Strong communities don't happen by accident. They happen because governments invest in local organisations, volunteers and local facilities that bring our people together. Over the past year, we've continued supporting projects right across Newcastle. The magnificent Newcastle Art Gallery redevelopment is helping to cement our city's reputation as a cultural destination. We backed the Howlin' Country Music Festival, supported accessibility improvements at the Hunter wetlands and helped Ronald McDonald House deliver new floors at their John Hunter Hospital accommodation. We've celebrated irrigation upgrades at Wallsend oval, supported a new yarning circle at Adamstown Public School, delivered new commercial fridges for BaptistCare HopeStreet, backed a community garden at Blue Gum Hills Mens Shed and invested in an accessibility upgrade at Young People's Theatre Newcastle. These may not be projects that grab headlines, but they're important community investments. They're the sorts of investments that quietly improve lives every single day. Education has always been Labor's great nation-building mission, because no child's future should depend on their postcode. I'm proud that every one of Newcastle's 43 public schools is now on a pathway to full and fair funding. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13:21 to 15:59 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 86 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Antisemitism 86 16:00 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I would like to share with the House part of a letter from a Kooyong constituent regarding her experiences as a Jewish Australian, which are particularly pertinent in light of tonight's 2026 census. She wrote to me: Never state you're Jewish on the Census form,' our parents said, 'because they'll already know where you live.' The danger my parents perceived from being too easily identified as Jews wasn't a form of paranoia; it was a considered position, based on their experience of Australian society. In first grade, I was invited to the home of a playmate, who lived around the corner. 'I didn't realise you were Jewish when I asked you over to play,' her mother said on my way out. 'I don't really like Jewish people,' she said. Once I was old enough to understand what had happened to Jews during World War II, I tended to divide people into whether I thought they would have tried to help me escape the Nazis, or not. I do not divulge my Jewish identity at all except in a situation where I felt safe or it was necessary for me to make a point. While I have absolutely no doubt that the expression of antisemitism has increased since October 7, antisemitism has always been present in Australia. The bravest of us is our younger daughter. After the massacre at Bondi, she asked to work from home for a few days, without giving a reason. She couldn't endure having to hear sweeping statements about 'either side'. Is there another side to the Bondi massacre? For well over a year, she was not 'out' as a Jew at work. 'Don't bother feeling sorry for me!' she said to her boss. 'Feel sorry for the thousands of Palestinian civilians and children killed and injured by Israeli troops.' 'Oh!' he said, 'I didn't realise you're Jewish.' 'Well, I am,' she replied. I rise to speak about this today because I think it's incredibly important that all Australians bear witness to the entrenched bias and the systemic racism within our communities, of which many of us are often unaware. Tonight, as Australians decide whether or not to denominate their religion on the census form, I think it's important that we all reflect on why that question is not simple for all Australians and that we work together over the next few years, prior to the next census, to ensure that the sorts of questions that my constituent has raised in her very moving letter are considered by all of us in determining how we deal with our fellow Australians and how we respect everybody's identity. Gambling Advertising 87 16:02 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I've received a lot of correspondence from my constituents on one particular issue, and that's gambling reform. Many have shared their stories of how this scourge of gambling has ruined families and friendships and how they or a loved one had lost everything through gambling. Sadly, it's never been faster or easier for Australians to lose money in gambling. We now outspend the citizens of every other country on online gambling. I've also heard from parents and teachers about how kids are talking in the schoolyard about the betting odds. One parent even let me know that there's a 16-year-old already gambling online at the high school he sends his kids to. As a father, the effect that normalising gambling has on our kids hits particularly close to home and particularly hard. I love sitting down and watching the footy with the kids, but I absolutely hate that there's this inundation of gambling advertising when we're watching during the ad breaks. Before I entered this place, I worked as an executive at SBS and I was part of the team that removed gambling advertising during the A-League soccer games at half-time and before the game. That was strong action at the time, and it was needed to reduce the harms caused by gambling advertising. Our government has proposed restrictions on gambling advertising that is particularly targeted towards preventing the normalisation of gambling amongst children. Our legislation does so by restricting gambling advertising to three per hour between 6 am and 8.30 pm, with no radio advertising during school pick-up and drop-off times. These reforms represent the strongest national restrictions on gambling advertising that Australia has ever seen. I wish they had happened earlier, many years ago. But I don't think our work should end here. I want to see these reforms being the best possible reforms going forward and being built upon. I want to see further action, not just for my kids but for the people I represent, and I'll keep pushing hard to achieve exactly that. Many of us were very good friends with the late Peta Murphy. She was a wonderful person. She was a wonderful representative. She did some remarkable work on gambling reform and on gambling reform policy. She fundamentally called on us to be ambitious in doing that work, and I think that's because she understood that not only do we owe it to our kids to be ambitious but also we owe it to our communities and we owe it to the Australian people we represent. With Peta's example, we need to get this reform done, get it through this parliament and build upon it in the coming years. New England Electorate: Coalmining 87 16:05 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise today to talk about two issues. I was speaking to management in the coalmining industry in the Hunter Valley, at Muswellbrook, and they talked about how their future and the capacity to provide prosperity and wages for the people have been decimated by policies such as the safeguard mechanism. They said that if this is the process going forward, then people are going to lose their jobs. No jobs have been provided as alternatives—the so-called promise of intermittent power, the so-called renewables jobs. It's a fantasy. It never happened. The idea that power prices would go down—it never happened. The idea that somehow there'd be community benefit—it has never happened. I was also speaking to the workers, who work in the mines, at dinner. They were quite clear that the Labor Party has deserted labourers. It no longer believes in labourers. It no longer believes in the opportunity that was provided by the mining industry where an apprentice could start on about $120,000 a year—something that even my daughter, as a doctor, couldn't start on; it's an incredible opportunity that is now being lost. These workers are furious about it, because the views of other people—predominantly people who have had a different life experience—have been virtue-smuggled to take away their opportunity. We've also seen now that this has grown into other areas, where not only has the coalmining industry been decimated but also Tomago smelter has not been offered a rescue package, and the people of the Hunter Valley who were associated with that aluminium smelter and were part of the work of that aluminium smelter have been given no lifeline; they've just been thrown on the scrap heap. There is nothing in the budget that said they were going to fix up Tomago smelter. And they can't go on, because our energy prices are ridiculous. It doesn't matter what the rhetoric is around here; I'll tell you who understands the nation's power policy, or the Labor Party's power policy, better than anyone else: it's the people who use a lot of energy. Rio uses an awful lot of energy and had an assessment on our intermittent power crusade and said, quite simply, 'We're leaving.' And they're going with all our other heavy industry—our glass industry, our plastics industry; it's all going. During the break I had an opportunity to go to England. It is butchered. The economy is butchered. It's the same thing: they went down the intermittent power path and they deindustrialised, and now the economy is finished. Their social security spend is equivalent to their tax take. In Germany the same thing has happened. Yet we naively think we're going to be different. We're not. We're not going to change the weather. We're not going to do anything to the climate. We are going to send people broke. We're going to make this nation weaker. And we're going to cause massive hurt to the poorest people in Australia, because they're the people who struggle the most with that incredible thing called the price of power. Bullwinkel Electorate: Housing 88 16:08 Dr COOK 312871 Bullwinkel Housing is central to the security and dignity of every Australian. It is the foundation upon which families build their lives, careers are launched and communities thrive. Over the past few days I sought direct feedback from constituents across Bullwinkel to hear what policies matter to them most, and housing stood out above all else. Alethea from Wattle Grove captured it brilliantly, sharing with me: Home ownership allows people to become invested in their community and society. Alethea is spot on. When people have a secure, permanent roof over their heads our entire region benefits. That's why I'm proud that right now 1,841 constituents in Bullwinkel have been able to buy their first home thanks to our expanded five per cent First Home Guarantee scheme. In Bullwinkel, we're also seeing tangible results from our landmark Housing Australia Future Fund. I recently visited 19 brand new social and affordable homes that had been completed in High Wycombe in the Perth Hills. That's 19 safe havens delivered directly through our national housing agenda. At the same time, we're ensuring the system is fair for everyday buyers. Marcia from Kalamunda told me that she's been waiting since 2019 for reforms to negative gearing and was delighted that Labor had the resolve to deliver. By reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount to incentivise new builds, we're ensuring investment flows into expanding supply rather than pricing local families out of the market. Whether it's through our target to build 1.2 million homes, expanding rent assistance or unlocking structural reform, our focus is clear. The contrast could not be starker. So that's 1,841 local first home buyers in Bullwinkel getting their keys, and we're building 19 new social and affordable homes in High Wycombe while the coalition, after a decade of neglect, built 373 social homes nationwide in 10 years. Our Labor government is delivering. We are fixing the foundations of our housing market, we're listening to our community and we're delivering real and lasting relief. Going back to Alethea from Wattle Grove, she said: Home ownership allows people to become invested in their community and society. Medical Workforce 88 16:11 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I recently attended the official opening of the state-of-the-art CSU Newmont Simulation Centre and Immersion Room at the Bloomfield Medical Centre in Orange. Thanks to a generous $1.5 million investment from Newmont's community investment program our future doctors, nurses and paramedics now have access to cutting-edge medical training in the Central West. The facility features a 19.5-metre wraparound LED immersion screen, advanced interactive patient mannequins and simulated operating theatres and emergency wards. This allows students to practice complex trauma and disaster scenarios in safe, realistic settings without having to leave Orange. This was a true community effort. From Newmont, I wish to thank General Manager Lori Douglas, Leesa King, Nicole Morris and Melissa O'Brien. From Charles Sturt University, my thanks goes to Vice-Chancellor, Professor Renée Leon; Dean of the School of Rural Medicine, Professor Jacqueline Epps; and the team, including Justine Brindle, Damian Limberger, Lesley Forster, SB Shanker, Steven Cook, Jason Poposki, Linda Harvey and Sarah Ansell. I also acknowledge the hardworking facilities team: Mark Aitcheson, Brendon Post, Blake Edwards and Robert Shaw. We all know that, if you train doctors in the bush, they stay in the bush, and last November I welcomed the 10 additional medical places awarded to Charles Sturt University's medical school. If the government is serious about fixing the rural doctor shortage, we've got to back our rural medical schools like CSU. That's why it was so infuriating when just last week the government handed out another 50 medical places across eight universities and CSU missed out entirely. What's going on here? It also failed to extend prac payments to medical students. So I call on the government to fund more medical places for our students at Charles Sturt University and extend prac payments to our medical students so we can build the vibrant rural and regional healthcare workforce Australia so desperately needs. While they're at it, the federal government needs to urgently address the looming crisis of speciality training places for junior doctors. We need our graduates trained and employed. Progression into specialty training has collapsed. The share of junior doctors entering training each year fell from 52 per cent in 2018 to 33 per cent in 2024. Medical student Josh Gaul, who is Vice-Chair of the New South Wales Medical Students' Council, has come up with a solution. Firstly, prioritise Australian trained graduates for speciality training. They should get priority, not overseas trained doctors. Secondly, international doctors who are already practising here should be grandfathered. Thirdly, the number of training places should be expanded by at least 1,150 per year from 2027. This is a serious issue facing all communities across Australia, and the government needs to act now. Melbourne Electorate: Acknowledgments 89 16:14 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne One of the great privileges of representing Melbourne is meeting the organisations and community leaders who work every day to create opportunities for others. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit two organisations that reflect the very best of our community—Good Cycles in North Melbourne and Jump Left in the CBD. While they work in different ways, both are driven by a simple idea: that everyone deserves the chance to participate, contribute and thrive. Located in North Melbourne, Good Cycles is a social enterprise focused on creating employment opportunities for young people facing barriers to work, championed by their CEO, Kirra, and her incredible team. From short-term work to training and employment pathways, Good Cycles has helped over 800 young people into employment since it started in 2013. When asked if I would run for the seat of Melbourne, one of the reasons I said yes was so I could champion young people to get the best start in life. Organisations like Good Cycles are ensuring that every young person has the hand up they need to get a good start to their work life. In the beautiful heritage building Donkey Wheel House in Melbourne, you will find many different organisations working to improve people's lives. You'll also find Jump Left, an art studio founded by Sim Luttin. Sim is doing incredible work creating opportunities for artists with disabilities. A safe space for people to express their creativity alongside others and that welcomes their uniqueness, Jump Left shows that we are at our best when we are inclusive and open to our differences. It was great to meet the artists and hear about how important these kinds of places are to their lives. Melbourne is a creative heart of our country and organisations like Jump Left help ensure it remains that way by creating spaces where everyone can participate and belong. Good Cycles and Jump Left are just two examples of the extraordinary work taking place right across Melbourne. I'm proud to represent an electorate that is home to social enterprises, community organisations and charities working every day to improve people's lives and strengthen our community. These organisations reflect the values that make Melbourne such a special place: compassion, creativity, inclusion and a commitment to help others succeed. To everyone at Good Cycles and Jump Left, thank you for the work you do. The opportunities you create, the support you provide and the communities you build are making a real difference in people's lives and help make Melbourne an even better place to call home. Page Electorate: Acknowledgements, Beekeeping Industry: Food Security 89 16:17 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to congratulate the Lismore Swans AFL team on defeating the Ballina Bombers to win the 2026 Northern Rivers AFL Premiership. This is the Swans' first premiership since 2011. Following the 2022 flood, the club was unable to field a team for two seasons. In the years between 2011 and the 2026 premiership, there was a three year period where the Swans did not win a single game. This is a fantastic achievement for the club and well deserved. I want to congratulate the coaches Nick Jackson, Ben Weatherhead, Tim Whalan and the players Brendan, Jack, Otto, Tim, Geoff, Dylan, Tom, Jackson, Josh, Lucas, Austin, Clay, Jarrod, Lochlan, Michael, Blake, Eoghan, Hafis, Jerone, Shayne, Zach, Matthew, Dylan and Daniel. The premiership is a great comeback story. Congratulations to everyone who has played a part in bringing the Swans back to the top. I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate Ruth Everuss on a lifetime of outstanding achievement and service to the sport of swimming. For the last 24 years, Ruth has been the driving force behind the Maclean Manta Ray Swimming Club, dedicating countless hours to developing young swimmers within the Clarence Valley. Ruth moved from Auburn to the Clarence Valley in 2002 and, after swimming at the pool, was asked if she would coach the learn to swim program. Ruth represented Australia at the 1960 Rome Olympic Games, winning a silver medal in the 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay, and went on to win Commonwealth Games gold in 1962. In recognition of her extraordinary contribution to swimming, in 2002 the Auburn Aquatic Centre was renamed the Auburn Ruth Everuss Aquatic Centre and in 2025 Ruth was awarded life membership of Swimming New South Wales, one of the highest honours the organisation can bestow. Congratulations, Ruth, on everything you've achieved and thank you for the time, care and support you continue to give young swimmers through the Maclean Manta Rays. As Ruth's favourite saying goes, 'Perfect practice makes perfect.' I'd like to sound the alarm about a growing threat to Australia's food security. I recently met with commercial beekeepers who are worried about the future of their industry. Their message was simple: the varroa mite is no longer just a problem for bees and honey producers; it is becoming a serious threat to Australia's food security. I am calling on this government for more practical and affordable solutions for our commercial beekeepers. This is an industry we cannot afford to lose. McLaren, Lachlan 90 16:20 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to recognise the life of Lachlan McLaren, the important work of the Lachlan McLaren Foundation and the remarkable strength of Lachie's family, friends and community. Lachie was a much-loved young man from Melbourne's Bayside community but died tragically after being struck by a car on 15 August 2021, his 16th birthday. His death was a devastating loss for his family, his friends and the wider Bayside community. He attended Mentone Grammar, in my electorate of Isaacs, where he was a valued member of the school community. He was a year 10 student, a keen basketballer with the Parkdale Pacers and a member of the Australian Army Cadets. He was known for his energy, courage and the care that he showed to others. In the months that followed Lachie's passing, his family and friends looked for ways to come together in his memory. From that shared grief, Lachie's Walk was established. What began as a personal act of remembrance has grown into an annual community event along the Mentone foreshore, bringing hundreds of people together to remember Lachie. Lachie's Walk keeps his memory alive while raising funds to support young people, families affected by road trauma and local organisations that reflect his kindness and commitment to others. I've twice joined Lachie's Walk with his family, friends and hundreds of members of our community. Every walk is filled with sadness but also with deeply felt warmth, generosity and a clear determination that Lachie's life will continue to make a difference. Just last week, for the third year in a row, the Bayside community once again came together for Lachie's Walk. That same commitment to Lachie's memory led to the establishment of the Lachlan McLaren Foundation, which carries his legacy forward by supporting young people and families in the community. The strength and generosity shown by the McLaren family in the years since Lachie's death have been extraordinary. They've created an enduring tribute to the qualities that defined Lachie: kindness, inclusion, courage and concern for those around him. I acknowledge Lachie's family, his friends, the volunteers and every person who has supported Lachie's Walk and the foundation. Lachie's memory will continue through the people who walk in his name and every young person given a better opportunity through his foundation. The Plastic Country, Taren Point Titans, Noun, Dr Tony 90 16:23 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I'd like to congratulate Sutherland Shire councillor, environmentalist and good local citizen Kal Glanznig on the release of his new documentary The Plastic Country. Kal's commitment to protecting our oceans began in Cronulla and it has now grown into a full national campaign. His film follows the impact of plastic pollution from our local beaches to remote communities, wildlife hospitals and Parliament House. It also highlights the impact of plastic pollution on human health and Kal's own health. Importantly, The Plastic Country does more than highlight the scale of the problem. Kal, true to his nature, focuses on practical solutions and Australians already working to reduce plastic pollution, protect our environment and protect their health from plastic harms. Congratulations, Kal. I congratulate the Taren Point Titans junior rugby league football club on being named the 2026 New South Wales Community Rugby League Club of the Year. This recognition celebrates far more than the success that they have had on the field; it recognises a club that is building respect, inclusion and community through grassroots sports. The Titans' culture and heritage round brought together more than 180 people. It celebrated the backgrounds of local families through 38 flags and through food, dance and cultural ceremonies. I'd like to congratulate club president, Jay Te Wao, who was named the 2026 central Sydney volunteer of the year. Jay is not only the president; he serves as gear steward, first-aid officer and ground manager while helping prepare and pack down the field each week. Congratulations, Jay. Congratulations to the coaches, the players, the parents, every volunteer—I know there are many at Taren Point Titans—and especially the rest of the executive: secretary, Leah McGregor; senior vice-president, Kane McGregor; vice-president, Caine Chin Poy; treasurer, Louise Kubina; and assistant secretary, Kim Chin Poy. I want to recognise Tony Noun for the important role he has played in strengthening cancer care in the Sutherland Shire. For almost 15 years, Cancer Care Southside has provided vital support and treatment for local patients. Now, that work is entering a new chapter, with plans for a comprehensive radiation oncology service in the Sutherland Hospital precinct, using state-of-the-art technology. Tony, I thank you for the lives you're saving in the Sutherland Shire, I thank you for the investment in the Sutherland Shire and I thank you for what you've done not only for the Sutherland Shire but at cancer clinics all around the country. I'm proud to know you and proud to call you a friend. Thank you. You're a great Australian. Disaster and Emergency Management 91 16:26 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond The Albanese Labor government is delivering another important investment in my electorate of Richmond, on the far-north coast of New South Wales—in this case, ensuring our communities are kept safe, connected and informed during natural disasters. Of course, locals in my area know how important it is to stay connected during natural disasters and emergencies. It's essential for our emergency services to have reliable ways to coordinate their responses and that communities have access to trusted information and updates. One of the biggest issues we faced during the terrible 2022 floods was a lack of communication both during the floods themselves—no phones, no internet—and in the immediate aftermath, when we had, at evacuation centres, no connection at all. There was no mobile connection and no communication. All of this severely hampered our community's rescue, recovery and rebuilding efforts. We have, of course, continued to build back better, and that's why I was really pleased to announce recently that our government is again strengthening disaster communications right across our area. We're rolling out an additional 17 NBN Sky Muster satellite services at evacuation and relief centres under the Strengthening Telecommunications Against Natural Disasters program—or STAND, as it's known. The NBN Sky Muster satellite services will provide vital satellite backed wi-fi connectivity when traditional, ground based communications networks are disrupted or unavailable. They'll provide connectivity to emergency services and community members during these terrible natural disasters. These new services will be installed at key community facilities across the area, and they build on the 11 STAND services that we've already had installed at evacuation centres and emergency coordination points right across the Northern Rivers. This is all part of the government's $9 million investment to extend existing services and roll out additional sites in priority areas at risk of natural disasters. These sites have all been identified in collaboration with state and local governments. Importantly, this investment recognises that reliable comms is an essential service. During emergencies, being able to access information, seek assistance and communicate with emergency services makes a significant difference to people's safety. This initiative is one of the many ways that our government is building stronger, more resilient telecommunications networks right across the country. We're also strengthening telecommunications infrastructure with the Mobile Network Hardening Program and through our Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation as well. This is so important for regional communities like mine, so we're investing in a range of practical measures that will keep us connected and informed when it absolutely matters most. I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that is delivering the communications and infrastructure that our region needs and that others right throughout the country need, boosting resilience, improving coverage and keeping communities safe, connected and informed during times of crisis. Men, Boys and Dads Forum 91 16:29 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise today to speak about an important community forum held in Rockhampton on Monday 3 August: the Men, Boys and Dads Forum. I was pleased to host this forum in Capricornia alongside the Leader of the Nationals, Senator Matt Canavan, and the shadow special envoy for men and boys, Member for Wide Bay Llew O'Brien. It was a chance for local men, fathers, families, and community leaders to come together and speak frankly about the challenges facing men and boys in regional Australia. Too often, these issues are overlooked or treated as though they are somehow in competition with the struggles faced by others. But supporting one group should never mean ignoring another. We can support women and girls while also recognising that men and boys are facing real and serious challenges in health, education, family life and employment. At the forum we heard about the pressure many men are under, particularly in regional communities where distance, financial stress and limited access to services can make it harder to ask for help. We spoke about family law, mental health, educational outcomes, workforce participation and the importance of strong role models for young men. The member for Wide Bay brings deep understanding to this role. Before entering this parliament, he served as a police officer and has seen firsthand what can happen when men are isolated, unsupported or left behind. His work as the shadow special envoy for men and boys is about listening, learning and developing ideas that can make a real difference in communities like mine, with the information gathered through forums like this helping to shape policy in the lead-up to the next election so the voices of men, boys and dads in regional Australia are heard. Australia has done strong work in advocating for women's issues and that must continue. But we can also have an honest conversation about male disadvantage, including suicide, chronic disease, life expectancy and boys falling behind at school. One of the most confronting facts is that male suicide rates in Australia remain far too high. Of the 3,307 Australians who died by suicide in 2024, 2,529 were males—more than three-quarters of the total. Last year, the number of men and boys who took their own lives was almost double the national road toll. Behind every statistic is a son, a father, a husband, a brother, a workmate or a friend. Across Capricornia, people know the value of mateship, but too many men still suffer in silence. That is why forums like this matter. They give people permission to speak openly. They help connect local organisations, services and families, but most importantly they remind men and boys that their lives, their worries and their futures matter. I want to thank everyone who attended the Rockhampton forum and shared their experiences, and I'd like to thank the member for Wide Bay and Senator Matt Canavan for taking this conversation seriously and bringing it to regional communities. If we want strong families and strong communities, we need strong support for men, boys and dads. Public Broadcasting, Medicare 92 16:32 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt There is nothing quite like the FIFA World Cup for bringing people together, and, for six unforgettable weeks, that is exactly what we saw across Australia. Alarm clocks were set, lounge rooms lit up before sunrise and pubs filled across the country. Millions shared the same nerves, the same hope and the same roar, and SBS made it possible. For 40 years, SBS has been the home of the FIFA World Cup in Australia, and this year all 104 matches were once again broadcast live and free. The statistics are staggering: a record 18 million Australians, 64 per cent of our population, tuned in, consuming more than 209 million hours of coverage. We saw 4.87 million people cheering on the Socceroos against Paraguay, while 5.26 million watched the final between Spain and Argentina. This is public broadcasting at its absolute best. The true measure of this tournament was never about the stats; it was about Australians from every corner of life coming together to cheer for the green and gold. We celebrated every Socceroos moment, and we shared the collective heartbreak when our campaign ended against Egypt in a penalty shoot out. On the pitch, we saw a team that reflected the nation cheering them on: different backgrounds, different journeys; one jersey and one proud Aussie team. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of SBS group, I want to thank the presenters, commentators, crew and everyone behind the scenes who brought the world game into our homes. Last month I visited Botanic Ridge Doctors, a fantastic local practice providing quality health care to families across Botanic Ridge and surrounding communities. I met with Dr Faisal, Dr Khawaja, practice manager Tenille and their dedicated team of GPs—allied health professionals who have been serving our community since 2022. Botanic Ridge Doctors is one of 28 practices in Holt offering bulk-billing, helping to ensure that cost is never a barrier to seeing a doctor. Thanks to this Albanese Labor government's record investment in Medicare, Australians can now see a GP for free at more than 3,800 clinics across the country. I'm incredibly proud to say that, in Holt, our bulk-billing rate has now reached 94.8 per cent. For our local families that means better access to health care closer to home without financial stress—because, when you need to see a doctor, you should only need your Medicare card and not your credit card. Cybersafety 93 16:35 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise to acknowledge the important Scamwatch event that was run in my electorate. My colleague the member for Berowra and I hosted a community forum mostly targeting people over 50, and we had about 600 people come along to hear about the increasingly important issue of scams—all kinds of scams, mainly financial but also romance and other scams—to the community. It's a sad fact that $2 billion a year is now lost by Australians to scams. The presentation, from scam awareness expert Mr Charles Fellner, the Hills Police and others, at our local Castle Hill RSL was incredibly well received. Six hundred people attended, and I had to turn away a few hundred as well, so we'll be doing another one. I want to thank those people that did turn up for their willingness to step forward when asked and speak, unprompted and unwarned, about the scams they'd experienced. It was kind of chilling to see people who had worked their whole lives to set themselves up get up and admit to being romance scammed or admit, in front of 600 people they didn't know, the things that they had fallen for. However, we learnt and we know, and the government understands, that these are not kids in rooms making up things to try to get money off people. These are sophisticated transnational criminal gangs targeting Australians 24/7. It's a huge issue. The Assistant Treasurer in the last parliament took this very seriously, and there was Scamwatch. Scamwatch is a good step forward that was introduced by a coalition government and taken further by the Albanese government, but I encourage the government to continue to properly resource our police and justice agencies so they can proactively investigate these crimes, not just report them, they can take down sites in real time where scams have been identified and they can further protect people from these billions of dollars of losses all the time, with proactive and current policing. We need those resources at the federal level because these are transnational crimes. Most of the time these are people offshore scamming Australians primarily. The Australian Federal Police recently released a list in the Daily Telegraph of 25 common scammer tactics targeting Australians. They include romance scams and scammers impersonating government agencies and trusted organisations. This list of 25 things that the AFP put out is a fantastic resource just on its own, but we have to acknowledge that, whilst the member for Berowra and I targeted people over 50, scams are now affecting everybody, at all ages, all of the time. I've met with several people this year about scams, and I was sad to get an email from a woman, just when I sent out these invitations, who'd been scammed out of $220,000. This is a critical issue, I'd say to the government. Australians are losing a lot of money. We are vulnerable to overseas transnational crime, and I ask for the government to keep resourcing and adapting the law to be proactive so we can get onto these crimes and, in real time, address scams, rather than trying to police them retrospectively. Domestic and Family Violence 93 16:38 Ms FRANCE 270198 Dickson Women escaping domestic violence often just leave with themselves and their children and the clothes on their backs. Rebuilding a life from there is bloody hard. It takes years. It's exhausting and expensive. I've sat with many women in my community of Dickson who've described that very experience of trying to start again, and it's hard. It's so hard that sometimes many return either because they can't find a roof to put over their head or they can't afford to give their kids the clothes, the food and the comforts they once had. An empty house with no beds, no fridge and no table for the kids to eat at is not a fresh start. It's heartbreaking. One simple yet powerful support is to provide household essentials that turn four walls into a home. That's what RizeUp does. Many South-East Queenslanders know RizeUp and the incredible work that they do in my electorate of Dickson and many, many others. RizeUp is a not-for-profit that works hand in hand with frontline domestic violence services to fill a home with kitchen basics, beds, towels and toys. Within hours of a referral, their volunteers take an empty house or unit and set it up completely for a family that is about to move in—furniture, appliances, beds made up, a full pantry, toiletries and a bedroom for a kids, right down to what the little ones need to start life at a new school. RizeUp began in Queensland but has grown into a national movement of volunteers and donors, and it's been doing this work for a decade. I recently had the chance to help set up one of these incredible homes with the RizeUp team in my electorate of Dickson. It was amazing to watch an empty residence turn into a fully furnished home in a matter of hours, all thanks to volunteers and organisations donating furniture and money so that furniture could be bought. Helping turn that blank space into a home and knowing a local mum and her kids are now sleeping there safely was so good for my mental health, but, obviously, a turning point in all of their lives. It's safety, and, for some families, it means they don't go back to that violence. As of today, RizeUp has created 3,668 homes across the country. To CEO Nicole Edwards and everyone at RizeUp—the staff, the volunteers and the donors, who give what they can—I say thank you for the vital work that you do. I love organisations like RizeUp who are working in Dickson and right around the country to support women and families fleeing domestic violence. They always need more volunteers, so please help out if you can. Forster Arts and Craft Centre, Albanese Government 94 16:41 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne On Saturday, I had the pleasure of joining members of the Forster Arts and Craft Centre at a morning tea to celebrate its 60th anniversary. What began in 1966 with just 11 members has grown into a wonderful local institution of hundreds of members. The journey has taken hard work beyond the craft table, with an enormous fundraising effort in the 1980s to move from the old casino building near the bullring to the centre's current home on Breese Parade. It was particularly special to see Noni Pratt given the honour of cutting the anniversary cake, and I acknowledge current president, Linda Sawyer, for her leadership in keeping the centre thriving. From pottery, jewellery, textiles, art and so much more, it's a place that warms your creative heart and you never, ever leave empty handed. Congratulations to every member and volunteer past and present who has contributed to the creative spirit of the centre. Happy 60th anniversary, and here's to the next 60. Walk down any CBD in my electorate, and you'll see the mounting empty shops, the small businesses closing up and putting off staff, the lines for local soup kitchens, the struggle to find somewhere to live and the homelessness. These are the markers of an Australia that is going backwards, of a nation in decline—a decline that has been brought to you by the Albanese Labor government. They can try to spin the truth all they want; the latest ABS figures don't lie. Inflation is still running at 3.8 per cent. Housing costs are up 6.8 per cent in a year. Rents are up. The living costs faced by age pensioners have risen 4.7 per cent in just 12 months, and don't let me get started on energy costs. These aren't numbers on a spreadsheet; these are real people deciding what they have to go without. Yet the Albanese government's answer is more spending and more taxes. Their solution is to tax Australians trying to build a better future for themselves, their kids and their grandkids. This is not an economic plan; this is an attack on aspiration. Australians are sick of being told everything is fine when their own bank accounts tell them otherwise. Unlike Labor, the Nationals have a plan—a plan guided by our vision for Australia, a plan for cheaper power, lower taxes and less migration. We'll reverse Labor's new taxes and index income tax brackets to inflation. We'll scrap net zero and use all of our energy resources to drive down power prices. We'll bring migration back to sustainable levels, back Australian manufacturing and build the productive infrastructure regional Australia needs. We want an Australia that Australians can see themselves in. Labor is swiftly stealing that Australia away. With my colleagues, I'm fighting to get it back. Werriwa Electorate: Community Events 94 16:44 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The electorate of Werriwa is home to people who've come from all over the world seeking safety, prosperity and opportunities for themselves and their children. Every business and school reflects names from all over the world. Their choice to settle in south-west Sydney has enriched our community. They are our volunteers—they run our sporting clubs—and they have been doing this for decades in peace, harmony and service to our community. But there is rapid growth, which brings a great deal of opportunity and excitement but also its fair share of challenges. In my role as local member, one of my key tasks is to make sure that the community has the services and infrastructure it requires. In the last few weeks, I have been able to attend many events that demonstrate again just how wonderful and diverse the community is. Recently I attended, with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the opening of a new community centre for St Yosip's in Leppington. The hall at St Yosip's will provide community spaces for an area not yet well serviced by such facilities. Last week it was my honour to lay the first brick, with the member for Watson and Bishop Tarabay, at St Rafqa's Maronite Church in Austral. The new building will provide the fast-growing suburb of Austral with community facilities that are very much needed. Over the last few years, Austral has been transformed from market gardens, chicken farms and tomato farms to homes for many families. As in many areas, infrastructure and community facilities have not kept up. The Albanese government has invested billions of dollars in the area, with the NSW government and councils, to give the support the people who live there need. Funding for local parks and $1.4 billion for roads like Fifteenth Avenue have already been committed. Last Friday it was my pleasure to attend the opening of new school buildings at St Anthony of Padua Catholic College. Good education is particularly important in our community, and having schools that provide opportunities near the new developments and housing is also very important. The school community was joined by the Premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, and local members Nathan Hagarty and Sally Quinnell. It was a privilege to represent the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and to acknowledge the more than $12 million contribution by the Australian government. The Albanese government is continuing to provide real financial support to my community, which was ignored for far too long by previous governments. Cowra Breakout: 82nd Anniversary 95 16:47 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Relations between Australia and Japan have been in the news in recent days, but I want to assure the House and the parliament that relations between Tokyo and Cowra, that city of friendship and peace—it's a town, actually, but one day it will be a city; it's a fine place with fine people—are very strong. Cowra and Tokyo are separated by 7,787 kilometres, but the bridge of friendship has never been stronger. This was on full show on 5 August last week, the 82nd anniversary of the Cowra prisoner-of-war breakout. This was the largest land battle in Australia ever. Certainly, in World War II it was the largest prisoner-of-war breakout. And that goes for anywhere in the world in history. What happened that night was that hundreds upon hundreds of Japanese in the internment camp broke out. But what followed was quite extraordinary. And you would not have expected this after World War II, where there were—let's face it—atrocities committed by the Japanese against Australia, particularly at Sandakan, Changi, Hellfire Pass and other places: the bonds of friendship and peace were extended. The olive branch was, very much, firmly put, and those graves at Cowra were so well looked after by the ex-servicemen. It's quite extraordinary. Each and every August, Cowra commemorate—I would even go as far as to say 'celebrate'—their strong association with Japan, as well they might. They've had a student exchange program going since the late sixties. The peace bell there is an absolute honour to gong. And I have to say, I do applaud not only the Cowra Council, led so well by Mayor Paul Smith and his deputy, Nikki Kiss, but also members of the Cowra Breakout Association, headed by President Lyndell Rolls. I also applaud the Japanese dignitaries who so often attend, and this time it was the Vice Consul for Japan, Ms Miku Takahashi. She and others very much took part in this wonderful ceremony. There are many wreath laying events. It's conducted with such dignity and respect, and all Australia could learn a lot from how Cowra goes about this, particularly now, as we have a national discussion about multiculturalism. I think the bonds of friendship that Cowra showed could teach Australians a great deal about what it means to be peace loving. Landcare Week, Moore Electorate: Volunteers 95 16:50 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore ():  Last week was Landcare Week, and there is no better time to recognise two patches of Moore that local people have turned into something pretty special. Landcare Week is a chance to thank Australians who have rolled up their sleeves to look after the places where they live, and Moore has plenty of them. Let me start at Padbury. It was great to join Sandy, Sue and the rest of the Padbury Community Garden crew with my partner, Clare, and the boys for some French toast—the brekkie of champions—before dropping off some kitchen scraps and lending a hand at the worm farm. There is a real buzz about the place. People turn up, get their hands dirty, pitch in, swap a few tips over the veggie beds and spend some time with their neighbours. I also learned that worms are surprisingly fussy eaters. Onion, citrus, dairy and meat are all off the menu. The boys probably took more interest in the worms than they did with their dad explaining that the importance of composting, which is probably fair enough! The Padbury Community Garden has also secured a multicultural grassroots grant through the highly competitive national round, and it is well deserved. The garden is not just somewhere to grow vegetables and fruit; it is somewhere for people to meet, share knowledge, make connections and become part of their community. And that only happens because people keep turning up and doing their bit. From Padbury, I want to head to Edgewater and recognise John Tostevin. John is over 80 years old, and what he and his neighbours have accomplished is absolutely remarkable. Between 30 and 32 Lakeview Drive, there was once an overlooked, weed filled patch of land. John saw what it could become. After three years of persistence and planning, he and his team were able to start work on what has become the Lakeview Contemplation Garden. Eighteen months later, it is thriving, with more than 400 native plants in the ground, and it works because the locals keep showing up. They attend the busy bees. They take their turns on the watering roster and keep the place going week after week. Someone once put it to me this way: everyone wants to pick the fruit, but not everyone wants to do the pruning. John and the people around him are doing the pruning. I also want to acknowledge Beth Hewitt from the Edgewater Community Residents' Association, who has been a strong supporter of John and the garden. One of my favourite parts of this job is finding things like tucked in the ordinary corners of Moore. You do not always need a huge budget or a grand plan to make a difference. Sometimes you just need a patch of land, a good idea and a few people willing to give it a crack. That Landcare Week at its best: ordinary Australians looking after their own patch and leaving it better than when they found it. Moore is lucky to have plenty of people doing exactly that. Homelessness 96 16:53 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay As the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis continues to squeeze household budgets, families across Australia, including in my electorate of Lindsay, are being pushed to the edge. Most confronting of all, this now includes working mums and dads relying on local food banks to feed their families. The number of people sleeping rough across New South Wales has increased by 75 per cent since 2020. In Lindsay, more people are sleeping rough than many of us can remember. It is a confronting sign of how severe the housing crisis has become under this government—so much so that the Salvation Army is now warning homelessness has become a national emergency. The 2026 NSW Street Count identified 17 people experiencing street homelessness in the Penrith local government area, but homelessness is often hidden from view, taking the form of couch surfing, overcrowded housing, motel rooms and cars. We know just by seeing people sleeping rough on the streets that the numbers are significantly higher. Mission Australia's 2025 social justice stocktake paints a far more confronting picture, estimating that nearly 800 people were experiencing homelessness across my electorate and that our community is short of more than 5,200 homes. Yet only 2,467 dwellings have been approved for construction in the Penrith LGA since July 2024, so it's just not stacking up. At the same time, homelessness services are overwhelmed. In 2024-25, services across Australia were unable to meet almost 129,000 requests for assistance. That's an average of 353 people turned away every single day. Of those helped, about 117,000 were escaping family and domestic violence. In Lindsay, Paying It Forward has seen a 120 per cent increase in demand, with more working families seeking meals than ever before. Penrith Women's Health Centre is supporting a growing cohort of working mothers who are fleeing violence only to find themselves sleeping in their car because there is nowhere else to go. That is the human cost of the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis. Over 420,000 households are experiencing mortgage stress across our country. Nearly 70,000 households are waiting for social housing in New South Wales, including 2,100 in the Penrith LGA, where even priority applicants face a median wait of 3½ months. With a third of Australians just a few pay cheques away from being homeless, it is little wonder that confidence in the government's handling of housing and of the cost of living has completely evaporated. That's why during Homelessness Week 2026, my office stepped up to support local people doing it tough. I want to thank all the local charities that got on board for everything that you do every day. The generosity of our community represents the very best of Australia. We need this now more than ever because of this government. Count ME, Citizenship 96 16:56 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Count ME is Emerge Australia's campaign to make sure the community they represent is counted. Emerge's community consists of those impacted by ME/CFS, long COVID and overlapping energy-limiting conditions. Being counted matters. It's the difference between a condition the health system plans for and one it overlooks. It's the difference between research that gets funded and research that doesn't happen. It's the difference between a person whose experience is believed and one who has to fight to be taken seriously. Many Australians might be surprised to learn that more than 600,000 Australians are impacted by energy-limiting conditions each year. The Count ME initiative is all about this community being seen and being counted—counted in the data, counted in the health system and counted in the decisions that affect the community's lives. I recently had the privilege to meet with Anne Wilson, CEO of Emerge Australia, along with Jenny Meagher and Pete McCluskey. This was an opportunity to discuss their great work and their very important advocacy. It is really important that research and modern treatments are able to be accessed by people with energy-limiting conditions, and I will continue to support the group in their advocacy efforts. I want to thank Anne, Jenny and Pete for the generosity of their time and for educating me on the issues that matter to them. Australia is a proudly multicultural nation and one of the greatest privileges of being a local member of parliament is to attend citizenship ceremonies in the community. It's an honour to be part of the very special occasion where people make their commitment to our great nation and to all of the values that we hold dear. Whether it be a ceremony in Boroondara, Monash, Stonnington or Whitehorse, I see the shared care and contribution to community from new citizens. The journey is different for all of those who come to Australia. Some journeys are longer than others, but the commitment everyone has to making that pledge to this nation is defining. We have one of the strongest democracies in the world in one of the most successful multicultural nations on earth. The person-to-person connections made possible both within Australia and other nations because of our diverse population strengthen our own nation. We share with our neighbours in Australia, and it is a privilege to be included in many different cultural events and celebrations in Chisholm. I know that new citizens share their cultures with those around them, and these relationships are so generous and so important for ensuring that we can learn from one another. I congratulate all of those who have recently become citizens in Chisholm, and I look forward to attending future ceremonies in the electorate. BILLS 97 BILLS Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 97

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025

Second Reading 97 17:00 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 and the amendment. The coalition is pleased to support it. The bill establishes a registration scheme for carriage service providers, gives ACMA greater visibility over the estimated 1,500 operators in the Australian telecommunications market, makes industry codes directly enforceable, and removes the existing two-step enforcement process. Importantly, it also substantially increases the maximum penalty for breaches of industry codes and standards from $250,000 to $10 million, with a scope for even greater penalties depending on the benefit obtained or the turnover of the provider. These are significant reforms. When we are talking about compliance with rules governing triple zero, cybersecurity and scams, there must be consequences when providers fail to meet their obligations. I want to use my contribution today to talk about what consumer protection means to the people I represent in my electorate of Monash, because in regional Australia there is an even more fundamental telecommunications safeguard requirement: having a service that works and works properly. I've said this before in this place and I'll say it again: regional communications and digital connectivity are critical issues for my electorate. When I spoke on telecommunications in this place in September last year, I told the House about the experience of almost every South Gippslander I have spoken to. From Korumburra to Leongatha, every local knows the mobile phone black spots. From Leongatha to Meeniyan, they know these black spots. In fact, you can often be in the main street of Meeniyan with barely more than one bar of signal. Across the grassy spur to Foster, over the Hoddle hills, across Bass Coast to Phillip Island and right across West Gippsland, there are black spots. During the federal election campaign last year, the coalition announced $3 million to address mobile black spots across South Gippsland, West Gippsland and Bass Coast. I was proud to be able to secure that commitment as a then candidate. It was great to announce that funding outside Kelly's Bakery in Korumburra. We had the local florist along too—a fantastic small business. This issue isn't something I discovered in the last 12 months. I've been fighting for better telecommunications in the Gippsland region for a very long time. In fact, I initiated a digital connectivity master plan to tackle it years ago when I was at the Committee for Gippsland, and I've been fighting ever since. These challenges go back a long time in our region. In fact, I recently came across a submission from the Sandy Point Community Group dating back to 2014. More than a decade ago, that community was telling the Commonwealth that Sandy Point had very poor mobile phone and wireless internet services, with reception non-existent in some locations. I asked a local resident what her current lived experience was with the signal at Sandy Point today, 12 years later. Her description was simple—she said it was 'inconsistent'. More than a decade later, locals are still talking about the same fundamental problem. Seven years ago, the South Gippsland Sentinel-Times, a fantastic local newspaper in my electorate, asked its readers about mobile black spots, and readers did not hold back. Go back and read those comments today and what strikes you isn't how much things have improved; it's how much things haven't changed. It's how many could have been written yesterday—different towns, different roads and different providers but the same frustration, the same dropped calls and the same unreliable service. But there is one example that demonstrates better than any others why this matters, and that is Mirboo North. On 13 February 2024 a devastating storm tore through Mirboo North, in my electorate. Huge trees came down, homes and businesses were damaged, roads were blocked, powerlines were destroyed and, tragically, a local farmer lost his life. I again want to put on the record my thanks and appreciation for the local volunteers and emergency services, who worked overtime for weeks and weeks to serve residents and get the town back on its feet. Telecommunications that day disappeared. The official major incidents report records that Mirboo North progressively lost NBN, mobile and fixed-line telecommunications. Our community had just been hit by a catastrophic storm. People were checking whether their neighbours were still alive. Emergency services needed information. Families outside town desperately wanted to know whether their loved ones were safe, where their loved ones were—and people couldn't make a phone call. ABC Gippsland later spoke to Mirboo North resident Ruth about that experience. When the backup battery at the telecommunications tower ran out and fallen trees prevented access, phone and internet services went with it. More than 48 hours later, residents were still without power and telecommunications. Ruth described not being able to communicate, not knowing where her family members were or whether they were okay, and not knowing whether help was on its way. She also made an incredibly important point: emergency services cannot respond to what they don't know about. South Gippsland Shire's subsequent submission to the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee makes the situation even more confronting. The council reported that almost every township in the shire lost mobile coverage during the storm, including access to triple zero. In Leongatha, telecommunications took approximately 32 hours to restore, and in Mirboo North many residents went without triple zero access for around seven days until neighbouring towns returned and provided intermittent coverage—seven days. That's why I reject the idea that mobile black spots in regional Australia are just an inconvenience. They are a safety issue. They can be a life-and-death issue. They are an emergency management issue. They're an economic issue. And, increasingly, they're an essential-infrastructure issue. It was only when South Gippsland Shire was able to get a generator and Starlink into Mirboo North that residents could properly reconnect with each other and the outside world. That should concern every member of this House, because this bill, quite rightly, talks about protecting consumers when they dial triple zero. The need for reliable coverage was evident again with the recent Telstra software network outage. I want to acknowledge Telstra CEO Vicki Brady for reaching out directly to one of my constituents who had been unable to connect with triple zero during the recent outage. I thank Ms Brady. Farmers increasingly depend on connected technology, and people simply need confidence that if something goes wrong on a farm, on a country road or during a natural disaster their phone will work. Some regional families are paying for satellite services, such as Starlink, simply because they cannot have confidence in the telecommunications network available to them. In 2026 nobody should accept that a black spot is simply part of living in regional Australia. Telecommunications is a prime but not exclusive example of where regional communities like mine have been neglected by Labor governments. Yesterday we saw yet another example on the Princes Freeway near Longwarry. Motorists were left with damaged vehicles after hitting significant potholes on one of the major roads in my electorate. After four years of the Albanese government, there hasn't been a single new dollar invested in road funding in the Gippsland region on the Princes Highway, and that is not good enough. Our roads are crumbling. In a cost-of-living crisis, there have been tyres blown and rims wrecked, and people are left with bills at a time when they can least afford them. For the people I represent, this is becoming an all too familiar story. The member for Narracan, Wayne Farnham, and I are fighting as part of a team to address this. Whether it's a phone that drops out when you need it or the road beneath your car deteriorating to the point that it damages your vehicle, regional Australians are entitled to ask a pretty simple question: where is the basic infrastructure we are paying for? Where is it? Reliable regional telecommunications aren't a luxury. Safe roads aren't a luxury. The person standing beside their car with a damaged tyre on the Princes Freeway doesn't care about a political blame game. They just want their problem fixed. They want the road fixed. The farmer standing in a paddock without mobile reception, he or she doesn't want to hear that the coverage map says they should have a signal. They just want their phone to work. And the family trying to contact someone during an emergency doesn't care which department, regulator or government is responsible. They just need to be connected. I support the strongest consumer safeguards contained in this bill. I support giving ACMA the ability to act swiftly against telecommunications companies that do the wrong thing. I support substantially stronger penalties where providers fail consumers. But I will continue to make this point in this place: consumer protection must also mean protecting regional Australians who need to make a call. They are the farmer working alone; the small-business owner trying to take an order; the family driving between Korumburra and Leongatha; the resident at Sandy Point who has been talking about poor reception for more than a decade; and the family in Mirboo North standing among fallen trees and damaged homes after a catastrophic storm, desperately trying to find out whether their loved ones are safe. Regional Australians do not expect special treatment. They expect the basics, they expect fairness and they expect to be able to connect—a phone that works, a road that's safe, infrastructure they can rely on. While our communities continue to deal with telecommunications black spots and deteriorating roads, it's worth remembering that this Albanese Labor government has not invested a single dollar in a new road infrastructure project in the electorate of Monash. Regional Australians deserve better. There have been some contributions to the issue of emergency or disaster roaming in the context of these issues, and I want to make a couple of points. Of course, the majority of industry participants are moving towards that goal in a few months time, and I welcome that. As someone who represents a disaster prone regional electorate, I'm supportive of that principle. I would add that moving ahead of industry led regulation on that particular issue to mandate roaming provisions in an emergency or disaster restrained setting would be optimal, because, while many telcos are moving towards that goal, not all will be taking up that aspirational invitation. I also want to welcome the announcement by the ACCC to investigate regional communications levels, while also looking at radio access networks. The ACCC has completed at least three inquiries since the 2000s, and I would note that, each time, it has concluded on the issue of mandated domestic roaming that it would present a disincentive to invest in regional communications. That is just a fact. The current inquiry will, of course, be a fact finding mission, so I will not pre-empt the outcome of that. At face value, there are two main concerns raised on the topic of mandated domestic roaming. Shareholder wealth of one company invested in its own infrastructure should not be arbitrarily shared with a competitor, if indeed all of that investment in that infrastructure has come from that private company. The second point is the market signal that it sends on investment, particularly in regions like mine. I won't name the company, but I'm still offended by a telco ad filmed in the middle of the outback somewhere, where the actor essentially says: 'Come with us. We can offer you a cheaper plan because we're not wasting money on investing in woop woop areas like this.' That really illustrates my point. I don't want the telco companies that do invest in regional Australia to be penalised for doing so; I want them to be encouraged and incentivised to do so. Regional communications is a major issue for my electorate. It is a safety issue. It is an educational issue. It is an equality of outcome challenge for students at high school, university and TAFE for them to be able to complete the study and training opportunities that they engage with. Too often, I've spoken to a small-business owner who has said, 'I just missed that order because my phone dropped out.' That is not good enough. I firmly believe your postcode shouldn't determine your potential, and I will fight for better regional communications in my electorate of Monash. I will fight for better roads. I will fight for better healthcare outcomes. This is a seriously important issue for constituents in the Latrobe Valley, in Bass Coast, in South Gippsland and in West Gippsland. You deserve better; I'll stand up for you, and so will the coalition, to make sure you get the investment and services you deserve. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Lindsay has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 this bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026, Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026 99

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026

Cognate debate.

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

to which the following amendment was moved:

That the following words be added after paragraph (2):

"(3) further calls on the Government to:

release the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Implementation Advisory Group's final report and roadmap, that were provided to the Government in December 2025;

allocate funding in 2026-27 MYEFO to fund implementation of the HTA Methods and Policy Review; and

commission a National Medicines Security Review before negotiation of the next five-year strategic agreement with Medicines Australia, to assess Australia's dependence on imported medicines, lack of domestic manufacturing capability, thin medicines stockholding arrangements and vulnerabilities in our supply-chain".

17:16 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I advise the Federation Chamber that in the House it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026. 17:17 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith I want to begin by sharing the experience of a young man from West End in my community of Griffith. In January last year, he spent an entire weekend searching for somewhere to fill his script of quetiapine. Quetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic medicine used to treat conditions including psychosis, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. For this young man, it was the medicine that helped him manage psychotic symptoms and stay well. He and his psychiatrist had spent months adjusting his treatment. They had found the dose that worked for him, and he had seen real improvement in his health. Then he tried to fill his prescription. One pharmacy had no stock, nor did the next, nor the next. He kept searching across the entire weekend. After visiting 12 pharmacies, he finally secured enough tablets to last another week. But the only tablets available were 100 milligrams. To get the dosage right, he had no choice but to break tablets into two. The problem was that the extended release tablets are not supposed to be split. The 100 milligram tablets he had finally secured were not scored and could not be divided accurately. Even after finding a week's supply, he could not be sure he was taking the right dose. His remaining supply had already run so low that he had begun rationing his medication to try and make it last. His psychiatrist had not changed his treatment. His health needs had not changed. He had a valid prescription and had followed every part of his care plan. The medicine simply was not there. For a person managing symptoms, missed or reduced doses can have serious consequences. They can cause withdrawal effects, the return of symptoms and the risk of relapse. Searching for stock can be hard for anyone. It can be even harder for someone whose mental health is already under strain. This happened in West End in Brisbane within one of Australia's largest health and medical precincts. I've heard similar experiences from people trying to find ADHD medication. Some people have called pharmacy after pharmacy searching for stock while others have returned to their doctor and changed medicine purely due to what was available. That is a difficult way to make a treatment decision. ADHD medicines can have different doses, release patterns and effects across the day. Changing medicine may mean another appointment, another prescription and another period of adjustment. For children, an unplanned change can affect learning, behaviour and family routines. For adults, it can affect work, study, driving and everyday tasks. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, recorded shortages across several methylphenidate products during 2024 and 2025. While most have been resolved, some remain in short supply. These experiences show us why the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is needed. The response to a medicine shortage should begin before a patient reaches their final tablets. Patients need clear information. Pharmacists and doctors need time to plan. Hospitals need enough warning to protect people whose treatment cannot safely be interrupted. This bill implements several important public health measures in relation to the management of medicine shortages and discontinuations. Most people do not think about how their medicine reaches the local pharmacy, but pharmacies are often faced with long supply chains. A quality control problem at a factory, a delayed shipment or a shortage of an ingredient can affect patients thousands of kilometres away. Demand can rise quickly. A company can decide to stop supplying a product. While no government can prevent every factory fault or shipping delay, government can demand earlier warning and make sure information reaches the people planning the response. For a patient, a shortage may mean hours of calling pharmacies, extra travel and time away from work. It may mean paying for another appointment to obtain a new prescription. For a parent, it may mean searching for medicine needed by a child before school starts on Monday. For an older person, it may mean trying to navigate a change across several medicines and several doctors. A replacement medicine is not always a simple swap. A different strength may need new instructions. A different formulation may change how and when the medicine is taken. Another medicine may bring side effects or fail to control symptoms in the same way. Shortages place pressure on health workers too. Pharmacists spend hours contacting wholesalers and nearby stores. Doctors need to review treatment plans. A shortage of one brand can quickly increase demand for another. The alternative can then run short as well. Health workers need to see those pressures early before one supply problem spreads. Australia has required companies to report medicine shortages and permanent discontinuations since 2019. Companies must alert the TGA when certain prescription, controlled and non-prescription medicines are in short supply. A shortage with a critical impact must be reported within two working days. Other reportable shortages must be notified within 10 days. The TGA publishes shortage information and works with health professionals, companies and government on alternative supply. That work depends on accurate and timely information. Under this bill, pharmaceutical companies must give at least 12 months notice when they decide to permanently stop supplying a reportable medicine in Australia. If the decision is made less than 12 months before supply ends, the company must notify the TGA as soon as practicable. It must provide an update if the date changes or it decides to continue supply. Accurate information cannot be a one-off exercise. If a supply date changes, hospitals, wholesalers, pharmacists and doctors need to adjust their plans. That notice gives doctors time to review treatment and explain the options. Pharmacists can check stock, identify alternatives and contact affected patients. Hospitals can assess demand, secure available supply and prepare clinical advice. The extra time lets the TGA and governments examine alternative sources of supply before the remaining sources of stock are exhausted. For patients, it creates time for a planned and monitored change in treatment rather than an urgent search after a prescription cannot be filled. This bill gives the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing stronger powers to ask companies about medicines supply. Mandatory reporting currently covers certain medicines. Under this bill, the secretary can seek information from the company responsible for any approved medicine. The TGA can ask how much stock is available, how long it will last and when new supply may arrive. If one shortage increases demand for another product, the regulator can ask whether its supplier can meet that demand. The bill also updates the Medicines Watch List under section 30EJ of the Therapeutic Goods Act, which covers medicines whose shortage could put people at risk of death or serious illness with no suitable alternative. They are used in ambulances, emergency departments, maternity wards, clinics and homes. The list includes intravenous morphine and diazepam for emergency and critical care. It includes antivenenes for snakes, funnel-web spiders, box jellyfish and other venomous animals. It includes naloxone injections and nasal spray, which can temporarily reverse an opioid overdose. The list covers adrenaline autoinjectors, salbutamol inhalers, key antibiotics, vaccines and medicines used in obstetric emergencies. These medicines protect health and save lives across Australia. A break in supply could leave a paramedic, doctor, midwife or family without the treatment needed in a critical moment. The bill lets the watch list draw on source documents as they are updated, so it can keep pace with the changes in medicine name standards and clinical guidance. Griffith is home to one of Australia's leading health and medical precincts. Within a few kilometres, we have the Princess Alexandra Hospital, the Mater, the Queensland Children's Hospital, private hospitals, specialist clinics, universities and the Translational Research Institute. Around 17,000 people in Griffith work in health care and social assistance. That is about 11 per cent of our local workforce, the fourth-highest share of any electorate in the country. These workers see medicine shortages from every side. Our community pharmacists know which patient has been stable on the same medicines for years. They are often the person explaining that the usual brand or strength is unavailable. Our GPs and specialists know that changing treatment can bring uncertainty. They need time to speak with patients, consider their medical history and monitor any new medicine. Our hospital pharmacists manage medicines for some of the sickest patients in Queensland. A shortage can affect emergency care, surgery, cancer treatment and the management of complex conditions. Earlier information gives each of them more room to act. A hospital pharmacist can identify the patients at greatest risk. A specialist can decide whether a safe alternative exists. A GP can explain a different dose or formulation. A community pharmacist can contact patients before their supply runs out. The bill also places clear inspection powers for clinical trial sites in the Therapeutic Goods Act. Authorised officers can examine consent processes, clinical records, facilities and the way unapproved products are stored and used. These checks protect people who volunteer for trials and support confidence in the research taking place across Australia and in my community in Griffith. Clinical trials provide the evidence needed to assess new treatments, diagnostic tools and medical devices. They can give patients another option when existing treatments have not met their needs. In Griffith, I am so fortunate to have some of the world's leading medical research centres. The Translational Research Institute's Clinical Research Facility on the Princess Alexandra Hospital campus supports researcher led and commercially sponsored trials. It provides specialist facilities, staff and equipment to test new medicines, treatments and diagnostic tools. On the Queensland Children's Hospital campus, a purpose built facility within the Centre for Children's Health Research supports studies involving children, including low-risk research and phase 3 and phase 4 trials. Mater Research has more than 200 active clinical trials across nine areas of health care. These include studies of new medicines and medical devices, along with research led by the Mater, the University of Queensland and other institutions. Last week I was delighted to join with researchers at Mater and celebrate their work. Earlier this year the Australian government provided $2 million for seven research projects to improve care for some of our nation's smallest and most vulnerable babies. These projects show how research moves from an idea to better care in a hospital and why strong protections for every participant are so important. I'll just go through a few of the recipients of that funding. Dr Julie Wixey is advancing the Tiny Baby initiative, and its study will involve 2,400 extremely premature babies across eight countries to identify the safest oxygen levels in the first moments after birth. Dr Elizabeth Hurrion is preparing a trial for intravenous sodium sulfate that could help protect premature babies from cerebral palsy. And Professor Sailesh Kumar is developing a screening tool to identify babies affected by undetected placental problems. These projects and many more rely on babies, parents and families volunteering during a vulnerable time. The inspection powers in this bill help protect them and uphold the standards expected at every trial site. These checks protect participants and support the high standard of research taking place in Griffith and across Australia. Medicine needs to be affordable, and it needs to be available when a patient presents their prescription. The Albanese Labor government is working on both. From the first of this year, we cut the maximum PBS co-payment for general patients from $31.60 to $25. We froze the concessional co-payment at $7.70 until 2030. The PBS provides subsidised access to more than 900 medicines. These treatments support people living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, mental ill health and many other conditions. We have introduced 60-day prescriptions for eligible medicines. This saves patients time and money and reduces the number of trips needed to renew regular medicines. Since July 2022, people in Griffith have saved more than $19.1 million across more than 2.1 million PBS prescriptions. Those savings are practical. They leave more in the household budget for rent, groceries, electricity and other bills. Lower prices help people fill their prescriptions. Better shortage information improves the chance that their medicine will be available when they arrive at the pharmacy. A cheaper prescription offers little comfort if the shelves are empty. Supply and cost need to be addressed together. Access to health care is central to the work of the Albanese Labor government. Labor created Medicare, and we continue to strengthen Medicare and the PBS for every Australian who relies on them. This bill gives pharmacists, doctors, hospitals and the TGA more time to respond when medicine supply is at risk. It requires earlier notice, provides better information and keeps the Medicines Watch List current. These changes will help health professionals plan ahead and support patients through any change in treatment. They reflect Labor's commitment to a health system that is prepared, dependable and centred on the needs of patients. Labor will continue to invest in Medicare, strengthen the PBS and improve access to medicines Australians rely on every day. That is important for the healthcare workers who live in my community of Griffith—the thousands of healthcare workers. It's important for the hospitals, the GPs, the pharmacies and all of the other allied health professionals in our community. Most importantly, it's important for the residents of Griffith, all of whom are so reliant on receiving good quality, affordable health care close to home. That is what we are committed to providing, and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is providing. 17:31 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne For most Australians, medicine shortages are not an abstract problem about international supply chains or regulatory systems. They become very real when you walk into your local pharmacy with a prescription and the pharmacist tells you, 'I'm sorry; we can't get it.' That is particularly important in my electorate of Lyne. Lyne has the oldest population of any federal electorate in Australia. At the last census, the median age was 51, compared with 38 nationally. It is also a community where household incomes are considerably below the national average. That combination matters when we talk about medicines. In regional Australia, a medicine shortage can be particularly difficult. If you live in Sydney and your local pharmacy doesn't have something, there may be another pharmacy a few kilometres away. But, if you live in Gloucester or Dungog or Stroud or one of the smaller communities across Lyne, that is not necessarily the case. Finding another pharmacy with stock might mean a substantial drive. For someone who is 80 years old, doesn't drive, is living on the pension and has limited mobility, that is a real problem. So I approach the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and the accompanying Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026 from a very practical perspective. There are worthwhile measures in these bills; that is why the coalition will not oppose them in the House. But there is an important distinction between managing a medicine shortage better and preventing that shortage from occurring in the first place, and that is where the government still has a lot more work to do. The main bill updates key aspects of Australia's therapeutic goods system, focusing on medicine shortages, biological medicines, clinical trials and related regulatory charges. A major focus is on strengthening requirements for reporting medicine shortages and discontinuations. Sponsors of reportable medicines must notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration of shortages and permanent discontinuations. This bill makes those requirements stricter. Pharmaceutical companies will generally need to give 12 months notice before discontinuing a reportable medicine in Australia. If 12 months notice isn't possible, notice must be given as soon as practicable. That is a sensible change. Earlier notice gives stakeholders more time to prepare, it gives regulators more opportunity to identify alternative products, it gives clinicians more time to work out whether patients need to be transitioned to another medicine and, hopefully, it means fewer patients finding out about a discontinuation when they arrive at the pharmacy counter. The legislation recognises that circumstances can change. If a sponsor changes its decision or timeline, it must update the secretary accordingly. Again, that is sensible. The information held by the regulator should reflect what is actually happening in the market. The bill also gives the secretary broader information-gathering powers to require sponsors to provide availability and shortage information. The secretary will be able to require sponsors of approved medicines to provide information about the availability of their products and about any shortage or discontinuation. This helps government act before a crisis develops. The legislation also updates the Medicines Watch List to keep it current as medicines and clinical circumstances change. The list covers medicines where a shortage could have a critical impact on patients. The amendments are intended to make it easier to keep that instrument current as medicines and clinical circumstances change. These are all reasonable reforms, and they build on changes made by the former coalition government in 2018, when mandatory reporting of shortages of important medicines was introduced together with stronger penalties for noncompliance. We should understand what these latest changes actually achieve. They improve information, they improve warning and they improve the government's visibility of a shortage. What they do not necessarily do is stop a shortage from occurring, and that distinction matters. That distinction matters because the difference between being able to access a critical medicine and not being able to access it is significant. Medication is life saving. Constituents often write to me about how certain medications have changed their lives for the better. Anna from Killabakh, who has relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, says that, for over 10 years, she's had to live with fatigue, balance issues, cognitive challenges and the constant uncertainty of what tomorrow might bring. Two years ago, she started a new treatment, a new medication, which she says gave her something she hadn't felt for a long time—'confidence that my disease was finally being controlled and hope that I could continue living the life I'd worked so hard to build'. Now, Anna faces the prospect of losing access to life-changing medication because of government pricing negotiations. Anna says: … being forced to change medications is frightening. To now face the possibility of losing the treatment that is keeping us stable has created enormous fear and distress among thousands of Australians living with this disease. It's stories like this that remind us just how important access to medicine is. It is stories like this that highlight how this bill falls short in achieving that. The bill also contains reforms relating to biological medicines, allowing closely related biological products from the same sponsor to be grouped under a single registration where the legislative requirements are satisfied. In plain English, if a company has essentially the same biological medicine in several closely related forms, we should not necessarily require the company to duplicate the entire regulatory process for every minor variation. That is something I support. Regulation has to protect patients—that is non-negotiable—but regulation should not create paperwork for the sake of paperwork. And, at a time when we are concerned about the availability and commercial viability of medicines in a relatively small Australian market, unnecessary regulatory cost matters. The Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026 accompanies these changes. Because the main bill changes the way certain biological products can be grouped on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, the charging legislation also needs to be changed so that the charging arrangements work properly with the new structure. It is largely machinery legislation, but it illustrates something important: when we remove unnecessary regulatory duplication, we should also make sure businesses are not continuing to pay duplicated regulatory charges for processes that no longer need to occur separately. All of that explains why the coalition is not opposing these bills, but it also brings us to their fundamental weakness. These bills are principally about how Australia manages shortages once the risk has emerged, but they do not answer the bigger question: why is Australia experiencing so many medicine shortages in the first place? Throughout 2025, more than 400 medicine shortages were listed on the TGA's medicine shortage reports database. Australia imports around 90 per cent of the medicines we rely upon, yet we account for barely two per cent of the global pharmaceutical market. That makes us vulnerable. When there is a global shortage, Australia is a small customer competing against the United States, Europe and other much larger markets. There is another figure that should concern this parliament. When a medicine is unavailable in Australia, the TGA can use special arrangements to allow substitute overseas products to be supplied. Since mandatory shortage and discontinuation reporting was introduced, the number of these substitution approvals has more than doubled, from 99 in 2018-19 to more than 200 in 2024-25. That tells us something. Our system is increasingly having to find workarounds when normal supply fails, and a workaround is not the same thing as having a resilient system. There is another extraordinary statistic: a Royal Australian College of General Practitioners poll in 2025 found that nearly three-quarters of GPs said their patients were the most common way they learned about medicine shortages. Think about that. The patient goes to the pharmacy, the pharmacist cannot fill the prescription, the patient goes back to the doctor and the patient effectively becomes the doctor's warning system. According to that polling, the TGA accounted for just two per cent of GPs first learning about shortages and for just one per cent of manufacturers. That is not good enough. Perhaps the clearest demonstration of Australia's vulnerability was the shortage of intravenous fluids beginning in 2024. IV fluids are among the most basic products used in a hospital. Saline is not some obscure experimental medicine; it's fundamental to the operation of a modern health system. Yet Australia experienced a critical shortage. What makes this example particularly frustrating is that Australia actually has domestic manufacturing capability. The government had been warned of supply concerns well before the shortage reached its most serious point. Yet a national monitoring group was not established until August 2024, after the shortage had become critical. Then, in 2025, the government announced a $40 million joint investment to expand domestic manufacturing capacity. That investment is welcome, but why did Australia have to reach a critical shortage before government acted? My colleague the shadow minister for health, Senator Anne Ruston, put the question well at the time: what does a future made in Australia actually mean if the government cannot guarantee something as basic as saline? That question remains relevant. The Albanese government is prepared to spend billions of dollars under its Future Made in Australia agenda, but sovereign capability should not mean politicians in Canberra cherry-picking fashionable industries and pet projects. It should start with identifying the things Australians genuinely cannot afford to be without: fuel, food, defence capability, critical infrastructure and essential medicines. Medicine security is national resilience. The COVID pandemic should have taught us that. The increasing instability in international shipping and global supply chains should reinforce it. Australia cannot manufacture every medicine we consume, but there is a very large distance between manufacturing everything and being dangerously dependent on everyone else. We need a serious assessment of where Australia is vulnerable: which essential medicines have only one supplier, which rely upon active ingredients from a single country or manufacturer, which medicines have no practical substitute, which medicines would have the greatest consequences if supply stopped, what strategic stockpiles should Australia maintain, where should we diversify our overseas suppliers, and where does it make economic and strategic sense to maintain Australian manufacturing capability? Those are the questions a genuine medicine security strategy should answer. The government also needs to be prepared to look at an uncomfortable part of this debate. Australia must make sure its regulatory and pricing systems do not inadvertently make the supply of essential medicines commercially unviable. Australians rightly expect medicines to be safe and taxpayers rightly expect value for money through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, but the cheapest theoretical price is not much use if nobody wants to supply the medicine. Government needs to understand where low margins, small market size, regulatory costs and reliance on single manufacturers are creating vulnerabilities, and it needs to identify those risks before the manufacturer tells us it is leaving the market. That is another reason the 12-month discontinuation requirement in this legislation is useful. But, again, receiving 12 months notice that a medicine is disappearing gives the government time to respond; it does not automatically give Australia another supplier. The coalition, as I've said, will not oppose these bills in the House. The Senate has referred them to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee so stakeholders can be heard and the legislation examined in greater detail. The coalition reserves its position on changes to the bills following that inquiry. The measures before us are sensible, but parliament should not confuse improving the administration of medicine shortages with solving medicine shortages. The real test is not whether the TGA receives a notification 12 months earlier. The real test is whether the 80-year-old in Tea Gardens can get the medicine their doctor prescribed, whether the pensioner in Forster can fill a prescription without visiting three pharmacies, whether our doctors know about shortages before their patients tell them, and whether Manning Base Hospital or one of the other regional country hospitals in my electorate have the essential medicines and supplies available to them when patients need them. That is what medicine security looks like outside Canberra. Australia needs a comprehensive medicine security strategy. We need to identify our critical medicines. We need to understand where there are single points of failure. We need diversified supply chains. We need appropriate strategic reserves. We need to examine the commercial viability of essential medicines in the Australian market. And, where the strategic case stacks up, we need sovereign manufacturing capacity. These bills improve the warning system, and that is certainly worthwhile. But, after four years in government, Labor needs to do more than tell Australians earlier that there is a problem. It needs a plan to reduce the likelihood of the problem occurring in the first place. 17:45 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton When you walk into the urgent care clinic in Oxley, in my electorate, on Brisbane's south side, you'll be greeted with a smile. Whether you've got a cut, whether you've got a burn or whether you've got a fracture, they'll treat it with just your Medicare card. And when you're sick and you get to the counter at one of the 28 fully bulk-billed GP practices in my community, all you'll need is that little green card. And when you ask John, the pharmacist at the Eight Mile Plains Discount Drug Store, for a PBS medicine, all you'll ever pay is 25 bucks. That's because Labor governments, and this Labor government, believe that health care should be accessible and that it should be affordable, because Australia's public healthcare system was conceived and planned by Labor governments. It was legislated and implemented by Labor governments. It's been supported and strengthened by Labor governments. And it is one of our most valued public institutions. This system is based on Labor's commitment to the principle of universal health care, and its foundation has supported the growth of our healthcare system—one that is built on reliability, is built on accessibility and fundamentally is built on trust. At the end of this week I turn 40. Luckily I am not as old as Medicare, which is 42. For more than four decades Australians have had confidence when they need care that the healthcare system is ready to support them. We trust that we will be able to access medical help from a GP when we need it. We expect that Medicare will help make that care affordable. We have faith that healthcare professionals will provide quality and timely treatment. We depend on our hospitals in times of emergency and crisis. And we count on our local pharmacy to have the medicines we need when we need them, whether it is a course of antibiotics for a sudden illness or an ongoing prescription that helps manage a chronic condition. We count on them. In recent years, however, Australians have had to cope with medicine shortages, and this is not merely an inconvenience. Medicine shortages decrease the confidence Australians have in our healthcare system. They cause uncertainty and anxiety in patients. They affect pharmacists, who have to explain supply disruptions which are out of their control. They create additional work for doctors, who may be required to adjust treatment plans or find substitute medicines. For vulnerable Australians, such as those living with chronic conditions or those in rural and remote communities, it can be particularly damaging. The Therapeutic Goods Administration Act provides up-to-date information on medicine shortages, explaining that they may be due to issues with manufacturing, challenges with supply chains, regulatory barriers, trade constraints or an unanticipated increase in demand for specific medicines. Pharmaceutical supply chains are complex. You only have to walk into Symbion, in Acacia Ridge in my electorate, and look up at the thousands of different medicines being moved by robotic arms with enormous security to understand that. While many of the medicine shortages that have affected Australians arise from global factors beyond our control, it is our responsibility to ensure that our healthcare system can respond effectively That's where the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicine Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 comes in. The bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to improve key elements of Australia's medicine shortage management framework. This will ensure that we are better equipped to respond when supplies of essential medicines come under pressure—because when those supplies come under pressure, it affects people's lives, it affects their livelihoods, and it affects their families, and we believe that we need to do something about that. The bill will achieve this through three specific measures. Firstly, it focuses on improving Australia's preparedness for the withdrawal of essential medicines from the market. Basically, it legislates the ability for us to plan going forward. Pharmaceutical companies will be required to provide early notification when they decide to permanently discontinue the supply of a reportable medicine in Australia, and this information must be provided to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing at least 12 months before the discontinuation takes effect, where possible. If that timeframe is not possible, advice must be received as soon as practicable after the decision is made. The second measure adds transparency to those decisions by requiring pharmaceutical companies to provide ongoing updates if their intended course of action changes. It's about saying to these companies, 'Tell us what you're doing, and tell us if it changes.' Decisions to discontinue medicines are not always irrevocable, and implementation timeframes can shift in response to market conditions, manufacturing considerations or supply chain developments. This bill requires companies to notify the secretary if a proposed discontinuation is delayed, if it's brought forward or if it's cancelled. These measures will ensure that government, healthcare professionals and patients are working from the most current information available, enabling better preparation and reducing the likelihood of unexpected disruptions to access to essential medicines. Australians, quite frankly, deserve to know, and they deserve to know as soon as possible. Thirdly, the bill also enhances the government's ability to monitor and respond to emerging supply risks. It empowers the secretary to require sponsors of approved medicines to provide information about the availability of their products in Australia. This includes information relating to actual or anticipated shortages as well as any plans to discontinue supply. Access to this information will support earlier identification of potential problems and enable more proactive management of risks to medicine availability. This bill also contains a couple of technical and regulatory amendments. It streamlines regulatory arrangements for biological medicines by allowing the secretary to establish common biological groups. This will enable closely related biological products to be recorded under a single entry on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, rather than requiring multiple separate entries. By reducing unnecessary duplication, these changes will simplify administrative processes, lower compliance costs for sponsors and reduce regulatory burden while maintaining the necessary oversight of the safety and quality of medication. The bill includes an important technical amendment to strengthen the operation of Australia's clinical trial regulatory framework as well. The amendment provides clear legislative authority for authorised officers to inspect and assess clinical trial sites to ensure that unapproved therapeutic goods being supplied or used as part of clinical research are complying with all relevant conditions and requirements. This is an important safeguard that supports the protection of trial participants and helps ensure the integrity of Australia's clinical research system. By placing these powers on a clearer statutory footing, the bill strengthens oversight arrangements while supporting the continued safe and effective conduct of clinical trials in this country. This bill sits within a wider landscape of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is another institution that Labor is justly proud of and which is an important key component of our healthcare system. The PBS ensures that Australians can access at an affordable price—regardless of their income, their circumstances and their bank balance. Access to medicine should never be determined by a person's capacity to pay. The Albanese government remains firmly committed to strengthening both the PBS and Medicare and ensuring that all Australians can access high-quality, affordable health care. That's what we believe. That's what's in our DNA, and that's what we do every single day. At a time when many households continue to face cost-of-living pressures, we have taken significant steps to reduce the cost of medicines and ease pressure on family budgets. The Albanese Labor government has reduced the maximum cost of a PBS medicine to $25—the lowest in two decades. We've also frozen the cost of PBS medicines for concession cardholders at $7.70. This helps pensioners, concession cardholders and other vulnerable Australians continue to access the medicines they rely upon without facing additional financial pressure. These measures are making a real difference. They're helping Australians fill their prescriptions, continue their treatment plans and better manage their health while delivering meaningful cost-of-living relief. However, affordable medicines are of little use if they are unavailable. That is why this government is focused on both strengthening the framework for managing medicine shortages and building a healthcare system that is more resilient, and that resilience is something that Australians deserve. I think we would all agree that, ultimately, the strength of a healthcare system is measured by both the quality of care it provides and the reliability in which that care is delivered. The amendments in this bill are an important step towards ensuring that Australia's healthcare system remains worthy of the trust that millions of Australians place in it every single day. Labor governments will always stand up for Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We will continue to protect those institutions and strengthen them for future generations and we will ensure that Australians can access the health care and the medicines that they need, most importantly, when they need them. 17:58 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Since its inception in 1948, Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has been one of our great public policy achievements and has given Australians access to essential medicines at a fraction of what people pay in comparable countries. But our PBS is under real pressure, and the events of the last few months should worry all Australians. Patients living with multiple sclerosis, cancer, opioid dependence, inflammatory bowel disease and other serious conditions have faced growing uncertainty about whether the medications keeping them healthy, independent and engaged in their communities will remain available to them. Supply of four medications across different therapeutic areas has been thrown into doubt in the space of three months. It's not a coincidence; it's a warning sign. Zoladex, which is for breast cancer and endometriosis treatment, is being taken off the PBS by AstraZeneca for commercial reasons. Sublocade, which is used by thousands of Australians for opioid dependence treatment, is being withdrawn from our market by its sponsor Indivior for commercial reasons. Until recently over 13,000 Australians living with multiple sclerosis—roughly half of all of the Australians with multiple sclerosis, who are disproportionately women—faced the very real prospect of losing subsidised access to Ocrevus and Kesimpta. That risk arose not because the medicines stopped working for those patients or because of a supply chain issue but because the medications' sponsors, Roche and Novartis, rejected proposed price cuts of up to 50 per cent, triggering a fortnight of significant anxiety and uncertainty for Australians living with MS and their clinicians. The Minister for Health and Ageing has since confirmed that the MS medications will remain listed for the moment, but only after thousands of patients spent weeks unsure whether or not the medicines that they needed would still be there for them at the end of that month. It seems inevitable, given the government's current struggles with the PBAC and TGA, that more such battles will follow. I've heard directly from many constituents in Kooyong about how these changes and these uncertainties make them feel. They feel anxious. They feel afraid. They feel like unwilling and helpless pawns in a struggle between their government and multinational drug companies. I spoke with Lucy, a gorgeous, very brave woman who lives in Prahran. She says that her breast cancer is still the main character in her life. At a time when she's dealing with recovery and difficulty with work, losing access to Zoladex is the last thing that she needs, and she knows scores of young women from across Kooyong and Melbourne who are in the same boat. Kate, a single mum with two children from Hawthorn, said: It absolutely terrifies me that this drug will no longer be available to me and others that need it. Australians should not be made to feel this way. This bill addresses some—but only some—of the issues. It strengthens the mandatory reporting framework under the Therapeutic Goods Act, requiring sponsors of all reportable medicines to give the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing at least 12 months notice of a decision to permanently discontinue supply and to update the TGA if their plans change. That is a very small improvement on the status quo, where only discontinuations that are likely to be of critical impact require 12 months notification, with other reportable medicines requiring only six months notice. A stronger notification regime means better planning, fewer rushed clinical decisions and less anxiety, but this modest enhancement to Australia's medicines notification regime does not go nearly far enough. There's much more to do on notifications, on continuity of care and on patient protections. This bill requires 12 months notice of discontinuation, but it also allows the sponsor to notify only 'as soon as practicable' when earlier notice is not available, with no obligation to explain why, no requirement to tell the secretary when they first knew trouble was coming and no obligation to tell the secretary what they've done to avoid it and what mitigation strategies might be in place. Secondly, the bill's critical impact test asks only whether a registered substitute exists in sufficient quantity. That ignores the fact that stability of therapy is sometimes a clinical goal—that, for those individuals who need treatment with anticonvulsants, antipsychotics or immunosuppressants and for other conditions in which continuity and stability of care is vital, substitutes are often inadequate alternatives. The bill also applies only to discontinuation or shortages of supply. It wouldn't apply to sponsors' commercial decisions to cease supplying agents like Ocrevus, Kesimpta and Zoladex under the PBS. Where medications remain registered, manufactured and, theoretically at least, physically available, patients will not be informed that they are no longer funded under our PBS. This bill's notification framework is silent on this critical issue. The strongest and most airtight notification regime cannot safeguard our system against the scale of Australia's medicines vulnerability. The TGA's database currently lists close to 400 medicines in shortage with a further 79 in anticipated shortage. About 40 of those are rated critical. They include blood thinners, antibiotics and hormone replacement therapy. As many as 120 new shortages are notified every month. It's not easy to keep track of those numbers. These are ongoing supply issues which preceded the pandemic but have since worsened. Every one of those shortages represents a supply failure and converts into a cost which is borne by patients—in money, time, inconvenience and stress. If this bill was a serious attempt to address continuity of care, it would create cost and access protections for those patients who are forced onto second-line therapies during declared shortages so that these supply chain failures—which are not their own fault, let us remember—don't result in increased out-of-pocket costs for patients. The reality is that Australia shouldn't be experiencing all these shortages. But we are too slow, too cautious and too stingy in how we assess and price new medicines. TGA approval typically takes about a year, PBAC listing takes an average of 466 days, and MSAC assessment takes one to two years. Only about 27 per cent of innovative medicines available globally ever reach our PBS. A report released just this month found that only 25 per cent of medicines launched over the last decade globally have been listed here. That's against 88 per cent in the United States and 46 per cent in the United Kingdom. Net investment in Australia in innovative medicines has fallen from 6.2 per cent to 4.1 per cent of the health budget since 2015-16. We pay about a third less than Canada for innovative medicines while we take almost four years longer than Spain or the UK to fund first-in-class treatments once they have actually been proven safe and effective. Layer onto that the United States' most favoured nation pricing policy—which is pushing global companies to treat the lowest price that they accept anywhere as a floor for what they can charge in the much larger American market—and it's little wonder that the health minister himself has warned of the chilling effect on companies' willingness to bring us any new medicines at all. Other countries have read these signs, and they've acted. The UK has struck a pricing deal with the US and it's listed its cost-effectiveness threshold for the first time in 20 years. Ireland has locked in faster reimbursements and new means of funding. South Korea has overhauled its system for the first time in 13 years. Australia's response so far has been yet another round of consultation. The government accepted in full the 50 recommendations of its own 2021 Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review. But, more than two years later, the recommendations remain almost entirely unimplemented, including the reforms to comparator selection and to discount rates that sat at the heart of the recent MS medication pricing dispute. The Health Technology Assessment Review Implementation Advisory Group delivered its final report and road map to the minister in December 2025, yet, eight months later, that report has still not been made public. I call on the government to publish that final report and road map, to allocate funding for its implementation in the 2026-27 MYEFO and to use the next five-year strategic agreement with Medicines Australia, which has to be negotiated in the next year, to deliver on those HTA reforms. Our vulnerabilities with medicine are not just a health issue. They're a question of supply chain resilience and of sovereign risk. We can survive fuel disruptions, but many Australians will not survive an extended breakdown in our medicine supply. So it's not simply a health issue. Australia manufactures very little of what it consumes. We have almost no capacity to produce active pharmaceutical ingredients for most products on the WHO's essential medicines list. When supply chains are disrupted by shipping delays, by demand spikes in larger markets or by sponsors' commercial decisions, Australia has a very limited ability to respond. We could manufacture many off-patent medications onshore more cheaply than what we pay to import them now, but our aggressive PBS price settings for out-of-patent medications, of which we're so proud, have squeezed margins to the point where the local manufacturer of many generic products has become commercially unviable. As a result, production has been pushed offshore to lower cost markets like India and China at the cost of sovereign capacity. The best case for sovereign manufacturing is not that Australia could produce these medicines more cheaply tomorrow. It's that a modest premium for locally manufactured essential and off-patent medicines would cost taxpayers much less than the economic and clinical cost of repeated shortages and far less than the sovereign risk of leaving ourselves exposed to complete supply chain disruption. There's been too little movement on this front by this government. There has been some, but it's been patchy, opaque and non-competitive. The government has invested in expanding onshore IV fluids production in partnership with Baxter, in Moderna's onshore mRNA manufacturing capacity and in the Future Made in Australia package, which includes funding for locally produced medicines and the National Medical Stockpile. We have the Medical Science Co-investment Plan for building up manufacturing capacities. Private investment has followed: Vitex Pharmaceuticals has opened a manufacturing facility in Western Sydney, and Noumed's new Adelaide facility should add significant onshore tablet and liquid-formulation capacity. They're encouraging, but these investments are very piecemeal and almost entirely reactive. Australia's medicine supply chain deserves the same systemic national resilience treatment that we apply to our defence industrial capacity. An expanded sovereign manufacturing capacity would strengthen our role as a health security partner across the Pacific. Pacific island nations have little or no domestic medicines manufacturing capacity of their own, and they're even more exposed than us to global supply chain disruptions. A more substantial, dedicated Australian manufacturing base would enable us to extend our existing health security role from aid funding into onshore supply capacity. This would be analogous and complementary to the sovereign defence industrial capacity that we're already building now with our regional partners. In view of that, I'm moving detailed amendments proposing a national medicines security review, including a specific assessment of Australia's thin stockholding of essential and critical medicines and of whether the National Medical Stockpile has the right settings to protect us through the next global disruption. We need this before the next five-year strategic agreement with Medicines Australia, which contains Australia's Medicines Supply Security Guarantee, is renegotiated next year. I'm moving these amendments because, while I support the very modest measures in this bill, they are insufficient. Sublocade, Zoladex, Ocrevus and Kesimpta are not the last medicines on the chopping block. They're the start of a broader trend. Australians built our PBS so that we don't have to choose between our health and our finances. It's our responsibility to ensure that that promise holds, not just against ordinary supply shortages but also in the face of the increasing cost and complexity of the global pharmaceutical market, inadequate funding, slow approvals and licensing, and increasing sovereign risk. I commend the somewhat milquetoast measures in this bill to the House, but I urge the government to act with greater urgency and vision to secure the future of our PBS and our medicine sovereignty. In doing so, I move the amendment as circulated in my name: That the following words be added after paragraph (2): "(3) further calls on the Government to: (a) release the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Implementation Advisory Group's final report and roadmap, that were provided to the Government in December 2025; (b) allocate funding in 2026-27 MYEFO to fund implementation of the HTA Methods and Policy Review; and (c) commission a National Medicines Security Review before negotiation of the next five-year strategic agreement with Medicines Australia, to assess Australia's dependence on imported medicines, lack of domestic manufacturing capability, thin medicines stockholding arrangements and vulnerabilities in our supply-chain". The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Is the member for Kooyong's second reading amendment seconded? Dr Scamps 299623 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:14 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise to speak in support of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026. These bills deal with a basic part of our health system: making sure Australians can get the medicines they need when they need them. For most people, the supply of medicines is something they do not think about until something goes wrong. You go to the doctor, you get a prescription, you go to the pharmacy and you expect the medicine to be there, and most of the time that is exactly what happens. But behind that simple process is a large and complex supply chain. Medicines can be made overseas. Ingredients come from several countries. Products can pass through manufacturers, ports, warehouses and distributors before they arrive at the local pharmacy. A problem anywhere in that chain can affect patients here in Australia. A factory can close, there can be a shortage of raw ingredients, a natural disaster can interrupt production, conflict can disrupt shipping, demand can suddenly rise, or a manufacturer can decide it will no longer supply a particular medicine in Australia. Some of those events cannot be prevented, but we can make sure Australia is better prepared when they do happen. For me this is not simply an issue I have read about in a briefing paper. At 25 I was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, and in 2020 I received a kidney transplant from my brother Joe. A transplant changes your life in plenty of ways, and one of them is that medicines become part of your daily routine. For people who have had an organ transplant, the medicines we take are not optional. They help stop our immune systems from attacking the transplanted organ. You do not simply decide to miss a few doses and hope for the best. So when we debate medicine shortages, I think about what that means from the other side of the pharmacy counter. I think about the person in Moore who has had a transplant. I think about the parent managing a child's serious health condition. I think about someone receiving cancer treatment or managing epilepsy, diabetes or another long-term illness. For those people, the words 'medicine shortage' have a very different meaning. A shortage can mean uncertainty about whether the treatment that has kept you well will still be available next month. It can mean changing treatment. It can mean going back to your specialist. It can mean trying different medicine that may not work in exactly the same way. For pharmacists, it can mean hours spent looking at stock or speaking with doctors about alternatives. For doctors, it can mean changing treatment plans and explaining those changes to patients. And across the health system it creates pressure that could have been reduced if there had been earlier warning. That is why information is so important. When medicine is going to disappear from the Australian market, doctors, pharmacists, patients and government need as much warning as possible. This bill strengthens the existing reporting system. Under these changes, a pharmaceutical company that decides to permanently discontinue a reportable medicine in Australia will generally have to notify the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing at least 12 months before supply ends. That is an important qualification. Sometimes a company simply will not know. 12 months ahead. A factory may suddenly close, a supplier may fail or an international company may make a commercial decision quickly. The bill recognises that reality. But, where 12 months notice cannot be provided, the sponsor must notify the secretary as soon as practicable after the decision has been made. That is a sensible balance. It sets a clear expectation that government should be told early, while recognising that global medicine supply chains cannot always be predicted a year in advance. The value of earlier notice is straightforward. If we know that an important medicine will disappear, we will have more time to respond. Health professionals can consider alternatives. Government can examine other supply options. Other suppliers may have time to increase production or imports. Patients can receive clear information and work with their doctors, rather than discovering the problem when they arrive at the pharmacy. For someone like me, that distinction is important. If one of the medicines I rely on was going to be withdrawn, I would much rather have my specialist, my pharmacist and the health system know about it 12 months beforehand than find out about it when I'm at the pharmacy trying to fill my script. I suspect that every Australian who depends on regular medicine would say the same thing. And the bill recognises that plans change. A company might tell the government that it intends to stop supplying medicine and later decide to continue. Or the date when supply is expected to end may change. Under the bill, sponsors will have to update the secretary when those plans change. For medicines where a discontinuation could have a critical impact, the reporting timeframes are much faster. That is appropriate. If there is no reasonable substitute for the medicine, if there may not be enough of the substitute available or if losing access could seriously affect the health of patients, the government needs to know quickly. This is not paperwork for paperwork's sake. There is little value in requiring early notification if the information becomes wrong six months later, and nobody has to correct it. The goal is accurate information that can be acted upon. The bill also strengthens the secretary's ability to ask medicine sponsors for information about supply. At present, those powers are more limited and focus on medicines covered by the reportable medicines framework. The amendments will allow information about any approved medicine to be requested. That is important because a shortage does not become serious only because a medicine happens to appear on a particular list. If the Therapeutic Goods Administration becomes aware that supply of an approved medicine may be under pressure, it should be able to ask some pretty basic questions: How much medicine is available? Is there a shortage? How long is that shortage expected to last? Has a decision been made to stop supplying the medicine in Australia? Those are reasonable questions for our national medicines regulator to ask. These reforms have been shaped by consultation. The TGA consulted consumers, health professionals, the pharmaceutical industry and governments about medicine shortages and discontinuations. In 2024, more than 200 responses were received through public consultation alongside research involving consumers, pharmacists and prescribers. Further consultation was then undertaken on the proposed reforms. One concern was clear: people need earlier and more reliable information when medicine supply is at risk. These amendments respond to that concern. The bill also improves the Medicines Watch List. The watch list identifies medicines of which a shortage or discontinuation could have a critical impact on Australia. The bill will allow the list to incorporate other documents as they are updated from time to time. Again, that sounds technical, but the purpose is practical. Our understanding of medicine supply risks changes. A system designed to identify critical medicines has to be capable of keeping up. The legislation also reforms the regulation of biologicals. Biologicals are therapeutic products that can contain, consist of or be derived from human cells or tissues. They can be used to treat or prevent disease, diagnose conditions or change parts or processes of the human body. These products must be carefully regulated, but careful regulation does not require unnecessary duplication. Under the present arrangements, closely related biological products can require separate entries on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. That can mean separate administrations, separate entries and separate annual charges, even where the products are essentially similar. The bill allows the secretary to establish common biological groups. The similar biologicals can then share a single entry on the register. That reduces unnecessary duplication and regulation costs without weakening the standards applying to therapeutic goods. That reform works together with the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill. The charges bill amends the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act so that the annual charge can be prescribed for grouped biologicals held under that single entry. Instead of sponsors maintaining several entries and paying several annual charges for closely related products, the system can recognise a single grouped entry. The two bills therefore need to work together. The first creates the ability to group these biologicals. The second makes sure that the charging arrangements fit the new system. The TGA operates largely through cost recovery. Annual charges support activities such as postmarket monitoring and compliance. The reforms do not remove that responsibility. They simply make the charging system fit a more efficient registration system. Consultation with around 40 stakeholders on the biologicals changes showed broad support for reducing duplication and improving efficiency, and that is sensible regulatory reform. Good regulation should protect Australians. It should set strong standards where safety is involved. But where government can remove duplication without reducing protection, we should do that too. The Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill also clarifies inspection powers at clinical trial sites. Clinical trials are essential to medical progress. My own life is evidence of what decades of medical research can achieve. Kidney transplantation was once experimental medicine. Today, because generations of researchers, clinicians, donors and patients, people like me can receive a transplant, return to work, raise a family and stand in this chamber. But medical progress depends on public confidence. People who volunteer to participate in clinical trials must know that their safety is protected. The bill therefore gives authorised officers clear legal powers to enter, search and inspect clinical trial sites where unapproved therapeutic goods are being used. These powers already exist through delegated legislation. The bill moves them into primary legislation so their legal basis is clear. It is a technical legal change, but it serves an important purpose: protecting the people whose participation makes future medical advances possible. The bill also contains smaller changes to improve consistency, remove outdated provisions and correct errors. Taken together, these bills strengthen Australia's therapeutic goods system. But there is also a wider issue here. Access to medicine is both about affordability and availability. This government has cut the maximum price of general PBS medicine prescriptions to $25 and frozen concessional prescriptions at $7.70. I know personally how important the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is after a kidney transplant. There is no point in receiving world-class surgery if the medicines required afterwards are beyond reach. The transplant is one day; the medication continues every day after that. That is why the PBS is one of Australia's great public institutions. It means serious illness does not automatically come with a choice between your health and your household budget. For people across Moore, whether they are retirees in Beldon, families in Craigie, workers in Joondalup or patients anywhere across our northern suburbs, access to medicine has to mean more than having a prescription in your hand. It means the medicine has to be affordable, it has to be safe, and it has to be available at the pharmacy. The same is true in every community across Australia: an affordable medicine that cannot be supplied does not help a patient. A medicine that is available but unaffordable does not deliver a health system Australians deserve. We need to address both sides, and that is why these bills sit alongside our broader commitment to cheaper medicines, Medicare and the PBS. Most Australians will never read the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and they will not study the medicines watchlist. I doubt many people in Moore are waiting eagerly for an explanation of the annual charging arrangements for grouped biologicals, but they rely on these systems whether they know their names or not. They rely on them when they take the tablet in the morning, they rely on them when their children need medicine, they rely on them when a parent begins cancer treatment, and I rely on them when they take the medicines that continue to protect the kidney my brother gave me. That is what sits behind the technical language in these bills: earlier warnings about medicine supply, better information when shortages occur, a stronger ability for the regulator to respond and less unnecessary duplication, clear safeguards for clinical trials and a health system better prepared to keep essential medicines in the hands of Australians who need them. No law can stop every medicine shortage. Australia is part of the global market, and supply disruptions will continue to happen. But, if we build a system that sees problems earlier and responds faster, for patients, that extra time can be extremely important. These are practical reforms which help the way Australia manages medicines while supporting an efficient and strong regulatory system. They protect patients, they support health professionals, they improve accountability from medicine suppliers, and they strengthen the wider system that Australians depend on every day. For me, there is nothing academic about access to medicine. I have been fortunate enough to benefit from extraordinary Australian health care, from medical science, from the PBS and, above all, from my brother, who was willing to give me a kidney. I want every Australian who depends on medicine to have confidence that the system behind them is doing everything reasonable to keep their treatment available. These bills help us do that. I commend the bills to the House. 18:29 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak in support of this bill. This bill strengthens the existing mandatory reporting scheme for medicine shortages. Sponsors will now be required to notify the secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing of a discontinuation at least 12 months in advance, rather than the currently tiered system where only discontinuations likely to have a critical impact require 12 months notice, and all others just require six. This will give patients, clinicians and the health system more consistent advance warning about incoming medicine discontinuations regardless of severity. The bill would also streamline listing requirements by allowing the secretary to determine 'common biological groups', letting similar biologicals share a single entry in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, ARTG, rather than requiring a separately charged entry for each. This bill also fixes a technical gap in the Medicines Watch List, which tracks medicines with a critical impact. This list already incorporates documents like the National Immunisation Program—NIP—Schedule to identify medicines considered critical if they fall into shortage or are discontinued. Currently, the list can only reference these documents as they stood at a fixed point in time, meaning it can quickly fall out of step with the updates to the NIP Schedule, which changes several times a year. The bill allows the list to instead track such documents 'as in force from time to time', so it automatically reflects the current version. This ensures that any medicine on the NIP Schedule is properly captured by the watch list's critical impact protections without the risk of a lag. A number of other minor technical and consequential amendments are also included. These are not radical changes, but they are excellent steps to ensure that those who rely on life-saving, life-changing or just necessary medications are informed well in advance that they may no longer have access. This matters. However, there are many things that this bill doesn't do which I think are important to talk to. In particular, it doesn't solve some of the challenges of how to make sure that the medicines that people rely on or that people need are on the PBS and are available. I particularly want to talk about the recent experience of some medicines being removed from the PBS, which has affected and concerned many people in my community. The recent reports that Ocrevus and Kesimpta may be removed from the PBS as a result of a pricing dispute deeply disturbed many people in my community of Wentworth. Many wrote in to share their concerns. They told me about the impact these drugs have had on their ability to operate as a member of society, to leave the house and to participate in employment and education. These are massive impacts which I know are appreciated by this government. These are two of the most widely used high-efficacy, disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis in Australia, used by approximately half of the patients being treated for relapsing forms of the disease. The minister recently announced that these drugs will stay on the PBS, but this dispute did not occur without causing significant concern and grief to the community members who relied on this drug. People wrote to me. People also approached me on the street and told me about their lives and their decisions and the difference that these drugs made to their lives. I remember a young woman telling me she had tried other drugs and they hadn't worked. These drugs had been life changing in her case, and she was desperately worried about these drugs being potentially removed from the PBS. One constituent wrote to me to tell me that the only two options she faced were a 725 per cent increase in cost, from $4,000 to $33,000, or a medication delivered only through infusion at a hospital, which she had already tried and had stopped working for her. This was a significant worry for this young woman, as she waited for the announcement from the minister. I know it worried many Australians across the country. I am very glad that the government was able to negotiate that these items remained on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, but this isn't a solitary example. It followed the recent temporary delisting of the Zoladex 3.6-milligram monthly implant, which is used in the treatment of endometriosis and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, while the equivalent higher dose implant, used for prostate cancer, remained on the PBS. Constituents have raised the pattern that this creates. They were particularly concerned that some of the recent medicines that were removed were those that had been shown to have greater impact on women, because both Zoladex and the MS drugs treat conditions that disproportionately impact women. I wrote to the health minister about all these issues, and I know there was significant community pressure. This community pressure created real outcomes. Zoladex is now being offered free to breast cancer and endometriosis patients, and the life-changing MS drugs have remained on the PBS. These are great outcomes, but, while these negotiations were ultimately successful, the uncertainty and fear that was experienced by patients reliant on these medications were sufficient to disrupt their sense of safety and security. That is not acceptable. I think it indicates that we have some broader issues going on with the PBS, and we do not want to see the same pattern emerge, as we have just had in this case, with other drugs. We can't have medicines coming on, then being removed, then being back under negotiations. This is very destabilising, particularly for medicines that deal with chronic diseases and chronic conditions that people rely on. Again, this is where I want to raise things that this bill doesn't completely address, because it is likely that this bill will not even address expanding the notification period in instances where there are pricing disputes, as there were in these cases and as we expect there may be. It only applies at the point where there is discontinuation and shortage of medicines, not to disputes and negotiations. The notification framework that this bill touches upon should be expanded with this in mind, as has been proposed by the member for Kooyong in detailed amendments, because these negotiations have occurred against a backdrop of broader pressure on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, as identified in the 2021 Health Technology Assessment review. The ramifications of the United States's most-favoured nation pricing policy, combined with Australia's diminishing attractiveness in pharmaceutical companies as a market owing to comparatively low pricing and slow approval times, means that innovative medicines are increasingly failing to reach the PBS at all or are at heightened risk of removal once listed. Discontinuation of a drug is not the only reason for their risk of disappearing from our shelves, and the requirement to notify our patients should reflect changing dynamics, such as the increasingly prevalent pricing disputes. Australia's lack of manufacturing capability also means that, while we're not only left waiting for the most innovative medicines, we also are not able to make them ourselves, especially in times of crisis, like a pandemic, when there are disrupted supply chains or worse. I know that the minister and the department will be considering these concerns closely, but legislation like this is an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of people who've been waiting in limbo while reports of discontinuation and negotiations occur and to further increase accountability mechanisms. That's why I do support the member for Kooyong's amendments today. They seek to provide further safeguards and notification procedures where pharmaceutical companies provide less than 12 months notice, as well as expanding the notification requirements when they apply beyond discontinuation and/or shortage and require a national medicine security review. I support this bill. It will improve the notification process for pharmaceutical companies forced to discontinue medicines for reasons outside of their control, giving patients who rely on those drugs more advance warning and, as a result, improving their lives. However, this bill could go further in addressing Australia's medicine shortages. The risk that this problem grows is significant. I hope the government will consider strengthening the bill in these regards and adopt some of those amendments that have been put forward. 18:37 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Most Australians never think twice about whether their medicine will be available when they need it; they simply expect it to be there. If you come down with the flu, you expect to walk into a pharmacy and find cold and flu medication on the shelf. If you have an infected wound, you expect to be able to pick up your antibiotics when your doctor prescribes them. If you live with ADHD, you expect your medication to be there month after month, not subject to a lottery of which pharmacy will happen to have it in stock. If you're going through menopause, you expect your hormone replacement therapy to be there when you need it, not rationed or unavailable for months at a time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw the vulnerability of supply chains across our country. In particular, this was heightened when it came to medications. What we saw was pharmacy visits become a real source of anxiety for Australians who depended on certain types of daily medication. I remember during that time that my son, who was two years old, was diagnosed with asthma. If I look at my husband's family, my father-in-law had asthma as a young man and was one of the first people to try Ventolin. I'm going to say that that was indeed a life changing medicine for him. Of course, my husband has asthma, so when my son was diagnosed it was not a surprise. However, what was a surprise was in relation to that diagnosis happening during the pandemic. When the doctor prescribed Ventolin, of course, I went to the pharmacy next door and assumed that I'd be able to buy Ventolin there and then, but that was not possible. I went home and I called another five pharmacies, and none of the pharmacies within my neighbourhood had this medicine in stock. As a mother, the fear starts to rise of 'I don't have this really important medication for my two-year-old, who isn't necessarily the best communicator'. I then took to Facebook and had a note, asking, 'Does anybody know where I can get children's Ventolin from?' And my dear old friend Liam Ducey said, 'I know where you can get it,' so I drove about 30 minutes out to the Midland Pharmacy and Compounding Centre and was able to pick up the medication that I needed. But it shouldn't be through persistence or lottery that you get access to the medications. The additional thing that I saw during the pandemic was that there were particular shortages out in regional communities. I remember seeing people needing medication and basically asking on Buy Nothing, 'Does anyone have access to this medication for my father, who doesn't have access to this in the regional communities?' We saw that happen and we said that was absolutely unacceptable. But the shortages of medicines aren't just an inconvenience felt at the chemist counter. They can happen in other places as well, such as our hospitals. Even treatments as essential as IV fluids have, at times, been in short supply. They can affect the very systems that our hospitals rely on to keep people alive and well. From the chemist counter to the hospital wards, Australians expect medicines to be there when they need it. They should be able to count on it, and that is something that this government is determined to protect. That's exactly what the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 sets out to do. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to implement a series of practical public health measures that strengthen the way that Australia identifies, manages and responds to medicine shortages and discontinuations so that Australians can have confidence in the ongoing supply of medicines that they rely on from everyday treatments right through to life-saving therapies. Global supply chains are complex. A shortage in Australia can be triggered by a manufacturing problem on the other side of the world, a shipping delay, a spike in global demand or even a regulatory issue in another country. Some disruptions are simply unavoidable, but how we prepare for them, how we monitor them and how we respond to them is absolutely within our control, and this bill is strategically changing our ability to do that. Since 2019, Australia has had a mandatory reporting scheme requiring pharmaceutical sponsors and the companies responsible for supplying medicines here to notify governments when a reportable medicine is in short demand or is being discontinued. That scheme set out a good framework for communication, but stakeholder consultation over the past two years—including extensive engagement with patients, health practitioners and industry—has identified where it can be improved. The Albanese Labor government has listened, and this bill responds to that feedback. At the centre of this bill is a change to how far in advance sponsors must notify the government of a permanent discontinuation. Under the current law, sponsors only have to give 12 months notice when a discontinuation is likely to have a critical impact. For other medicines, the requirement is just six months. That's a six-month gap, and that gap matters. It means that, for a whole category of medicines, patients and their doctors have historically had half the warning time to prepare simply because a discontinuation was not classified as critical, even though, for the person relying on that medicine, the disruption is critical to how they live their lives every day. This bill lifts that requirement so that all reportable medicine discontinuations must be notified at least 12 months in advance or as soon as practicable after the decision is made, where unforeseen circumstances such as a sudden manufacturing issue make that impossible. This matters because predicting in advance whether the discontinuation will turn out to be critical is not always straightforward, and patients and health practitioners deserve as much notice as possible, regardless of the classification. Twelve months gives doctors, pharmacists, patients and the community more time to plan and prepare for these potential shortages. The bill also requires sponsors to keep government updated if their plans change—for instance, if the discontinuation is delayed, brought forward or called off altogether. This closes a gap in the current framework and ensures the information government and health practitioners are working from stays accurate. Alongside this, the bill expands the power of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to request information about availability, shortages and discontinuations from all sponsors of approved medicine, not just those on the reportable list. We saw with IV fluids just how significant a shortage of non-reportable medicines can be. This shortage affected all three of Australia's IV fluid suppliers, with the Therapeutic Goods Administration warning that global disruptions were likely to continue well into 2025. In response to that shortage, our government acted. We invested $20 million, matched by Baxter health care, to expand the only onshore IV-fluid manufacturing facility in the country. That investment set out a boost of local production by 20 million units in a year, taking our onshore production to 80 million units annually from 2027 and reducing our reliance on overseas supply chains, which are vulnerable to the exact type of disruption that we saw in 2024. That is the kind of practical, decisive response Australians expect when a shortage puts pressure on our hospitals. This bill means the government has more time to gather the information it needs to respond, no matter what medicine is affected. This bill also makes a practical change for sponsors of biological products, such as tissue based treatments, cell based therapies and blood derived products. Under current law, therapeutic goods with common characteristics can already be grouped under a single register entry, but there is no equivalent power for biological products. This means sponsors are currently forced to maintain separate register entries and pay separate annual fees for products that are essentially the same thing, differing only in minor ways such as formulation or approved uses. This bill allows the secretary to determine common biological groups so that similar biologicals can share a single entry on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. It's a sensible change that reduces duplication and cuts unnecessary costs and administrative burden for industry without compromising safety or oversight. The bill also strengthens the legal footing behind the inspection regime, which is already keeping trial participants safe. Through the Therapeutic Goods Association Good Clinical Practice Inspection Program, authorised inspectors visit clinical trial sites. This is really important and it's something that we need to make sure we continue to do. The thing that I'd say is that, with this bill, what we're trying to do is ensure that Australians have the medicines they need, when they need them. This bill continues to ensure that we do this in a methodical way. We're strengthening the regime to make sure that we do this in a really appropriate manner. I commend the bill to the House. 18:48 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill. This is crucially important because Australians need to have confidence that those medicines are there when they are needed and that this is well managed. So I support the measures in this bill to strengthen the monitoring and management of medicine shortages in Australia. At its heart, this bill is based on a simple principle: when the supply of an important medicine is going to change, patients, doctors and pharmacists should have as much warning as possible. Disruption to Australia's medicines supply chain affect people managing very serious illnesses, including cancer, chronic illness and serious health conditions. Disruptions affect doctors trying to maintain continuity of treatment and pharmacists trying to find alternatives—and, of course, shortages create enormous stress for patients, who simply need to know that the medicine they rely on will be there when they need it. The bill strengthens the existing mandatory reporting framework by requiring sponsors to provide, where possible, at least 12 months notice of a decision to permanently discontinue a reportable medicine. It also requires sponsors to update the TGA where those plans change and expands the TGA's ability to require information about the availability, shortage and discontinuation of any of the approved medicines. These are sensible and practical reforms. They will give the TGA, clinicians, patients and the broader community more time to anticipate problems and to respond before a shortage becomes a crisis. The importance of these reforms has been brought home recently in our community and around Australia, and was referred to me by constituents who were contacting my office concerned about the future availability of Zoladex. Zoladex, or goserelin—I won't be able to pronounce that properly!—is a hormone treatment. In particular, the monthly 3.6-milligram implant is used in the treatment of conditions including hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer and endometriosis. Earlier this year, AstraZeneca announced that the 3.6-milligram form would be removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 1 November 2026 for commercial reasons. These are companies that have made substantial profits throughout recent years—in particular after COVID and during COVID. This decision caused incredible stress and concern. I wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, advocating on behalf of affected constituents who wrote to me fearing the essential medication that they rely on would be cut off. The department of health has said that it attempted to retain the medicine on the PBS. I welcome the arrangements that AstraZeneca has now put in place to maintain access to Zoladex 3.6 milligrams at no cost for existing and future eligible patients. That provides important reassurance, but it doesn't resolve the underlying issue. The medicine is still being removed from the PBS for commercial reasons, and Breast Cancer Network Australia has made clear that the continuity program is not a long-term solution. This experience demonstrates why Australia needs earlier warning of discontinuations. Patients should never find themselves suddenly wondering whether a treatment that is working for them will still be available in six months time. Advance warning is necessary, but advance warning alone does not guarantee access. We also need a medicine system capable of responding when a commercially driven decision leaves a genuine clinical need behind. That brings me to a broader issue which I believe the government should address alongside these reforms. For Australians living with rare, rapidly progressive and life-limiting conditions, the challenge can be the opposite of a shortage. Instead of losing access to a medicine already available here, they can wait far too long for access to a therapy that exists and may already have been assessed and approved by a trusted overseas regulator but has not entered the Australian system. This issue is particularly acute for rare diseases, including some of the conditions that cause childhood dementia. For those families, time has a very different meaning. When a disease is rapidly progressive, a delay of months or years in relation to access to medicines can mean irreversible deterioration while a family watches a potential treatment remain beyond reach. Australia does not have a mechanism designed to accelerate access. These mechanisms are important and must be maintained. There are fundamental limitations in the system. To register a prescription medicine on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, a sponsoring company must make the application. For an extremely rare condition affecting a very small number of Australians, our relatively small patient populations can mean that there is insufficient commercial incentive for a sponsor to pursue Australian registration and reimbursement, potentially then delaying or preventing routine access to therapies for patients of rare diseases whilst those medicines or therapies are available overseas. Medicines, therefore, may not be readily listed and available. A therapy might be scientifically promising and it might have been approved by a comparable regulator overseas. Australian clinicians and families may want to have access to it. But, if the Australian market is too small to justify the expense and administrative burden for a commercial sponsor, there may simply never be an application for the TGA to assess. So that is, I would argue, a system or market failure. In 2021, a bipartisan House inquiry into the approval of new medicines specifically recommended that the Commonwealth establish a fund to enable patients, clinicians and non-profit organisations to sponsor registrations and reimbursement applications where there is no realistic prospect of a pharmaceutical company doing so. I therefore call on the government to establish a faster, clearer and more transparent pathway for therapies that address high, unmet clinical needs to be listed—or for an application to be made. The precise mechanism should be developed with the TGA, clinicians, patient groups and industry. Doing nothing effectively allows market size and commercial prospects to determine whether or not a sponsored application is made and whether some Australian patients even get the opportunity for therapy to be assessed. I support these bills because medicine shortages and discontinuations need to be identified early and managed better. The experience with Zoladex demonstrates, in real time, the importance of that work. But medicine security is about more than knowing a shortage is coming; it is about ensuring patients have a clear and reliable pathway to what comes next. We need a system that anticipates gaps, secures alternatives and protects continuity of care. 18:56 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde While I never thought that I would be talking about soybeans and sweet potatoes in the context of a bill effectively about medicine shortages, I'll flag that as something that I'll return to later in my speech—as a bit of a page turner, perhaps. Meanwhile, I rise in support of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026. In doing so, I recognise the really quite incredible work of the Minister for Health and Ageing in leading the government's strategy for health and also the work of the health and social services committee of the caucus which, in many ways, takes the aspirations and the dreams of Labor Party members across the country and of the communities from which those members come. Ultimately, this piece of legislation sits within Labor's core mission—it sits within Labor's DNA—to provide a quality and universal health system. When you look at the work that has been done through this government and through the Labor Party in general, remembering that it was the Labor Party that created the PBS almost 80 years ago under the prime ministership of Ben Chifley—the work that this Labor government is doing to build on the PBS includes cheaper medicines, bulk-billing, tackling specialist fees and making urgent care clinics a central part of our health system. It just goes to show that the Labor Party very much believes in universal and quality healthcare, while the Liberal Party, we learned today, is still trying to figure out what exactly Medicare means and still trying to work out a definition of Medicare. It is hardly surprising from a party that was led by Prime Minister John Howard, who believed that Medicare was a rort; by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who tried to kill Medicare—literally by a thousand cuts—by imposing a co-payment on doctor visits; and by Turnbull and Morrison, who tried to throttle Medicare when none of those other things worked by keeping the rebate which was paid to doctors at the same rate in the time that they were in government. Universal health care very much sits within Labor's mission. While the Labor Party and the labour movement exist to advance the economic interests of working-class Australians, there are some things that you can achieve on the shop floor. Wages and conditions at an enterprise level are the sorts of things that you can achieve on the shop floor, but what you can't achieve on the shop floor is universal and quality health care. That can only be achieved by having control of chambers and parliaments like this. You need governments and parliaments to make the laws and provide the resources for services such as universal health care. That's why the Labor Party exists. It exists to take up those things that you can't achieve on the shop floor but are so important to the economic interests of working-class Australians. This legislation is sitting within that general work. 'Universal' and 'quality' are, I think, what Medicare means to us. This bill deals with the quality of our health system. While medicine shortages have not necessarily been something new to the Australian experience, I think COVID really showed us what it means to be a country at the end of supply chains. Before I got elected to this place, I remember trying to help a friend look for Ozempic. I think the first big shock to our health system and to health consumers was when there was suddenly a massive shortage of Ozempic. This woman really needed it for diabetes treatment, and she couldn't get it anywhere. I want to give a shout-out to the Pharmacy Guild, who I was able to get a hold of and who did a ring around for us to find a pharmacist who was able to supply Ozempic at the beginning of that crisis. Even though it involved a logistical exercise in getting it delivered from the other side of Brisbane, it did alleviate the worry that my friend had in trying to get something which was really life-changing for her to manage her diabetes. Medicine shortages are becoming much more acute post COVID. Last September, a constituent came to me, as a member of parliament. She was looking for some help because she couldn't get the hormone replacement treatment Estradot, which is a patch which deals with perimenopause and menopause. Again, while we were able to help her through the Pharmacy Guild, who provided a solution for that, it did show to me at that real-world level what it means when somebody is having trouble getting the medicine that they need. In preparation for this speech, I was looking at some media and came across a story by the ABC's health reporter Lauren Roberts. She talks about what the shortage of Estradot means. She really does sum it up well. This story is from May this year, so this is happening right now. Lauren Roberts says: Australian women are cutting their menopause patches in half, travelling interstate to fill scripts and going without amid ongoing supply shortages. It's an issue Rachel, who didn't want to use her surname for privacy reasons, knows all too well. "Whenever you can't find [your medication], you kind of go into a bit of a mild panic," she said. "It's like, 'Oh, my quality of life is going to tumble, there's nothing [available].'" Over the years, Rachel has 'spent hours calling pharmacies to check what they have on hand before travelling long distances to get the right medication'. I feel this is a story that all of us as elected members and community representatives come across all too often. It goes on: Pharmacist and nutritionist Sarah Gray, who specialises in perimenopause, said these patches weren't "cosmetic or optional". "They are prescribed to manage hot flushes, sleep disruption, mood instability, cognitive symptoms and overall daily functioning," she said. "For many women, they are the difference between coping and not coping at work, at home and in leadership roles. "These medications can be life-changing." Lauren Roberts, the journalist, said: In 2023, the local market grew tighter after one brand of HRT patch approved for use in Australia was discontinued, putting an increased demand on those still available. She goes on: Ada Cheung, an endocrinologist at the University of Melbourne, said it wasn't just Australia experiencing shortages, with the United States and United Kingdom also impacted. Here we get to the bit about soybeans and sweet potatoes. Professor Cheung said the first issue along the supply chain was at the start, with soya beans and sweet potatoes—the raw ingredients used in most patches—in high demand and short supply globally. Who would have thought that something as basic as those two things could have such profound ramifications? Lauren Roberts goes on to say that there are reports of some patients: 'cutting patches in half, sharing medication, spacing out doses or going without to cope with the scarcity of supply. And in Brisbane, community pharmacist Tahnee Simpson said patients would drive "in search of a unicorn" looking for their preferred brand.' Tahnee Simpson, the pharmacist, said: There may be one box sitting in a far-off pharmacy, a long way away and they will drive for it… And for me, my heart sinks because it also means that I can't provide care to that patient … I'm sure that all of our hearts sink when a constituent comes to us and can't get the life-changing and life-saving medication that they rely on. By the way, I just thought it was interesting and relevant to talk about perimenopause and menopause because, as I say, this legislation sits in the broader government strategy of universal and quality healthcare. When it comes to perimenopause, the government has introduced a new item number for GPs to conduct menopause and perimenopause assessments on patients. We've also listed three new menopause hormone treatments for the first time in two decades. These are treatments which are already being used by 150,000 women across Australia. That's potentially 1,000 women in each of our electorates who, at the moment, are spending $580 a year on those menopause hormone treatments. They will now be getting them at the PBS rate. This legislation, while technical and slightly complex in its nature, sits at the very heart of the Labor Party's mission and this government's mission to make quality healthcare universal. These shortages in medications and in medical products are not new, but they've been exacerbated by COVID and by the supply chain pressure that we feel on all sorts of products all around the world. And so, while mentioning soybeans and sweet potatoes in a speech on medicine shortages, I suppose it shouldn't be any surprise that I could also mention copper and steel and aluminium, because those three things are also examples of what the Albanese Labor government is doing when it comes to addressing the issues of national sovereignty. By protecting our foundational industries of steel in Whyalla, of copper in Mount Isa and aluminium in Gladstone, we are recognising that for too many years we have become too reliant—and that's probably a nice way to put it—on overseas suppliers to look after us. Now we know that when the crunch is on we need to look after ourselves, which by the way seems to be a fundamental difference in philosophy between the Labor Party and, certainly, the Liberal Party and One Nation. I'm still not always sure where the National Party, the agrarian socialists, land on this. But when you get an opportunity to drill down into what One Nation stands for, it's no surprise that, when you see who backs her, they are actually a party that are economic rationalism on steroids, neoliberalism on steroids. So it is only the Labor Party that takes this approach to national sovereignty. Earlier, the member for Swan mentioned the Albanese government's approach to the IV shortage back in 2023. If surgeries weren't being delayed they were being this close to being delayed, and patients who needed—we are not talking about niche products. When you talk about IV fluid, you're talking about sugar and salt water. Patients' recoveries were being compromised because there was a shortage. It took the Albanese Labor government to invest $20 million—with Baxter, as the member for Swan said—to bring back that sovereign capability and to try and head off those problems in the future. Of course, it invested in not just Baxter but Moderna—and through the Future Made in Australia package, through funding for locally produced medicines and through the national medicine stockpile. This shows that this government's and this party's great project for what are the Australian values of quality—which sits at the heart of why universal and quality health care is important. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 12