﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2026-08-12</date>
    <parliament.no>3</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 12 August 2026</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 13 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 17 August 2026. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT No. 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee and delegation business and private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 August 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair Hon M Dick Speaker</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms J Ryan MP (Chief Government Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr C Caldwell MP (Chief Opposition Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms M Aldred MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms A Byrnes MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms K Chaney</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms L Chesters MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms M Landry MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Z Mascarenhas MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms T Roberts MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms R Sharkie MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms S Sitou MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr B Small MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms A Urquhart MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms S Claydon MP, Deputy Speaker</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 11 August 2026.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 11 August 2026, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 17 August 2026, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR L O'BRIEN: To present a Bill for an Act to protect children born alive (including as a result of terminations), and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2026</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 25 June 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS CAMPBELL: To move—That this House acknowledges that the Government is supporting Australians to earn more, keep more of what they earn, and retire with more, with a range of policies that came into effect on 1 July 2026, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) payday superannuation reforms, benefiting the retirement incomes of millions of Australians through more frequent and earlier superannuation contributions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) a 4.75 per cent increase to the minimum wage, marking the first time the national minimum wage is above $1,000 a week;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) expanding government paid parental leave to 130 days, with parents to be paid superannuation contributions on Commonwealth funded paid parental leave for the first time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) delivering:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a new $1,000 instant tax deduction without proof of receipts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) another tax cut of up to $268 for over 14 million Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 55 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Campbell </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 11 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR JOYCE: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) condemns the Government for its continued roll out of renewable energy precincts in regional communities, including the New England Renewable Energy Zone and Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone, without due regard for the impact on agriculture, landowners, community, infrastructure and the productive landscape;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) regional Australians are being asked to carry the burden of a policy that is driving up the cost of living, increasing pressure on electricity prices, and undermining reliable and affordable power for households, small businesses and industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the rollout of large-scale wind, solar, battery and transmission projects is desecrating rural landscapes, creating uninsurable properties, dividing communities, and imposing industrial-scale infrastructure across farms, towns and natural environments that have sustained regional Australia for generations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's approach amounts to the socialisation of private assets, where public money, public guarantees and publicly backed schemes are used to underwrite private renewable energy developments and transmission projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) intermittent power does not provide the affordable or reliable base load electricity needed to run a modern economy, and that the failure of intermittent generation is being masked by secretive capacity investment schemes and opaque market interventions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes, with concern, the severe impact on small regional communities from the construction of renewable energy precincts, including the arrival of hundreds of temporary workers, demand for already limited housing, pressure on local roads, health services, schools, water, policing and emergency services, and disruption to community life;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to immediately pause the rollout of renewable energy precincts where local communities have not been properly consulted and where the full economic, social, environmental and infrastructure costs have not been independently assessed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) supports the establishment of a Royal Commission into the rollout of renewable energy precincts across regional Australia, including their effect on cost of living, energy reliability, private property rights, public expenditure, local infrastructure, community cohesion and the long-term future of regional landscapes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 15 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Joyce </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR VIOLI: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the My Aged Care system is broken, causing widespread hardship and distress for ageing Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing recently confirmed that the current wait time for an older person of standard priority for a Support at Home package is between 300 to 330 days;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a recent report by KPMG found that 96,709 people are still waiting in the National Priority System for a Home Care Package at their approved level; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) residents in rural and regional parts of Australia are finding that once they finally get services approved, there are no available service providers to deliver the required supports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) requires the Minister for Health and Ageing to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately explain and address the ongoing and increasing delays with the My Aged Care and Support at Home programs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) outline what specific measures the Government will take to address provider scarcity and workforce issues in outer-metropolitan and regional electorates, where approved funding is currently failing to translate into actual bedside care and support at home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 May 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Violi </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 DR HAINES: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) regional Australia is playing a vital role in hosting the infrastructure needed to facilitate the energy transition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is a patchwork of community engagement and benefit obligations across and within states that makes it difficult for regional communities to know what to expect when dealing with renewable energy proponents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) regional communities have varying experiences engaging with renewable energy proponents, with some proponents undertaking best practice community engagement and others, poor or absent engagement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) poor community engagement and benefit processes are bad for communities, and undermine the energy transition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the surge in artificial intelligence (AI) data centres has increased national awareness of the importance of community benefit for communities impacted by new largescale infrastructure developments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) regional communities have been calling for a fair share of community benefits commensurate to their role in hosting Australia's energy transition, long before this conversation started about AI data centres; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establish a permanent, nationally consistent community benefit framework that sets out minimum mandatory community benefit contributions to be paid by renewable energy proponents to community benefit funds that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) deliver intergenerational community benefit to regional communities who host their infrastructure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) support local governments to navigate their increasing responsibilities in facilitating the energy transition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) assign the implementation and oversight responsibility for this framework to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Haines </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS FERNANDO: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) commends the Government for investing a further $158.4 million to expand the Commonwealth Prac Payment (CPP) to students training in ten additional frontline health professions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that, from 1 July 2027, this expansion will build on paid prac already available to eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students, with around 95,000 students expected to receive support each year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) practical placements are a significant part of health degrees, making up more than a year of study in some courses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) travel, accommodation and relocation costs can discourage students from undertaking placements in regional and remote Australia, where health workforce shortages are often most acute;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes that eligible students currently receive $338.60 a week, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate and indexed annually, providing real cost-of-living relief while they undertake mandatory placements; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further acknowledges that expanding CPP will help more students complete their qualifications, growing the health workforce Australians rely on and strengthening Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Fernando </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CHESTER: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the significant contribution Australia's livestock producers make to regional economies, employment and the nation's food security;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that wild dogs are a serious and growing threat to livestock, costing an estimated $302 million in production losses each year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the burden carried by property owners to deal with the wild dog predation on stock;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has cut important pest and invasive species management programs, despite the significant and growing economic impact of invasive species on Australian agriculture;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) federal funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator is due to expire at the end of September 2026, with funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan expiring a month later;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the coordinator and the plan provide a nationally agreed, evidence-based framework that enables coordinated control across state and territory borders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) industry bodies have committed to co-funding the national wild dog program, yet the Government has chosen to ignore its responsibility to support coordinated wild dog control; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urges the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) guarantee ongoing funding to maintain the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator role;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) renew funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan to continue the second half of the ten year management program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) recognise that a nationally coordinated approach to pests management is essential to protecting livestock, agricultural productivity and the prosperity of regional Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) commit to ongoing investment in the coordinated management and control of wild dogs and other invasive species that threaten Australian agriculture, regional communities and the environment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chester </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR FRENCH: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the Government's Key Apprenticeship Program, which provides $10,000 incentive payments to new tradies, has already attracted 30,000 apprentices in the first 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) carpentry, plumbing and electrical trades are the most popular occupations for apprentices under the program; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the program is calibrated to offer incentive payments at milestones across the course of an apprenticeship, ensuring that apprentices are supported to reach the finish line of their apprenticeship, with data showing stronger retention rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that the program forms a key part of the Government's work to deliver targeted support for apprenticeships in industries where we need them most, particularly housing construction;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) affirms the Government's ongoing support for the program, with the budget locking in incentive settings for both apprentices and employers until 2029; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) expresses concern that despite multiple opportunities to clarify their position, neither the Opposition nor the One Nation party have made clear their support for the program, with the Shadow Minister for Skills and Training calling the program 'wrong' and 'throwing good money, after bad money'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 30 June 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr French </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 ENERGY COSTS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 9 February 2026</inline>) on the motion of Mr Tehan—That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Government's energy policies have seen a record number of Australians having an energy debt and facing a 24 per cent increase in their electricity bills in the next six months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Australians were promised a $275 cut to their power bills by last Christmas and $378 lower by 2030;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Australians, instead, are paying up to $1,300 more;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) electricity costs rose by 21.5 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) instead of lower energy costs, as promised by the Government, Australians are now paying more due to the policies of the Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS ALDRED: To move—That this House notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) $41.9 billion collapse in revenue from tobacco excise in this year's budget, and that downgraded forecasts now reveal the Government expects to collect just $2.1 billion, the lowest tobacco excise collection this century, despite a 282 per cent increase in the excise rate since 2013;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Government's failure to arrest smoking rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) continued and rapid escalation of violent crime from the illegal tobacco trade, including over 200 firebombings of supermarkets and tobacconists since 2023 under this Government as well as the proceeds funding terrorist activities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls by the New South Wales State Premier Chris Minns and former Deputy Australian Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth for a complete overhaul of tobacco excise and law enforcement resourcing to combat illegal tobacco.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 June 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 30<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Aldred </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS K COOK: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that Mental Health Month is observed throughout October each year to raise awareness of mental health, reduce stigma and encourage all Australians to seek support when they need it;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the importance of mental health to the wellbeing of individuals, families and communities, and acknowledges the role played by families, carers, lived experience advocates, peer workers, community organisations and health professionals in supporting Australians experiencing mental health challenges;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the Government's continued investment in strengthening Australia's mental health system, including through:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the rollout of Medicare Mental Health Centres, with more than 56 of the planned 92 centres now open nationwide, providing free, walk-in mental health support with no referral or diagnosis required;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the establishment of Medicare Mental Health Kids Hubs, providing free support for children aged 0 to 12 and their families, with 17 Kids Hubs being rolled out across the country;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expanding the network of headspace services and upgrading 30 centres to a new and enhanced headspace Plus model, providing young Australians with accessible mental health care, early intervention and holistic support;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the new national early intervention service, Medicare Mental Health Check In, providing free guided digital support and low intensity therapy to help Australians build practical skills; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) strengthening access to mental health care through Medicare and community-based services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges that early intervention, community connection and reducing stigma are critical to improving mental health outcomes and preventing suicide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages all Australians during Mental Health Month to check in with family members, friends, neighbours and colleagues, seek support when they need it, and help build communities where every person feels connected, supported and able to access quality mental health care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms K Cook </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">AGED CARE: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Violi—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the My Aged Care system is broken, causing widespread hardship and distress for ageing Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing recently confirmed that the current wait time for an older person of standard priority for a Support at Home package is between 300 to 330 days;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a recent report by KPMG found that 96,709 people are still waiting in the National Priority System for a Home Care Package at their approved level; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) residents in rural and regional parts of Australia are finding that once they finally get services approved, there are no available service providers to deliver the required supports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) requires the Minister for Health and Ageing to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately explain and address the ongoing and increasing delays with the My Aged Care and Support at Home programs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) outline what specific measures the Government will take to address provider scarcity and workforce issues in outer-metropolitan and regional electorates, where approved funding is currently failing to translate into actual bedside care and support at home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 50 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS FERNANDO: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the Prime Minister's announcement that the Government will establish a new Fair Work Court;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the aims of the Fair Work Court are to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provide simpler, fairer and faster access to justice for working Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ensure that workers are not placed in a position where the cost of pursuing a claim exceeds the value of the claim; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Fair Work Court would be staffed by specialist judges with expertise in workplace relations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Government will consult with workers, employers and legal experts on the operation of the Fair Work Court, including how it can improve access to justice and better support workers and employers in navigating workplace disputes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Fernando </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 August 2026</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Address-in-Reply</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the address be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have ascertained that Her Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply at Government House at 5.30 pm on Monday 17 August 2026. I understand the sitting will be adjourned at 4.30 pm. I shall be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the address.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia and Japan</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) condemns the recent behaviour of the Prime Minister concerning the Prime Minister of Japan, Her Excellency Sanae Takaichi, which was deeply disrespectful and beneath the office of Prime Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Prime Minister refuses to apologise to Prime Minister Takaichi over his crass and demeaning behaviour;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on Monday evening, reports emerged of diplomatic correspondence dated 13 July, sent by the Japanese government, which related to the Prime Minister's appearance on a podcast with Nikki Osborne;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) given that communications between governments can be classified, it is possible that this disclosure is a criminal offence under Division 122 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in 2022, the Prime Minister said when dealing with foreign governments "one of the things I will do and a part of keeping faith is keeping private conversations private"; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) requires:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Prime Minister to attend the Chamber and make a statement of no more than 15 minutes, no later than 1.30 pm on Tuesday, 12 August 2026, to apologise to the Prime Minister of Japan and explain to the House whether the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office unlawfully disclosed confidential and sensitive correspondence received from the Government of Japan by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Leader of the Opposition to be permitted to make a response to the Prime Minister's statement for no more than 15 minutes immediately after the Prime Minister's statement.</para></quote>
<para>We're suspending standing orders today because we want Prime Minister Albanese to do what is right, to do what is decent, to do what is in the national interest, to do what's necessary to make amends to a great female leader of a great democracy and a great friend of Australia.</para>
<para>Australians respect a prime minister who is firm, a prime minister who is resolved. But, I'll tell you what Australians also respect—they respect a prime minister who can acknowledge his mistakes, a prime minister who, despite error, has the grace, the humility and the courage to say, 'I stuffed up and I'm sorry.' Prime Minister Albanese has stuffed up. His comments on the <inline font-style="italic">Bush Deep</inline> podcast were ill considered. They were crass. They were unstatesmanlike. His comments weren't befitting the office he holds, an office which represents Australia and Australians. His comments were offensive, disrespectful and sexist not only to the Japanese Prime Minister but also to many women. Indeed, the podcast discussion was utterly distasteful in content, in innuendo, in gestures, and not only in relation to the Japanese Prime Minister but also in relation to Kylie Minogue.</para>
<para>This is not a matter of interpretation or misinterpretation as some defending the Prime Minister like to say. Indeed, some of the Prime Minister's staunchest defenders are his female colleagues who at every opportunity accuse those on our side of politics of sexism and misogyny, yet when their own leader is sexist they defend the indefensible. What hypocrisy! On any objective analysis, the Prime Minister's comments were wrong—even if they were a gaffe, they were wrong—and there are serious consequences from the unserious podcast that the Prime Minister hosted at the Lodge.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has insulted a leader, and not just any leader—the Prime Minister of Japan, the prime minister of a key Australian trading partner and a key Australian ally in our region. Japan buys LNG and coal from Australia. We're buying frigates from Japan. The bilateral relationship between our two democracies is deep, abiding and absolutely necessary, especially in a region where we are seeing more military adventurism, aggression and coercion from the Chinese Communist Party. The Japanese Prime Minister is a stoic woman. She's not called the 'Iron Lady' for nothing, and any Australian who knows the Japanese people know they're incredibly polite and decent people. Where offence has been given the Japanese are resilient, they're restrained and they're diplomatic. That is clear in the Japanese cable of 13 July to the Australian government in response to Prime Minister Albanese's podcast.</para>
<para>But how do we know about the contents of this cable? How do we know about that? It has been leaked to the press. Back in July 2022, soon after he came to office, this Prime Minister said, 'one of the things I will do and a part of keeping faith is keeping private conversations private'. The Prime Minister must come clean: has his office or his department or someone in the Labor government leaked the Japanese government's cable to downplay a serious diplomatic disaster? As the Prime Minister knows, the disclosure of classified communications can be a criminal offence, and that's why I've had the shadow minister for Defence and the shadow minister for foreign affairs refer this matter to the Australian Federal Police. Confidential communication should remain confidential—that's in the national interest. That's in the interest of our allies and our partners.</para>
<para>Let me return to the key point here: this prime minister has stuffed up. He has made an egregious error. He, earlier, posted on social media:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No matter who you support in politics, it is completely unacceptable to demean, objectify, belittle or offend women.</para></quote>
<para>If this is the standard the Prime Minister sets for others, it's the standard he should also hold himself to.</para>
<para>I call on the Prime Minister to pick up the phone and apologise to the Japanese prime minister. I call on the Prime Minister to be in this place by 1.30 pm and to make a public apology. These actions would go a long way. They would show that this prime minister, who is known for his hubris, can be capable of humility. We haven't seen that, but it would demonstrate that someone who is known for hubris can be capable of humility. That would also show he can be a leader of decency. That would show he can be a man of maturity. I call on him to act today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion, and I call on the Prime Minister to act in the national interest and not his personal interest. The Australia-Japanese relationship is a special strategic partnership. I fear that the longer this saga goes on, the greater we risk damage to that relationship and to a people who we call friends, a people who are themselves deeply respectful.</para>
<para>This year, we mark 50 years of a treaty of friendship and collaboration between Australia and Japan. Right now, we should be celebrating trust between the two countries. We should be talking optimistically about deepening that relationship even further for another 50 years and more. Ultimately, trust is the currency of diplomacy, yet what we see, with an apparent leaking of a confidential diplomatic note, is a breach of trust. That is unacceptable.</para>
<para>We are a serious nation that should be governed by serious people, yet what we have here is a cheap and vulgar podcast comment from the Prime Minister morphing into an issue that compromises our national interests. Just as I call for the Prime Minister to act in the national interest and not his personal interest, I call on the Foreign minister to remember that her responsibility is to be Australia's chief diplomat and not the Prime Minister's chief apologist.</para>
<para>This is utterly unacceptable. It is becoming a national embarrassment. To hear that there has been a report on the Prime Minister's inappropriate comments in the<inline font-style="italic"> Japan Times</inline> only worsens this, and then the response from the Prime Minister and his ministers to be one of defending the indefensible has only worsened the situation.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition was right to ask the shadow minister for defence and me, as the shadow minister for foreign affairs, to refer this to the Australian Federal Police. We cannot have a situation where foreign governments do not know if the Australian government can be trusted with confidential diplomatic notes. We call on the AFP to investigate. The Prime Minister needs to be held to his own standards, in addition to the standard he outlaid, which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, when the Prime Minister, in 2022, on dealing with foreign governments, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Well, one of the things I will do and a part of keeping faith is keeping private conversations private.</para></quote>
<para>Let me also mention a few other things he said. On the first day of the election campaign in 2022, the now prime minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">But when I make a mistake, I'll fess up to it, and I'll set about correcting that mistake.</para></quote>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I won't blame someone else, I'll accept responsibility. That's what leaders do.</para></quote>
<para>Prime Minister, we ask you, for the sake of our nation, for the sake of our relationship with Japan, please be a leader: come into this House and make an apology.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the debate be adjourned.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the debate be adjourned.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [09:20]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>88</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abdo, B. J.</name>
                <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                <name>Aly, A.</name>
                <name>Ambihaipahar, A.</name>
                <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                <name>Berry, C. G.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Briskey, J. L.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Campbell, J. P.</name>
                <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Clutterham, C. L.</name>
                <name>Coffey, R. K.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Comer, E. L.</name>
                <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                <name>Cook, K. M. G.</name>
                <name>Cook, P. A.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C. J.</name>
                <name>France, A. A.</name>
                <name>French, T. A.</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gorman, P. P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Gregg, M. J.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Holzberger, R. A. V.</name>
                <name>Jarrett, M. L.</name>
                <name>Jordan-Baird, M. A. M.</name>
                <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Moncrieff, D. S.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>Ng, G. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Smith, M. J. H.</name>
                <name>Soon, X.</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Teesdale, J. A.</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>White, R. P.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Witty, S. J.</name>
                <name>Zappia, A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>41</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Aldred, M. R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chaffey, J. L.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Farley, D.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Penfold, A. L.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                <name>Small, B. J.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>Venning, T. H.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, T. R.</name>
                <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Debate adjourned.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7529" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Early childhood education and care workers do one of the most important jobs in this country, but you wouldn't know it from what they have historically been paid.</para>
<para>When we were first elected, childcare workers were leaving the job in droves—not because they didn't love the job but because they couldn't afford to keep doing it—because they could get paid more stacking shelves than they could educating the most precious things in our lives: our children.</para>
<para>In some centres the attrition rate was as high as 40 per cent.</para>
<para>That's 40 per cent of the workforce leaving the job they love in any given year. That is a crisis.</para>
<para>But that has now changed, and it's changed for a reason: the 15 per cent pay rise that this government delivered almost two years ago.</para>
<para>When combined with the government's support for minimum wage rises, this means $255 more per week for a typical full-time educator and $410 more per week for early childhood teachers, compared to December 2024 when we first implemented this pay rise.</para>
<para>More than 215,000 early educators at more than 11,600 centres across the country are now benefiting from this.</para>
<para>Job vacancies are now down 31 per cent, job applications in some places are up 30 per cent, and there are now 20,000 more childcare workers doing that sort of life-changing work right across the country.</para>
<para>In other words, it's worked.</para>
<para>That's why on 17 June, the Prime Minister announced an investment of $3.6 billion over the next two years to lock in this historic pay rise.</para>
<para>This bill delivers on that commitment.</para>
<para>It amends the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Act 2024, crediting the special account and extending the act's sunset date from 30 June 2028 to 31 December 2029.</para>
<para>The special account is used to administer the early childhood education and care worker retention payment grant to ECEC providers to fund higher wages for eligible workers.</para>
<para>For the first time, all childcare-subsidy-approved services will be eligible for funding as long as they meet the grant requirements.</para>
<para>This includes that all educators are engaged under a workplace instrument.</para>
<para>This is an important protection for workers to ensure the government's investment is passed on in the form of higher wages.</para>
<para>But it's not just workers who will benefit from this legislation.</para>
<para>To receive the funding, services have to limit fee increases.</para>
<para>This has a real impact for families.</para>
<para>Over the first year of the program, fees at centres that have received the payment have increased by about half the amount of centres that didn't sign up.</para>
<para>If this legislation doesn't pass, the advice of my department is that childcare fees could skyrocket by about 17 per cent.</para>
<para>We don't want this to occur.</para>
<para>That's why this legislation is important.</para>
<para>It means childcare workers are paid what they deserve and that the costs are not passed on parents.</para>
<para>That will save the average family about $1,500 over the next two years.</para>
<para>That's big.</para>
<para>This bill does something else as well, something very important.</para>
<para>It establishes a new object and condition of funding for the act which puts service quality and the safety of our children at its heart.</para>
<para>To receive the funding, services will now also be required to meet quality area 2 relating to children's health and safety under the National Quality Standard.</para>
<para>If they don't, their funding can be cut.</para>
<para>About 95 per cent of services already meet this standard, but I want that number to be higher.</para>
<para>That's what parents have got a right to expect.</para>
<para>And it's what our children deserve.</para>
<para>This bill also allows for equivalent conditions to apply to services that are not regulated by the National Quality Framework, such as in-home care services.</para>
<para>This is the latest in a raft of reforms that we've introduced to improve safety in our early education system.</para>
<para>The legislation that we passed last year gives my department the power to cut off funding to operators that don't meet the quality, safety or compliance requirements under the national law.</para>
<para>Since that legislation passed, my department has taken compliance action against 119 centres, putting them on notice to lift their game.</para>
<para>These are centres that haven't met the safety standards for at least five years.</para>
<para>And it's no accident that 55 of those centres have now suddenly fixed the problem that they had refused to fix in the past.</para>
<para>The threat of cutting off their funding has forced them to act.</para>
<para>This is not an idle threat. In June we cut off funding to a service for the first time.</para>
<para>Seven other centres have voluntarily decided to close.</para>
<para>That legislation also gave my department the power to undertake unannounced visits to childcare services.</para>
<para>Since November last year, the Australian government authorised officers have conducted more than 1,300 unannounced visits to services across the country.</para>
<para>States and territory regulators have stepped up as well.</para>
<para>In the last quarter, regulators undertook 1,540 compliance actions, which is more than double the 735 at the same time last year.</para>
<para>On 27 February, two other big reforms came into force.</para>
<para>The first of those is the National Early Childhood Worker Register.</para>
<para>The events of last year made clear how important this is—to know who is working where and to be able to track people from centre to centre and from state to state.</para>
<para>The second is mandatory child safety training.</para>
<para>This is now a requirement for everyone who works in a centre—and not just them. Everyone up to the CEO and the board of directors has to do it as well.</para>
<para>They've got six months to complete that training, and we've seen more than 350,000 do that foundation training so far.</para>
<para>The next stage of child safety training began two weeks ago.</para>
<para>We've also banned personal mobile phones in centres.</para>
<para>A national CCTV trial is also underway in more than 300 services.</para>
<para>The Federal Police are part of an advisory group on that, as well as the Australian Centre for Child Protection, the National Office for Child Safety, and other leading experts.</para>
<para>All up, our government is investing an extra $226 million in child safety reforms.</para>
<para>The states and territories have committed more than $270 million as well.</para>
<para>That's around half a billion dollars that governments are investing in strengthening the quality and safety of early childhood education and care.</para>
<para>And last month, education ministers agreed to explore the development of an early education and care commission to further strengthen quality and safety in the system.</para>
<para>This bill supports the educators who support Australian families every single day.</para>
<para>It supports workforce participation.</para>
<para>And it helps to make our centres better and fairer.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7527" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Albanese government's first priority is the safety of all Australians and protecting the values we all hold dear.</para>
<para>Terrorism is a unique threat. It is intended to impact not only its direct victims but the community as a whole.</para>
<para>It strikes at our social fabric and attempts to stop celebrating the successful multicultural, respectful and vibrant democracy we've built over generations.</para>
<para>The devastating terrorist attack at Bondi Beach in December 2025 demonstrated the profound harm that acts of terror can inflict on individuals, families and communities.</para>
<para>Fifteen innocent people lost their lives in an act of terrorism motivated by hate and extremism.</para>
<para>We will never forget those fifteen innocent people nor the deep and lasting wounds inflicted on our community, particularly for Jewish Australians.</para>
<para>The unique threat posed by terrorism requires corresponding legislative responses.</para>
<para>The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is part of that response.</para>
<para>This bill would make a targeted set of reforms to key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe and, importantly, to ensure that those powers remain available, effective and proportionate.</para>
<para>Over time, Australia has developed a broad suite of legislative measures to combat terrorism.</para>
<para>This includes offences relating to terrorist acts, terrorist financing and terrorist organisations. It includes bespoke police powers to investigate and prevent terrorism, supplementing the ordinary powers available to law enforcement. Importantly, it also includes a range of orders to protect the public from the threat of terrorism.</para>
<para>As the threat environment changes, our laws must evolve accordingly. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies must have the powers they need to respond.</para>
<para>As the Director-General of Security recently observed, Australia's security environment is becoming increasingly dynamic, diverse and degraded. Terrorist threats are emerging from a broader range of ideologies. Individuals are being radicalised more rapidly. And acts of violence can occur with little warning.</para>
<para>This bill I introduce today would extend the sunset date for key counterterrorism police powers and order frameworks.</para>
<para>It would make amendments to streamline and rationalise the control order and post-sentence order frameworks, and ensure those frameworks operate effectively to address the current terrorism threat, including the threat posed by high-risk terrorist offenders.</para>
<para>It would also make technical amendments to the framework for listing terrorist organisations.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill would also amend division 71 of the Criminal Code to give effect to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.</para>
<para>Control orders, post-sentence orders and other counterterrorism powers</para>
<para>The bill would extend the sunset provisions for several critical counterterrorism frameworks for a further three years, until 7 December 2029.</para>
<para>Specifically, the bill would extend the sunset date for the control order, preventive detention order and post-sentence order frameworks in divisions 104, 105 and 105A of the Criminal Code respectively.</para>
<para>It would also extend the sunset date for police powers in division 3A of part IAA of the Crimes Act that support the prevention of, and response to, terrorism related threats.</para>
<para>These powers remain an important part of Australia's counterterrorism framework.</para>
<para>Extending their operation ensures that law enforcement agencies retain access to key tools to protect the community from terrorism and to manage risks posed by serious terrorist offenders.</para>
<para>The bill would also make important reforms to the control order and post-sentence order frameworks in divisions 104 and 105A of the Criminal Code.</para>
<para>The bill would streamline and simplify the existing order frameworks to establish control orders as the primary Commonwealth mechanism for imposing conditions on serious terrorist offenders in the community.</para>
<para>Positioning control orders as the primary mechanism to impose conditions on serious terrorist offenders reduces the duplication between the control order and post-sentence order frameworks.</para>
<para>It ensures there is one primary Commonwealth mechanism to impose conditions to manage the risk of terrorism. It also reflects current practice.</para>
<para>To implement this, the bill would remove the ability for the AFP minister to apply for an extended supervision order, while enhancing the control-order framework in its application to serious terrorist offenders.</para>
<para>It would remain open to a state or territory supreme court to issue an extended supervision order where the court is not satisfied a detention order is justified.</para>
<para>The bill would make several technical amendments to the control-order framework to enhance its effectiveness in relation to serious terrorist offenders.</para>
<para>Importantly, these amendments would not affect the eligibility or thresholds for control orders.</para>
<para>These orders are already available in relation to high-risk terrorist offenders.</para>
<para>Instead, these amendments would align certain elements of the control-order framework with certain processes that currently apply to extended supervision orders.</para>
<para>The bill would also amend the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The amendments would enable law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants for electronic surveillance when considering whether to request a control order in relation to a serious terrorist offender at the end of their custodial sentence.</para>
<para>These amendments are intended to ensure that law enforcement have the powers they need to support the use of control orders as the principal mechanism for managing high-risk terrorist offenders in the community following their release from custody.</para>
<para>Warrants of this kind are currently available in relation to extended supervision orders. Enlivening these powers for a limited subset of control orders is not a significant expansion of powers.</para>
<para>Instead, these amendments would ensure agencies maintain necessary investigative powers to inform the management of serious terrorist offenders at the end of their custodial sentence.</para>
<para>In addition, the bill would strengthen information sharing provisions in the control order and post-sentence order frameworks to ensure decision-makers have a more complete picture of the risk posed by an individual.</para>
<para>The amendments in the bill would allow state and territory authorities to voluntarily disclose information to the Commonwealth for control-order purposes.</para>
<para>This would provide decision-makers with access to relevant information to support them in making informed assessments about the risk a person poses to the community.</para>
<para>These amendments would support the crucial relationships between Commonwealth, state and territory agencies that underpin Australia's efforts to combat terrorism.</para>
<para>The bill would also expand the range of criminal information available to inform control-order and post-sentence-order applications and proceedings.</para>
<para>Specifically, the bill would amend the Criminal Code and the Crimes Act to enable information about findings of guilt where no conviction is recorded to be considered for the purposes of the post-sentence and control-order frameworks. Findings of guilt form an important part of a person's criminal history. This information is likely to be highly relevant to assessing the risk a person poses to the community and tailoring the approach to managing that risk.</para>
<para>The bill would also strengthen the application of the control-order framework in relation to young people. The Director-General of Security and the AFP Commissioner have both commented publicly on the disturbing trend of young people being radicalised.</para>
<para>An increasing number of minors are being investigated for, and charged with, terrorism related offences.</para>
<para>It is important that there are measures available to the government to address the risk posed by these young people outside of the criminal justice process.</para>
<para>In response to this trend, the bill would extend the maximum period for which a control order can be imposed on a person between 14 and 17 years of age from 3 months to 12 months.</para>
<para>Control orders are an effective and proportionate mechanism to manage terrorism risks short of prosecution. Importantly, control orders enable the court to impose a wide range of conditions, including therapeutic and rehabilitation conditions and conditions to prevent online access to violent extremist material.</para>
<para>Extending the maximum duration of control orders would enable law enforcement to facilitate youth participation in integration and rehabilitation programs for a longer period of time.</para>
<para>This would provide courts with greater flexibility to impose orders that appropriately reflect the risks posed by a young person and the circumstances of their case.</para>
<para>It would enable these orders to operate more effectively to respond to the growing cohort of young people who pose a serious threat to the community.</para>
<para>Importantly, 12 months would be the maximum duration for a control order against a young person.</para>
<para>It would remain a matter for the court to determine the appropriate duration of a particular control order, having regard to a range of factors including the best interests of the young person.</para>
<para>De-listing terrorist organisations</para>
<para>The bill would also strengthen the operation of the terrorist organisation listing framework in division 102 of the Criminal Code.</para>
<para>The listing of terrorist organisations remains a critical part of Australia's counter-terrorism framework. It enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to disrupt terrorist activities and imposes significant criminal penalties on terrorist organisations and those who support them in specified ways.</para>
<para>Importantly, these amendments would not change the scope of organisations that can be listed. It would remain the case that an organisation can be listed only if it meets at least one of the criteria for listing. That is, an organisation can only be listed if it either engages in, prepares, plans, assists or fosters terrorist acts or advocates terrorist acts.</para>
<para>Instead, the amendments would clarify certain elements of the framework and support its efficient operation.</para>
<para>The amendments in the bill would ensure an organisation must only be de-listed if the AFP minister ceases to be satisfied that the organisation meets at least one of the criteria for listing, regardless of the criteria of which the minister was satisfied at the time the organisation was listed.</para>
<para>This amendment would remove any risk that an organisation would need to be de-listed in circumstances where it is still engaging in or advocating terrorism.</para>
<para>The bill would remove the ability for an individual or an organisation to make an application for an organisation to be de-listed. This would ensure that the decision to de-list a terrorist organisation is driven by intelligence and threat assessments, rather than by public applications.</para>
<para>Numerous safeguards would remain to ensure organisations are de-listed if appropriate.</para>
<para>Most notably, the minister must maintain ongoing satisfaction that the organisation meets one of the criteria for listing as a terrorist organisation.</para>
<para>In addition, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security can review the listing of a terrorist organisation at any time, and provide comments and recommendations to parliament.</para>
<para>The bill would also clarify that a de-listing declaration is a notifiable instrument and is not subject to disallowance.</para>
<para>Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel</para>
<para>In addition, the bill would expand protections for United Nations and associated personnel in division 71 of the Criminal Code. Division 71 contains a range of offences for harmful conduct against UN and associated personnel engaged in UN operations.</para>
<para>The bill would extend these offences to apply to additional types of UN operations, including for the purpose of delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding activities, and for the purpose of delivering emergency humanitarian assistance.</para>
<para>These amendments would give effect to Australia's obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.</para>
<para>The amendments would reinforce Australia's commitment to protecting those who undertake critical humanitarian, peacebuilding and development work in some of the world's most challenging environments.</para>
<para>The amendments would also align with Australia's leadership in developing and implementing the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, and are an important demonstration of Australia's continued commitment to international law.</para>
<para>INSLM Review into Division 105A</para>
<para>Finally, I acknowledge the work of the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Mr Grant Donaldson SC on his review into division 105A (and related provisions) of the Criminal Code Act.</para>
<para>In developing the bill, the government has carefully considered the report and its recommendations.</para>
<para>States and Territories</para>
<para>The Commonwealth also acknowledges the constructive engagement of the states and territories in the development of this bill.</para>
<para>Parts of the Criminal Code are underpinned by the Intergovernmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws and, to that end, I acknowledge the agreement provided by first ministers of the majority states and territories to progress this legislation.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth also acknowledges the constructive engagement of officials through the Legal Issues Working Group of the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee.</para>
<para>This is the federation working at its best to keep Australians safe.</para>
<para> Conclusion</para>
<para>As the terrorism threat facing Australia continues to evolve, so too must our counter-terrorism laws.</para>
<para>This bill would maintain critical counter-terrorism powers and ensures that Australia's counter-terrorism laws remain effective, proportionate and responsive to evolving threats.</para>
<para>The bill is an important part of the government's continuing and holistic efforts to protect Australians from the threat of terrorism.</para>
<para>The government will today refer the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for consideration and report.</para>
<para>I thank the committee for its important work, and the government will work constructively with the PJCIS as it conducts its review.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Independent National Security Legislation Monitor</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the information of honourable members, I present the government's response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Review into division 105A (and related provisions) of the Criminal Code Act 1995</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7523" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026 gives effect to one of the government's announced budget measures which will amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978to increase the passenger movement charge from $70 to $80 from 1 January 2027.</para>
<para>The passenger movement charge is imposed on persons departing from Australia for another country and is usually collected by the carrier, such as an airline, at the time a ticket is sold, and then remitted by the carrier to the Department of Home Affairs.</para>
<para>The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026will also support realignment of the calculation of the passenger movement charge to the date of departure of the passenger, rather than the date of ticket sale.</para>
<para>This change will also be supported by an 18-month transitional arrangement for carriers from 1 January 2027 to 30 June 2028. The current PMC of $70 will be due where tickets were sold prior to this bill receiving royal assent. This transitional arrangement is a responsible measure to support industry partners in adapting business process and enable carriers to continue to collect and administer collected revenue on behalf of the government.</para>
<para>Revenue collection measures, such as the collection of the passenger movement charge, play an important role in advancing Australia's economic interests. The last increase to the passenger movement charge was in 2024, rising from $60 to $70.</para>
<para>This bill will increase revenue by $755 million over four years from 2026-27 to 2029-30. Through negotiations with the sector, the government has agreed to delay the start of the measure to provide more time to implement the change, with the final figures dependent on the passage of this bill.</para>
<para>This is one of several measures the government announced in the 2026-27 budget as part of our economic and fiscal strategy to make the economy and budget stronger, more resilient and more sustainable over the medium term.</para>
<para>The good news is Australia continues to see a steady increase in international visitors to our country, and the outlook for the visitor economy is positive.</para>
<para>I also note in that spirit the recent announcements regarding the next phase of border modernisation to improve the traveller experience and productivity at airports and seaports, including the digitalisation of the arrival card following the successful trials with Qantas.</para>
<para>This increase to the passenger movement charge will apply to persons departing Australia from 1 January 2027 with a ticket purchased after the date of the bill receiving the royal assent. This is a considered and responsible measure that will contribute to the continued economic prosperity of Australia, including continued support and investment in our travel and tourism sectors.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>17</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent, the following from occurring in relation to business for Monday, 17 August 2026:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the House adjourning at 4.30 pm to enable the Address in Reply to be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the Federation Chamber adjourning at 1.30 pm; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.</para></quote>
<para>For the information of members, particularly new members—well, no-one would feel new anymore; it's been a while now—who might not have been through this procedure before, when parliament first resumed after the election, we heard the address in the other place from the Governor-General. Then the Prime Minister moved a resolution establishing a committee to organise the address in reply. Everyone's first speech was given as part of the address in reply, and the two people to lead that committee were the member for Dickson and the member for Melbourne, and that's why their first speeches occurred before any of the others.</para>
<para>Having completed all the first speeches and every member who wanted to speak on the address-in-reply having done so, we are now ready to present that to the Governor-General. What will happen on Monday of next week is that the House will adjourn at 4.30 pm. The Federation Chamber will have adjourned at 1.30 pm, and people will then get in cars to go across to Yarralumla to meet with the Governor-General. The member for Dickson and the member for Melbourne on all of our behalf will present the address-in-reply to the Governor-General.</para>
<para>I'd remind members that we'll adjourn at 4.30. Cars will be going from five o'clock. Everyone will be pooling in cars. The special vehicles at the front will be for the Speaker and quite properly for the member for Dickson and the member for Melbourne, and then the clerks and the rest of us get across. But, because there are so many going across, please don't leave it late. It'll start at 5.30 pm. Transport will be kicking off at five o'clock. For everyone's diaries, just remember. Once the event with the Governor-General has concluded, parliament won't be resuming that night.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>17</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) on Wednesday, 12 August when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 is called on, a cognate debate taking place with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) after the discussion of a matter of public importance, when called on, debate on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and related bill continuing without interruption until the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted, and debate on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and related bill having priority until:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) no further Members rise to speak; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 10 pm; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until 9 am on Thursday, 13 August;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) on Thursday, 13 August or Monday, 17 August, if called on, debate on the second reading continuing but not proceeding beyond the summing up by the mover of the motion for the second reading;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) on Tuesday, 18 August when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 is called on, the questions on any second reading amendment[s] and on the second reading being put immediately; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.</para></quote>
<para>For the information of members, this is about doing a couple of things—firstly, making sure we do a late night sitting tonight to try to get through. There are a lot of people who want to speak, and people want these speeches to happen in the House, not the Federation Chamber. That will have a late night tonight through to 10 o'clock, but the resolution also makes sure that, if we were to finish, we would not immediately go to the vote and that the vote on this won't happen until Tuesday of next week. If we don't finish the speeches tonight, then the government will continue to list the bills with the intention still that we would be listing it for the vote on Tuesday.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>18</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7522" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7513" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that unless otherwise ordered the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration immediately.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7520" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7521" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026. There being no objection, the chair will allow the course to be followed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COFFEY</name>
    <name.id>312323</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Gambling has harmed too many Australian families for too long. When I was first elected last year, a mother from my community came to see me in my electorate office in Griffith. She told me that her husband had been gambling behind her back and without her knowledge. He had lost all their money. Everything they had was gone, and his gambling had left their family deep in debt. She had trusted her husband, with whom she had built a life and a family. He had hidden his gambling from her, and she discovered the truth after the damage was already done. She had since left the marriage and was raising their children. She now carried the work of rebuilding their lives after gambling had torn through their finances, their home and their sense of security. She brought something with her to our meeting; out of her bag, she produced the jersey of her young son's favourite football team. On the back was one of the team's sponsors; it was a gambling company. She held up her little boy's jersey and said: 'We can do better than this. We must do better than this.'</para>
<para>That meeting moved me deeply and it has stayed with me. I found this story very hard to speak about then, and I still do. She came with her child's sports jersey and the painful truth of what gambling had done to her family. She was trying to give her children stability after choices made and hidden by somebody else. Then she saw the gambling industry claim a place on the back of her son's jersey. It represented the industry connected to the loss, debt and betrayal that her family had endured. No child should grow up thinking gambling is a necessary link to the team or sport they love or behind every sporting hero they may admire as a role model. That mother turned a painful family experience into a call for change. She asked her representative to act so other families face less harm.</para>
<para>I went to Canberra and spoke with my colleagues about her story and about gambling reform more broadly. Many people across Griffith have shared their own experiences with me since that meeting. I've heard from locals in meetings and conversations. My office has received so many emails about gambling advertising and the harm gambling has caused. I have read all those emails. I have listened to stories of debt secrecy, broken trust and the long work of recovery, grandparents frightened for their grandchildren and adult children scared for their gambling-addicted parents. Each story is personal but each carries a clear request to us: people want their government to act.</para>
<para>Today I am proud to support reforms that answer those calls. These bills are a solid step, shaped by people who spoke up and asked us to do better and to do more. Australians love playing sport, and watching it and sharing it with our families. Yet gambling promotion now appears during broadcasts around the ground, across the screens, in our hands and, yes, on uniforms.</para>
<para>The main bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill, takes direct action to break that connection. From January next year, wagering ads will be banned during live television coverage of sport between 6 am and 8.30 pm. Broadcasters will face a ban on showing the odds during those events. Outside live sport, television can carry no more than three gambling ads each hour between 6 am and 8.30 pm. That cap is needed. In 2024, Australians could see as many as eight gambling ads in a single hour. Radio ads will be banned during school drop-off and pick-up times, removing gambling promotions from the daily school run. The main bill will remove gambling advertising from sporting venues and uniforms. The ban covers players, officials, training, press conferences, amateur competitions and grassroots sports. The reforms will ban athletes, celebrities and social media influencers from promoting gambling. These promotions often target young Australians, particularly young men, and that is something I have heard through my office again and again. A gambling company cannot pay a familiar face to carry its message into a young person's feed, regardless of the platform or numbers of followers.</para>
<para>The main bill will place strong restrictions on online gambling advertising. The rules will cover social media, news websites, podcasts, streaming services, YouTube and search engines. An online service can show a gambling ad only to logged-in users aged over 18 who have a clear option to opt out. A platform that cannot meet all these conditions cannot show gambling ads at any time or to any person. This gives Australians a power they currently do not have, ensuring they can prevent gambling ads on their screens. Parents can open a streaming service with their children without gambling promotions appearing between programs. People recovering from harm can use the internet without targeted promotions pursuing them. Our laws must meet that reality. The purpose is straightforward. Australians should be able to control what gambling advertising they see, where they see it and how it reaches them. Advertising restrictions form one part of this reform package.</para>
<para>The two bills will strengthen practical support for people who want to stop gambling. BetStop is the national self-exclusion register. It lets a person exclude themself from every Australian licensed online and telephone wagering service through one registration. More than 61,000 Australians have used BetStop since its launch in 2023. The statutory review found that only one in four Australians knew BetStop existed. Among people who had placed a bet during the previous year, awareness reached only one in three. A service can only help those who know about it.</para>
<para>The government will run a national campaign to raise awareness of BetStop. The National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill supports the department to recover the cost of promoting this service. The online wagering industry should meet the cost of telling Australians about a service designed to protect them from gambling harm. The reforms will strengthen the register itself. A person's choice to stop marketing calls must cover emails, text messages, apps and push notifications. A person who chooses self-exclusion has drawn a clear boundary. Self-exclusion takes courage, and our system must honour that choice.</para>
<para>The bill will give the Australian Communications and Media Authority stronger tools against illegal offshore gambling services. These operators sit outside Australian law and our consumer protections. More than 1,700 illegal gambling websites have been blocked since 2019, but operators can change names, sites and payment methods quickly. Financial institutions will have to block transfers to accounts linked to illegal operators. The regulator can share information with those institutions for that task.</para>
<para>Search engines, app providers and other digital services will have to block access to illegal gambling services and their advertising. The regulator will gain the power to issue 24-hour takedown notices to digital services and influencers promoting those operators. A legal provider should not reach Australians through a sponsored search result, an app store or a paid social media post. Australians who choose to gamble online deserve the protections set by Australian law. Offshore businesses cannot avoid those rules that target people here.</para>
<para>The bill will ban online Keno. These products have earned the name 'pocket pokies' for good reason. They combine rapid draws, repeated play and high spending limits on a phone that rarely leaves a person's side. A person can lose $1,000 every three minutes. This is a high-speed gambling product built for repeated losses. Parliaments have spent years confronting the harm caused by poker machines. We cannot allow a version of that harm to move into every pocket in every home. The ban draws a clear line.</para>
<para>The ban will close loopholes used by foreign matched lotteries. These businesses offer Australians access to overseas lotteries through a middleman. They claim to buy a ticket overseas, collect any prize and pass the winnings to the Australian customer. The promise carries serious risks. Overseas authorities can refuse these purchases, leaving an Australian customer with no practical path to recover a prize. Foreign matched lotteries take sales from regulated Australian lotteries. Australian lotteries support newsagents, pharmacies, pubs, RSLs, community clubs and state services. The bill will protect consumers from unclear overseas arrangements and back local small business.</para>
<para>The bill will close gaps used by fake trade promotion lotteries. Genuine trade promotions support real goods and services. Fake models use discounts or membership clubs as a thin cover for selling lottery entries. Some operators lack the licences required under state law. Winners can discover that the promised prize is out of reach, and the damage reaches beyond those entrants. Charity lotteries estimate that fake lotteries diverted more than $60 million from the charity sector in 2024. That $60 million represents funding taken away from charities and the communities they serve.</para>
<para>Charity fundraising helps pay for health research, disability support, crisis services and local community programs. Every dollar diverted to a fake lottery is money a genuine charity cannot use for that work. For smaller organisations, lost income can mean less community outreach or a program reaching fewer people. Staff and volunteers must stretch limited funds further, and people seeking help feel the impact. Fake lotteries compete for the same public goodwill and household dollars. They risk weakening trust in the genuine charity fundraising sector. Closing this loophole will protect income charities used to support people and communities, like my community of Griffith.</para>
<para>These reforms build on the action the Albanese government has delivered. We banned the use of credit cards for online wagering. We launched BetStop. We stopped gambling companies claiming the research and development tax incentive. We put further protections in place through the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering. This bill takes the next steps. It reduces advertising, strengthens self-exclusion, disrupts illegal operators and bans harmful new products. No Australian government has brought forward gambling reforms of this breadth. The scale reflects a clear public expectation that governments must act.</para>
<para>The government has listened throughout the legislative process. We will keep working with members and senators in good faith to pass the strongest workable package. Evidence before last week's Senate inquiry exposed deeply troubling alleged conduct involving inducements. Our government condemns those alleged actions in the strongest terms. We have heard the community concern. The Prime Minister has flagged government amendments, and we are working to strengthen protections around inducements.</para>
<para>Some members believe this bill should go further. We hear that view, and the work continues through the parliament. These reforms are a strong step in the right direction. They set firm rules and give families more control. The work to reduce gambling harm must continue.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge Labor branch members across the country who helped place gambling reform on the ALP national platform for the first time. The platform recognises the heightened risk faced by children and young people. It commits Labor to stronger safeguards around inducements. I call on every member and senator to work in good faith so these reforms can begin on 1 January 2027.</para>
<para>Good public policy begins with listening to people who live with the consequences. I think again of that mother who came into my office. She trusted me with a deeply painful part of her life and asked her representative to do better. Her advocacy travelled from our community to this parliament, and I thank her. Her voice is present in this debate, and her son's jersey has not been forgotten. I thank every person in Griffith who has spoken with me or written to my office about gambling harm. I have listened and I will carry their voices into this parliament. I will continue to do that. I acknowledge the advocates, financial counsellors, researchers and service workers who push for reform.</para>
<para>I also pay tribute to the late Peta Murphy, a valued member of this House and a determined advocate for gambling harm reduction. Peta chaired the inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on people experiencing harm. Her work helped build the case for change. I'm saddened that I never had the opportunity to meet Peta before her passing, but I am grateful for the work she did in this parliament and in our country.</para>
<para>From 1 January next year, Australian families should be able to watch their favourite team without a flood of gambling ads. Children should see their sporting heroes play without a betting company on their jersey. People who do not want gambling promotion should have a clear choice online. People seeking to stop gambling should know where to turn. Every gambling company must respect the decision, across every marketing channel. These bills will protect children, give families more control and strengthen support for people experiencing gambling harm. They will tackle illegal operators and dangerous products. They will protect Australian consumers, charities and small businesses. These reforms are a very good step in the right direction. No single law can repair every family harmed by gambling, but this parliament can reduce that harm and prevent more of it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When it comes to gambling reform, Australians haven't just been left waiting; they've been left exposed. This government hasn't been slow; it has been completely missing in action, and delay has been the Prime Minister's policy. That's why, after three years of this delay, deflection and deception from this government, Australians were entitled to expect serious, workable reform to reduce gambling harm. Unfortunately, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 does not yet meet that test.</para>
<para>The coalition recognises the enormous toll gambling addiction can take on individuals and families. We support sensible measures to reduce gambling harm. We support protecting children. There is nothing more important than a government's role in protecting children, and we support stronger protections for vulnerable Australians. Reform must be evidence based and carefully designed and actually work. The coalition approaches this issue from three fundamental principles: first, Australians should have choice; second, the principle of personal responsibility; and, third, government has an obligation to protect vulnerable Australians, particularly children, from exploitation and harm. On that test, this bill in its current form has serious deficiencies.</para>
<para>Last week, the Senate inquiry heard disturbing evidence about practices being used to target vulnerable gamblers, yet inducements are ignored by this bill. If companies are deliberately targeting people displaying signs of problem gambling with increasingly aggressive incentives to keep betting, that deserves serious attention. There are also significant concerns about the treatment of gambling advertising around children's sport. Sport is family time. Australians love to share time together, watching their favourite sport. It is part of our nation's joy. Children should be able to enjoy that without gambling being unnecessarily pushed into that experience.</para>
<para>When it comes to live sport streamed online, the existing five-minute blackout before and after live sport between 5 am and 8.30 pm would disappear for online streaming. That is not strengthening protection. In important respects, it risks weakening protections already in place. The Prime Minister should stop pretending this government invented the ban on gambling advertising during live sport. It was the former coalition government that introduced the broadcast and online restrictions on gambling advertising around live sport in 2018, and it was the coalition that legislated BetStop the National Self-Exclusion Register.</para>
<para>The coalition has made it clear that we cannot support this bill in its current form, but we are engaging constructively with the government to strengthen it. Discussions are continuing between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and between the communications minister and the shadow minister. We want Australians to know that their concerns are being heard. That includes Australians harmed by gambling. It includes parents concerned about what their children see. Every parent is concerned about that. But it also includes Australians who responsibly enjoy a bet, a Saturday at the races or buying a lottery ticket. For the overwhelming majority, gambling is entertainment.</para>
<para>We should not pretend that legitimate wagering and racing industries do not matter economically. Thoroughbred racing alone contributes more than $13 billion in economic activity and supports more than 100,000 jobs, with more than half of those jobs in regional Australia. Those are trainers, breeders, jockeys, stable workers, veterinarians, transport operators and small businesses. Poorly designed legislation can have real consequences for those communities. We can protect vulnerable Australians and children while preserving choice.</para>
<para>The government had more than three years to get this right. Unfortunately, this bill falls short, despite all the time and pressure that they have had to make a decision. The coalition will continue negotiating in good faith to strengthen it. We want legislation that genuinely protects vulnerable Australians, strengthens safeguards around children's sport, deals with predatory practices and preserves choice, competition and fairness. That is the reform that Australians deserve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Dr Louise Francis, in a paper she wrote on 5 March 2026, said that, when she started her research into gambling and its adverse effects in 2014, the annual gambling losses in Australia were $21 billion. Today, she said, it was $31.5 billion. A decade ago, it was $1,200 per adult, and she made the point that it had jumped per capita to more than $1,500. The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, of which I was a member, published a report in June 2023, ably chaired by Peta Murphy, the former member for Dunkley. The report was titled <inline font-style="italic">Y</inline><inline font-style="italic">ou win some, you lose more</inline>. I want to quote from the first paragraph of the foreword:</para>
<quote><para class="block">'You win some, you lose more.' This government tagline on gambling advertising, adopted as part of the National Consumer Protection Framework, aptly sums up the evidence received during this inquiry. If the status quo of online gambling regulation, including but not limited to advertising, was to continue Australians would continue to lose more—more money, more relationships, more love of sport for the game rather than the odds.</para></quote>
<para>Later on in the foreword, it says this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians outspend the citizens of every other country on online gambling. This is wreaking havoc in our communities. Saturation advertising ensures our future losses.</para></quote>
<para>In addition—and Peta Murphy made the point—it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am proud to say this Committee has delivered a unanimous report that says, "enough is enough". The Committee has made 31 recommendations that apply a public health lens to online gambling to reduce harm across the whole Australian population.</para></quote>
<para>I was a member of that committee. I support the 31 recommendations and don't resile for one minute from those recommendations, but I'm pleased to say I'm pleased to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and the related National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026.</para>
<para>Through these bills, we are taking action in relation to the harm of online gambling. We have put forward a detailed package of significant reforms in terms of gambling. We focus on passing and implementing with the support of other members and senators. We hope to get this legislation through, having had and being in the process of negotiations and discussions, and we are taking seriously our responsibility to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from the harms of online gambling.</para>
<para>We know Australians love their sport, and we're a sporting nation. You see that from world cups to the Olympics and Paralympics. Indeed, my community of Ipswich is a famous sporting nursery. Whether it's rugby league, football, hockey, AFL, cricket or athletics, we're sports mad in Ipswich. What started as having an occasional punt has, over time, grown to be an industry that's taken over our sport, our TVs and our lives, and it's got to stop.</para>
<para>People in my electorate want to be able to sit down and watch sport and their favourite show without being hammered with gambling ads and betting odds, either on TV or online. They should be able to sit down and enjoy a program with their families without being bombarded by betting odds. Gambling should not be normalised for children. Children should not be taught gambling is integral to sport, and, just as we've introduced world-leading minimum-age social media restrictions for children, parents want to know that their kids aren't being exposed to gambling ads online.</para>
<para>Sadly, gambling touches too many Australian families and individuals. Its impact doesn't stop with the person who's addicted to gambling. The reality is, for every person experiencing gambling harm, around six others—family, friends, workmates and loved ones—can also feel the effects through financial pressure, stress and strained relationships. I've seen the devastating impact on families and have personally witnessed it in my own family. Behind every statistic is a person and a family. It's clear the advertising restrictions haven't kept pace with the community expectations, so these reforms are about attempting to fix this by reducing gambling harm and making sure our children grow to love sport for the game and don't see gambling as an essential part of it.</para>
<para>The reforms have a couple of pieces of legislation. As I said, there are a couple of bills. The Albanese government is delivering protections from the harms of gambling for Australians, particularly for children and young people. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill contains some of the strongest measures ever brought in by any government. It delivers our commitment in relation to severing that connection between wagering and sport, minimising children's exposure to gambling advertising and stopping saturation of wagering ads on TV, radio and online.</para>
<para>There are restrictions on gambling advertising on TV to no more than three ads each hour from six am to 8.30 pm, with a complete ban across and during live sport broadcasting during those hours, and restrictions on gambling ads from online platforms, unless people have logged on in account and are over 18 and have the option to opt out of gambling advertising. We're banning gambling ads on radio during school drop offs and pick-up times and banning the use of athletes, celebrities or influencers to promote wagering. We're banning the broadcasting of ads promoting sporting odds and banning gambling ads in sporting venues and on players' and officials' uniforms, and we're cracking down on illegal gambling operators by allowing banks and payment systems to block transactions and give the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, more powers to block these websites and to act faster to do so.</para>
<para>As part of these reforms, online keno pocket pokies and foreign matching lotteries will be banned. The bill also defines and regulates trade promotion services, to protect Australians from dodgy operators and to protect small businesses like newsagencies, and genuine lotteries, and charities who give back to the local community. We're acting to protect people from the iniquitous practices that get people towards addiction.</para>
<para>These changes would enhance sport integrity and reduce financial crime risks, as well as addressing harm. These reforms are about getting the balance right. We want Australians to be in control of what gambling ads they see and where and how they see them. The changes are proposed to come in on 1 January next year. From then, Australians will be able to sit down with their families and cheer on their favourite team without being bombarded by gambling advertising. As for kids, we want them to grow up without thinking that you have a punt when you watch the Broncos play on TV.</para>
<para>In addition, the legislation introduces reforms to strengthen BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, recognising the critical role it plays in vulnerable Australians' self-exclusion from gambling. To that end, this bill, along with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, ensures that the government can recover the costs of strengthening BetStop. That was a key recommendation of the statutory review of BetStop, helping to drive uptake of this essential service which has already seen 64,500 registrations by the end of June.</para>
<para>It's worth noting that the measures in this bill complement and build on the reforms the government has previously introduced. As part of these, we've launched BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, which has been used by more than 59,000 Australians, with 38 per cent of those opting for a self-imposed lifetime ban. We've legislated a ban on the use of credit cards in online wagering, because people shouldn't be able to bet with money they don't have and get themselves into hock. We've also established a mandatory pre-verification process to prevent children and people who have self-excluded from placing an online bet.</para>
<para>On top of this, the May budget included some funding for financial counselling for gambling and a new public awareness campaign. The budget will double the number of people who can get help through gambling financial counselling, while the new information campaign will mean more Australians will know about the gambling harms and where to get help.</para>
<para>I've seen the benefit of this funding in my own electorate, with a number of organisations receiving Albanese government funding to help people in Ipswich to access financial counselling, including people facing financial hardship due to gambling. In fact, last year these providers received a total of $98.4 million over five years for financial wellbeing support. For example, I met with the financial counsellors from the Ipswich Salvos Moneycare financial counselling service, who received funding to continue the valuable work they do in assisting locals with debts and gambling problems. Each Ipswich is another local provider which provides targeted support with gambling, and they deliver high quality financial services to people experiencing gambling harm and link them to addiction and mental health support when they need it. As a government, we're funding these local services, like Salvos Moneycare and Each Ipswich, to try to address and support people through their recovery and in taking back control of their lives.</para>
<para>Ideally, we want to prevent gambling harm from happening in the first place, and that's what the reforms in the bills are about. We've had constructive discussions with the coalition, the Greens and the crossbenchers, and those discussions will continue in good faith. At the same time, we've consulted widely, and wisely, I think, in listening to a range of views across the community. We've sat down and worked constructively with the antigambling sector and with commercial broadcasters and with sporting organisations, to make sure that we can minimise harm and that these reforms are practical and can be implemented. That's what good governments do. Based on those consultations, we're looking to strengthen the reforms and there will be government amendments to these bills.</para>
<para>We're making sure that all these issues are dealt with in a constructive way. Last week's Senate inquiry into the bills included some damning evidence around some of the worst forms of inducement, and the government condemns those alleged actions in the strongest possible terms.</para>
<para>This particular legislation is really critical. That's why listening to the community is vital as well.</para>
<para>We acknowledge the contribution of rank-and-file Labor Party members to the national platform, which, for the first time, recognised our significant efforts on gambling reform. Our national platform is almost a spiritual thing in the Labor Party. Quite rightly, it recognised that children and young people have a heightened risk of being exposed to gambling harm and made a commitment to strengthen measures around inducements.</para>
<para>Again, we thank Labor Party branch members for their valuable input into these important reforms. I also thank all those people in my electorate who've consulted me about them. We keep negotiating and hope that they'll say more about this and have some practical amendments to these bills, including curbing advertising, particularly to children. In the meantime, I call on members in this place to work constructively with us. These reforms are good. It represents the most significant reforms to online gambling in Australia's history and will continue to minimise children's exposure and break that link between sporting and wagering. It's a major step forward, and I think the parliament should vote for it. On a practical level, many of the reforms have a 1 January start date next year, so it's important that we pass these measures this year.</para>
<para>Finally, I want to acknowledge someone who's not here with us but looms large over this legislation. That's the late former member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy. Peta was a very decent and hugely intelligent and powerful advocate, both for her community and on important national issues like gambling harm reduction. She was a hard-working local member but a brilliant parliamentarian as well and would have served, I have no doubt, as a cabinet minister in a future Labor government. I had the privilege of working with her in a number of parliamentary inquiries, including the 2023 inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs into online gambling and its impact, and she chaired that brilliantly.</para>
<para>As someone whose father was an alcoholic—my dad was an alcoholic and had a terrible gambling addiction—I personally experienced the horrors of online and gambling addiction. I've been through a number of gambling inquiries. I remember Bill Shorten and Jenny Macklin both ringing me up when I was in Toogoolawah one day and asking me to be on inquiries that have been chaired by crossbenchers in relation to gambling in a variety of different forms. I've been on those inquiries, and I can say that the outcomes of those inquiries have varied in terms of the recommendations and the government's implementation, but not this one.</para>
<para>Peta was incredibly inquisitive, investigative and forensic during the inquiry and right across the detail. She took it very seriously and worked assiduously and patiently to get everyone together on the final report, <inline font-style="italic">You win some, you lose more</inline>. It has a very strong public-health focus rather than a personal choice focus, and she got it right. We got it right in that inquiry. That's why the package of reforms in this bill have been carefully developed, with harm minimisation front of mind and with a health focus as well. It's clear Peta's report has had a significant impact, including the strong measures we've put together today. These are meaningful reforms which I support and hope we will go further. Some of the strongest actions to date we've ever seen a government do has been done by this government, and I commend the Prime Minister and the various ministers who've been involved in it.</para>
<para>We are tackling the scourge of online gambling, but we can do much more. One of the best things we should do in terms of honouring Peta Murphy's legacy would be to pass these bills now, and I commend them to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every day, Australians are exposed to a relentless stream of gambling ads. The gambling industry does not spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising every year because it has no effect. They do it because it works. Studies show a clear and consistent link between gambling ads and gambling activity and, consequently, gambling harm. Not all gambling is harmful. It's a legal activity that many Australians enjoy safely, and banning gambling advertising does not mean banning gambling. This is not about those who enjoy having a flutter now and then, perhaps on the grand final, the Eurovision winner or even at the Dederang races and other wonderful country carnivals.</para>
<para>I grew up as a kid on a racetrack. My grandfather owned and trained racehorses. Back then, though, there were no inducements or advertisements flooding our screens. It wasn't possible to lose thousands of dollars in a few taps of a smartphone without leaving home or without even talking to another human being. Online gambling is a completely different beast, and we know that for some Australians it is incredibly harmful. From March last year to March this year, we lost $36 billion to gambling. Our per capita losses are the highest in the world. In my own home state of Victoria, gambling cost us more than $14 billion in 2023, and that includes the direct financial impacts as well as the wider costs of things like job losses, divorce, family violence, police and court processes, and physical and mental health care.</para>
<para>As the Murphy report laid out in heartbreaking detail, gambling losses have a massive human cost. Australians experiencing gambling harm are significantly more likely to experience physical and mental health issues. Gambling is linked to a fourfold increase in the risk of suicide. Family violence is three times more likely to occur alongside harmful gambling. We know that, for every person experiencing gambling harm, six more are directly affected. Husbands, wives, children, parents, colleagues, friends and communities all suffer. Gambling harm is, most certainly, a deeply serious public health issue that has become normalised through constant exposure. Gambling ads sell false hopes, easy wins and good times that obscure the very real and significant damage that gambling addiction can cause. And that's why the Murphy report recommended a complete ban on gambling ads and inducements.</para>
<para>Again, I want to be clear. This is not about banning gambling. It's not about telling people what they're allowed to do. Adults can and will continue to make their own choices. Make no mistake: this is about greed. This is about whether we allow multimillion-dollar companies to boost their profits by bombarding us with ads and inducements for a product that we know—and they know—causes profound devastation. It's about the greed of recruiting our children. This is a massive and most pernicious public health problem.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that there are concerns from media organisations and sporting codes about the potential effect on their financial viability if we were to ban advertising for gambling. However, these concerns must be balanced against the rights of the community, and especially children, to be protected from harm. Young Australians are growing up associating sport, entertainment and gambling as though they naturally belong together. Of course, we've heard these arguments before, when tobacco companies tried to convince us that our sporting codes would die out without their advertising and sponsorship, or when alcohol companies claimed the industry would collapse if we put a small warning about the dangers of drinking during pregnancy on bottles and cans. But you know what? I've got faith in the ability of Australian sports and media to evolve, to adapt and to have a business model that is not dependent on gambling advertising.</para>
<para>The Murphy report laid out a comprehensive action plan to address gambling harm, including the immediate phased introduction of an ad ban. If the government had acted on that recommendation, the process would be complete. Online gambling advertising and sponsorship would already be banned. Instead, more than three years later, we've been presented with a tepid and frankly insulting imitation of real action. The problem is clear. The expert evidence is unanimous. The Australian public is screaming for action. If ever we have needed a social licence to do something important and radical, then we've got it. Yet this parliament has not acted, and the government has refused to take up these recommendations from the Murphy report in full. I am concerned about the effect of inducements on individual gamblers, and I have to wonder, really, about the effect of inducements to political parties who take political donations from gambling companies. We have real problems with trust in government, in this country and across the world, and we have to look at an issue such as that.</para>
<para>Despite the Murphy report's unequivocal conclusion that partial bans do not work, this bill establishes a complicated maze of half-measures and exceptions. Gambling advertising is banned in some instances, at some times of day, for some kinds of programs, on some kinds of platforms. If you want to know whether your children are about to be exposed to gambling ads, you need to work through a multistep checklist: What time of day is it? Which platform are we on? Whose account is logged in? How many ads have already been shown in the last 59 minutes? It shouldn't be that difficult. The answer should simply be no.</para>
<para>One of the most frustrating things about this legislation is the unnecessary complexity of these advertising restrictions. In trying to include so many loopholes, carve-outs and compromises, the government has created an unfathomably complex regime. In some cases, these amendments may actually weaken existing protections, allowing the broadcast of more ads during live sports than would currently be permitted. I mean, go figure. It makes the government's approach even more baffling. It would have been so much easier to just implement a comprehensive ban.</para>
<para>As well as the limited and, frankly, inadequate reforms to advertising, this bill makes some other changes to gambling regulation, including: additional restrictions on illegal gambling, including new requirements for financial institutions to prevent related payments and transfers; improvements to the BetStop legislative framework in line with recommendations from the recent statutory review; and prohibition of online keno and foreign match lotteries. Well, these are small but welcome improvements but, unfortunately, there's a lot more this bill chooses not to do.</para>
<para>Despite the Murphy report's finding that they are a significant incubator of harm, the bill does not ban inducements. Bonuses and two-for-one deals might be okay in a supermarket aisle but they have no place as a tool to exploit people at risk of gambling harm because, let's be clear, these promotions are not intended to keep you winning. If you're making money from online gambling, you'll get kicked off the platform, not flown to the Gold Coast. Gambling companies offer inducements as a calculated investment in the continued suffering of their most vulnerable customers. Make no mistake about that.</para>
<para>Just last week we heard extraordinary testimony about the lengths to which gambling companies will go to make sure that people keep losing money. Like the rest of Australia, I was absolutely gobsmacked by Luke Bateman's evidence about being offered flights, accommodation, alcohol and even illegal drugs. But the truly predatory nature of inducements was also illustrated by Russell Northe, who described repeatedly being offered inducements after—after!—closing his accounts. Russell knew he was in trouble. He took steps to protect himself, and the gambling companies sought to actively undermine that. It is unconscionable.</para>
<para>The bill also does not establish a gambling regulator despite the Murphy report identifying a glaring need for a national regulatory framework overseen by a dedicated body with the sole objective of reducing harm. It reflects the reality that gambling companies operate nationally and should be regulated nationally. Right now, responsibility is fragmented across multiple regulators, different resources, powers and enforcement, and they face varying levels of criticism, some of it scathing. A regulator established for the sole purpose of reducing harm would, in the words of the Murphy report, 'put people above profits and public health before commercial interests'.</para>
<para>Members of the crossbench have suggested a number of amendments to the bill, all of them seeking to bring it closer to being something that offers real protections from gambling harm. Consistent with the Murphy report, I will be voting to implement a full ban on advertising, a full ban on inducements and the establishment of a dedicated national regulator. I notice the crossbench, not the government nor the opposition, is carrying the torch for the Murphy report, an inquiry that was grounded in the lived experience of people whose lives were devastated by this predatory industry practice.</para>
<para>I've also circulated two small, reasonable amendments to improve the bill: firstly, a complete ban on gambling ads during G-rated television programming. Ratings are designed to help viewers make informed choices about what they and their families watch, and a G rating indicates a program is suitable for all ages, including very young children. A G rating is a green light for a family friendly viewing, and that shouldn't change when the ad break starts. Secondly, I'm proposing a requirement for gambling companies to collect and publicly report on harm indicators, including aggregate customer losses, self-exclusion requests and complaints. It's information they already have and it would provide a vital evidence base to help understand whether these reforms are effective in reducing and preventing gambling harm. If this bill results in only limited improvement to industry practice then the data will be even more important when it comes to reviewing our laws in the years to come.</para>
<para>It's been widely reported that there will be further changes to this bill. In its current form, the bill is unpassable, so it seems the government will be dragged kicking and screaming to take stronger action to get it through the parliament. I can't speak to any government amendments at this point because they haven't been circulated. So often in this place we're dealing with problems that don't have an obvious solution. This is not one of those times. The evidence couldn't be clearer. Everyone in Australia except the gambling companies and apparently this government knows what needs to be done. Since this bill was introduced, I have received hundreds of emails from people in my electorate who are not just disappointed that the government won't commit to a full ban; they are outraged. I've grappled with whether I should support this bill. It falls so far short of what we know is needed. As a legislator, I ask myself: when we know what good looks like, how low are we willing to set the bar? It's a very important consideration.</para>
<para>The Murphy report gave parliament a clear roadmap, but this bill has chosen a shortcut. Make no mistake: Australians will pay the price for that. In the time I've been speaking, Australians have lost more than half a million dollars to gambling. Just consider that. The clock is ticking. The opportunity is here. The moment is now. The time for courage is right before us, and I call on every member of this parliament to do the right thing: pass a law that fulfils the recommendations of the Murphy report and do the right thing for the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRISKEY</name>
    <name.id>263427</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no moment in an Australian football match you can't bet on: the result, the quarter, the margin, the next goal, the bloke who kicks it. The game has been carved up into markets the way a butcher works through a carcase, and every one of those markets is live while the ball is in the air. That didn't happen by accident and that didn't happen because we asked for it. That was built deliberately by an industry that clocked how our sport could be the most efficient distribution network it could get its hands on. And that has cost the country a great deal more than money.</para>
<para>For all the talk about apps and algorithms in this debate, gambling harm in Australia mostly wears the face of an adult: a man in his 50s who has not told his wife; a woman who has repaid the same debt three times over; someone who has lost a house, a business, a marriage or all three. It was done quietly because the shame attached to this particular harm keeps people silent longer than almost anything else that we deal with in this place. They are not weak people. They are not stupid people. They are people who have been sold a product engineered to take money from them by companies who measure success in exactly how much they can take. Every one of those stories begins in the same place—not with a bet, but with an advertisement.</para>
<para>My community is home to two of the most iconic racecourses in the country: Flemington and Moonee Valley. Between them they carry the better part of the Spring Racing Carnival, including the Melbourne Cup and the Cox Plate. On the first Tuesday of November, my community plays home to the race that stops the nation. The streets and businesses are buzzing, and a good many of my constituents either work the carnival or know someone who does.</para>
<para>Twenty years ago, having a punt on a race meant something fairly particular in this country. You had to go somewhere to do it. You had the space to make the choice: at the track or a TAB. You'd queue on a Sunday morning. You'd put your money down and then you'd wait, sometimes the better part of a week, for a race that took about three minutes. And, when the race was run, that was the end of it. Let's be clear: things have shifted substantially from being able to back a horse on cup day or have a punt on the weekend. The objection those of us have is what the betting industry has done to that tradition since. Australians didn't decide they wanted to bet more. What changed is that the industry worked out that it no longer needed the racecourse or the queue or the weekend, and, once it didn't need any of it, it no longer needed to wait for us either. You used to have to go find it. Now it finds you. Like the new cycle, it's 24/7.</para>
<para>And, having found us, it went where the crowds were. If you go to the footy on the weekend, like many in my community do, you'll count the ads: the logos on the boundary signs; the odds on the big screen at half-time in front of 80,000 people; the odds read through the commentary by the same voice calling the play or by a beloved champion of the game, so the market and the match arrive in the same sentence; the sponsor on the ground, on the ticket, on the apparel; then the ad break and then another ad break; and on the phone in the hand of the bloke two seats down, who has not looked up for about a quarter and a half. That's the quiet list, and it's non-stop. I think we can agree that it's not sport with advertising around it; it is a wagering product with a game of football inside it.</para>
<para>So the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 goes after exactly the place it lives. From 1 January next year, gambling advertising comes off television during all live sports within restricted hours and is capped outside them. It comes off the stadiums; it comes off the uniforms. Celebrities and athletes will no longer be able to lend their names to it, and neither will the influencers, because, when a young person is being sold a bet by someone they follow, someone they adore, someone they trust, they are not watching an advertisement; they're taking advice from a mate. And it will come off the radio at school drop-off and pick-up, because those are hours we know children are captive in the back seat of the car, and this industry worked that out long before we did.</para>
<para>But the ground and the broadcast are only the start of it, because most of this advertising now reaches kids and parents somewhere else entirely: on the phone in their pocket. So the ban goes online—social media, news sites, streaming podcasts and search engines. And it will be up to the platforms to put these restrictions in place, because they, too, carry the responsibility. Any platform that will not put these restrictions in place will lose the right to carry gambling advertising altogether—at any hour, to any user.</para>
<para>This bill goes after the products that are online too. We are banning online keno, rapid draws, high frequency, high limits and $1,000 gone in just three minutes. That is pokies in your pocket, and there is no version of that that is safe. We are also shutting down foreign-matched lotteries, which sell Australians a ticket in an overseas draw nobody overseas is obliged to honour. And we are closing the loophole on fake trade-promotion lotteries, schemes with no product behind them, which charity lotteries estimate have pulled more than $60 million out of the Australian charity sector in a single year. That was money raised for people who need it.</para>
<para>That brings me to the Australians this industry has already hurt and what we owe them. BetStop has helped more than 61,000 people shut the door on gambling since 2023. That is 61,000 acts of courage. And this bill strengthens that register so that the moment somebody makes that decision, the marketing stops. That is the heart of this bill: backing Australians to make the choice about gambling that was never given to them when the industry ramped up its activities. But only one in four Australians knows about BetStop. Among people who have placed a bet in the last 12 months, it's one in three. A service that saves lives is of no use to the person who hasn't heard of it, so this government will run a national campaign to fix it. And we are moving on the illegal offshore operators who sit outside our consumer protections altogether.</para>
<para>I've got two young daughters, aged 12 and nine. I've spoken about them before in this chamber, most recently when our government passed our world-leading social media reforms. And I think of them during this debate, because we know young children, mostly teenagers, are the target. They're not being sold a bet. A nine-year old doesn't have money, and the industry knows that. What is being built is an 18-year-old—one who already knows the brands, already knows the language and already believes that a wager is a part of watching their team play. Children are not collateral damage in this business model; they are a pipeline. A company can wait 10 years for a customer. It will wait 10 years, unless this parliament stops it. That is the same principle that took this government to the minimum age for social media: when a company builds a business model off targeting children, we legislate to protect them.</para>
<para>Peta Murphy's name has been, and will continue to be, invoked many times in this debate, and it should be. She went after this industry with the same determination she brought to everything else that she cared about, and she did so whilst being very sick. I didn't get a chance to serve with Peta—I arrived after we lost her—but, like many in the Labor party, I had the great privilege of knowing her. In her first speech to this House, she told us that the hard things facing this country would require 'a willingness from all of us' to 'persist with complex debates' over sustained periods—certainly longer, she said, than any news cycle. She did not believe reform arrived in a single piece because somebody had shouted loudly enough. She believed you kept at it.</para>
<para>She said something else in that speech. She said she wanted to belong to a generation of politicians who rejected the politics of division and who refused to treat the problems of our society as weapons to wedge political opponents.</para>
<para>Peta was a proud Labor member who did this work inside a Labor government because she understood that is where things actually get done in this country. She persuaded members of every party in this place to sign up to tackle this issue. That is who she was. She kept at it and she wanted to bring people with her. Anyone reaching for her report as a weapon on this debate has picked up the wrong end of it.</para>
<para>This reform may be culminating in Canberra, but it didn't start here. There are people right across my community who have been making this argument for years, long before it was in the headlines and long before I was elected. They've not been shy with me since—and I wouldn't have it any other way, because they are the reason a bill of this size is in front of this House at all.</para>
<para>Our government is taking gambling advertising off the TV during all live sport within restricted hours and capping it outside of them; taking it off the stadiums, off the uniforms, off the radio when kids are in the car; and banning it across every platform online, with any platform that won't comply losing the right to run the ads at all. Keno—gone; the lottery rackets—gone. BetStop's being strengthened, with a national campaign to make sure people know it is there. This is the strongest action to tackle the harms of gambling that any government in Australia has ever undertaken.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has been clear that further reform is coming and has flagged amendments to the bill, and I welcome that. At our party's national conference, rank and file members, including those in my local branches, put strengthening these protections in our party platform. I thank every one of them for doing that. It highlights our commitment as a movement to tackling this issue.</para>
<para>For most of our country's history, if an Australian wanted to have a bet they had to go and find one. This industry decided that they could find us instead: in our living rooms, in our sports stadiums, in our pockets and in the language our children now use about their own team. It did that without ever asking a single one of us whether we wanted it. It did it because nobody had drawn a line and told it to stop. This bill, for the first time, draws that line.</para>
<para>The bill will not undo what has already been done to the people in my community who have lost more than they can talk about. Nothing this parliament passes today or any other day will give that back. But it does mean that the kid who saves up for a jumper is not wearing a betting company on their chest. It means that the family sitting down to watch their team is not being marketed to between every bounce. It means that the next person who finds the courage to shut the door on something that is hurting them will not have it pushed back open by an advertisement they never asked to see.</para>
<para>This is not inadequate. It is the biggest action an Australian government has taken in this area, and it marks the beginning of the work we do to arrest the significant harms of problem gambling.</para>
<para>This bill has been a long time coming, and there are Australians who can't afford to wait through another season of it. To those opposite and to the crossbench: I implore you to work with us in good faith to pass this legislation, so that the next generation grows up with a love of the game and nothing else. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I want to say that there are some subjects in the House that have bipartisan support. We all want to see the harm from gambling reduced. How that is done and what is implemented may or may not actually end up with that outcome. This is about outcomes. It should never be about the headline. The coalition, in good faith, has been working with the current government to ensure that we get the best bill forward.</para>
<para>As a social worker in my past life, I can never leave behind the impacts from things like gambling and other harms, other addictions, and how they impact families and homelessness. Gambling is a very serious issue. There are plenty of people in Australia who enjoy a punt, so I'm told. I personally don't go down that track myself, but there are plenty of people who do without causing them to lose their home or put their families in dire straits where there is no food on the table. But we must take those risks very, very seriously, and we do. Mallee residents have contacted me about gambling harm because it is impacting their families.</para>
<para>The central question is not whether gambling harm exists but whether the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 as it currently stands will effectively reduce that harm. I want to, as has occurred already in this first hour of debate, acknowledge the contribution of the late Peta Murphy, the prior member for Dunkley, and her incredible commitment to ensuring that gambling is dealt with in a serious and responsible manner by the government. The Murphy inquiry highlighted concerns about gambling harm, gambling advertising, impacts on children, consumer protections and illegal offshore gambling. Parliament owes it to every Australian to carefully consider those concerns. Parliament's responsibility is not merely to identify a problem—almost anyone can do that—but to implement solutions that actually work.</para>
<para>Gambling is no longer confined to pubs and the tabs. That's a fact. It's embedded in sport, phones, online streaming services, free-to-air TV, social media and sporting commentary. Children are discussing 'odds on' and 'odds off' while watching a football game. Why are Australian children learning the language of betting before they learn financial literacy? It's a really good question. The connection between sport and gambling has become culturally normalised, and we need to stop it.</para>
<para>I firstly want to acknowledge the positive elements that are in this bill. The advertising reforms that are put forward—restrictions around live sport, radio restrictions during school pick-up and drop-off, bans on athlete and celebrity endorsements, removal of gambling advertising from player uniforms and sporting venues, consumer protections, strengthening BetStop, and further action against illegal operators. The last thing we want to see, just like with vapes and the tobacco industry, is for illegal operators to take up this space. We also want to see a ban on online keno, the pocket pokies, and prohibition of foreign matched lotteries. There are elements of this bill that deserve support, but important concerns remain. In 2018 live sport gambling-advertising restrictions, the coalition showed that acting on gambling harm when practical reforms were needed worked. We introduced restrictions during live sport across free-to-air TV, radio, subscription TV and online streaming. What this bill gets wrong, however, is that, potentially, it may water down the gains from those reforms—for instance, when the coalition legislated restrictions during live sport or breaks in play or, importantly in the context of this, bill during children's programs from five am to 8.30 pm. This bill was simply set quotas of three ads per hour between six am and 8.30 pm, including during live sports. The restrictions during children's programming seem to disappear. Importantly, if there is an unscheduled break in play—for instance, when a goal is scored—arguably, gambling ads will be permitted at those times.</para>
<para>Coalition reforms also strengthened enforcement under the Interactive Gambling Act. Since then, more than 1,700 illegal gambling and affiliate websites have been blocked. More than 230 illegal operators have left the Australian market. Under the coalition in 2018, we introduced the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering, with No. 4 of the 10 reforms in that framework being on inducement, like bonus bets, sign-up bonuses, vouchers, credits, rewards, referral bonuses and the like. Those anti-inducement measures were introduced nationally in 2019 when the coalition was in government. In a moment, I'll also talk about how those inducement measures need to be strengthened, seven years from when the framework was implemented.</para>
<para>The foundations for BetStop and harm-minimisation measures have been bipartisan to reduce gambling harm. Coalition governments already established important foundations legislating the architecture for the likes of national self-exclusion register, BetStop, which launched in August 2023. BetStop, at last check, had over 30,000 registered users with about 23,000 exclusions active. I want to point out that that also involves people's choice and people's agency to make the choice to recognise that they have a problem and sign up to BetStop. We encourage and implore more and more Australians to do exactly that.</para>
<para>On the current bill, let's be clear that most viewing of what we once called television—now streaming—content is via logged-in users who are over 18 and able to opt out of gambling advertising. The coalition view is that we can move from opt out to opt in. Gambling advertising should only be received if an adult actively chooses to receive it. The merits of opt in are that it protects children and vulnerable Australians by default. It places responsibility on advertisers rather than consumers. It aligns with modern consent principles. It preserves adult choice. It's a middle ground between doing nothing and a complete ban. The practical challenges, of course, are age verification, privacy concerns, cross-platform implementation, smart TVs and connected devices, and offshore operators outside Australian jurisdiction. Australians should not have to spend their lives opting out of gambling advertising. The default setting should be protection.</para>
<para>Predatory inducements and duty of care have been raised in evidence to the Senate, in VIP programs, bonus bets and targeted inducements. We've seen quite a bit of that in the papers in this last week. What responsibility do operators owe customers who are exhibiting signs of addiction and harm? There is a duty of care to support consideration of a statutory duty of care. Identifying vulnerability, intervening early, reducing harm and acting before crisis occurs—harm reduction is not simply about advertisements; it's also about industry responsibility.</para>
<para>Offshore gambling, of course, remains the next big challenge. I want to acknowledge our support, on this side, and the work of ACMA—there have been 1,751 offshore sites blocked and 230-plus operators exited, as I said earlier. Many operators sit outside Australian jurisdiction. Examples cited in recent enforcement actions include operators associated with Curacao, the Union of Comoros, Costa Rica and Ireland. Enforcement is difficult. Websites change domains, mirror sites emerge, cryptocurrency can bypass traditional controls, and operators are internationally dispersed.</para>
<para>With regard to the pocket pokies—online keno—they illustrate the movement of casino-style gambling products onto smartphones. Foreign matched lotteries are an example of gambling products entering Australia from outside the traditional regulatory framework, and then, of course, there are the illegal offshore operators, which require stronger enforcement tools and international cooperation. Neil from my electorate says he agrees fully with me about offshore gaming sites. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">we should also be legislating to protect our children (and adults!!) from overseas gambling sites, or they will become the norm!!</para></quote>
<para>Parliament can regulate Australian broadcasters and Australian bookmakers. It is much harder to regulate offshore operators. Reform should reduce harm, not simply push Australians into less regulated offshore markets.</para>
<para>I was pretty horrified, I have to say, to visit an RSL in my electorate and to see a 19-year-old, at nine o'clock in the morning, with his work shirt on, playing the pokies. He was clearly meant to be at work, but he was in there, at 19 years of age. To see that in front of your face is incredibly confronting. I know this bill doesn't go to that, but it goes point to gambling addiction and the harms that are for life if you can't get out of it. It's not abstract; it's about real people in every one of our electorates.</para>
<para>In conclusion, there are three overarching principles: adults should remain free to make lawful choices, children deserve stronger protection, and gambling providers should bear greater responsibility for reducing harm. The test of this legislation is not whether parliament passes it. The test is whether fewer Australian experience gambling harm in the future, whether fewer children grow up associating sport with betting, whether fewer vulnerable people are targeted with inducements and whether fewer Australians are drawn into the unregulated offshore gambling space.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRENCH</name>
    <name.id>316550</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, and the related national self-exclusion register legislation. There is no point pretending that this bill is easy. It is controversial. Some believe the government have gone too far; others believe we have not gone nearly far enough. Broadcasters are concerned about revenue. Sporting organisations are concerned about sponsorship. Wagering companies point out that gambling is a lawful activity undertaken by adults. On the other side, many Australians look at the sheer volume of gambling advertising, particularly around sport, and ask how we allowed it to get this far. Parliament, ultimately, has to draw a line.</para>
<para>The question is not whether an adult Australian should be allowed to have a bet. They should. The question is whether we are comfortable with the place gambling has come to occupy in Australian life, particularly in the lives of our children. I am not. There is a generation of Australian kids growing up at a time when the odds can sometimes feel almost as much a part of watching sport as the score. They know the teams, they know the players, they know the ladder and, increasingly, they know which side is paying $2.10. Sport should not be an introductory course into wagering. A kid watching the footy should be thinking about the mark, the goal, the tackle and the player they want to be like when they run onto the oval on a Saturday. They should not be learning that every contest needs a price attached to it. That is at the heart of these bills.</para>
<para>The legislation restricts wagering advertising, strengthens action against illegal offshore gambling, improves BetStop and deals with emerging products like online Keno, foreign match lotteries and fake trade promotion lotteries. Its objectives are straightforward: break the connection between wagering and sport, reduce children's exposure to gambling advertising and reduce its saturation across television, radio and the internet. But there is a broader lesson here for corporate Australia: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Every major company operating in this country relies, to some extent, on a social licence. Parliament sets the law, regulators set the rules but the community decides what conduct it will tolerate. Businesses that ignore those expectations for long enough should not be surprised when Australians eventually demand change.</para>
<para>We see that beyond gambling. Right now, in the Pilbara, electricians and signal workers from the Electrical Trades Union are taking action against BHP after a system developed where contractors and labour hire were used to compete against the direct workforce, putting downward pressure on wages and creating divisions between workers—all while the company was making enormous profits. A company can comply with the law and still lose the confidence of its workforce. It can make enormous profits while still losing the confidence of the community. It can win an argument with its lawyers and lose the much bigger argument with the Australian public. That is why there is considerable community support for the workers and unions taking action, and the gambling industry should understand exactly the same lesson.</para>
<para>I do not approach this debate as someone who believes gambling should be prohibited. My family owned hotels. We had poker machines. We operated the TAB. We had Keno. I grew up around licensed venues. I understand gambling has long been a part of the business model of pubs, clubs and other venues. Those businesses employ people. They support local organisations. They provide places where communities come together. I'm not going to pretend somebody putting a few dollars on the footy is automatically experiencing gambling harm. Adults can make choices themselves, but freedom of choice does not require us to give gambling companies unrestricted access to children and does not require Australians to accept gambling advertising being woven into sport.</para>
<para>For too long, parts of the wagering industry have pushed further and further—onto jerseys, around the grounds, through broadcasts, into social media and into the phones that people carry everywhere. Too many companies assumed that, because they were legally permitted to do it, Australians would continue accepting it. That was a mistake. They have been very good at returning money to shareholders, but they have been much less successful at explaining why Australians should accept gambling advertising being a constant part of Australian life. Social licence is not permanent; it has to be earned and maintained. Once it is lost, rebuilding it is considerably harder.</para>
<para>That brings us to what the main bill does. On television, wagering advertising will be prohibited during live sport between 6 am and 8.30 pm. Outside live sport, gambling advertising will be capped at three advertisements per hour during those times. On radio, wagering advertising will be banned during school drop-off and pick-up periods. The bill also tackles the connection between gambling and sporting culture itself. Wagering advertising will be banned from sporting uniforms and sporting venues. Athletes, celebrities and influencers will be prohibited from promoting wagering products. Broadcast promotion of odds will also be prohibited. That is important because advertising has changed. Young Australians do not consume media in the same way previous generations did. They are on social media, streaming services, YouTube, podcasts and whatever platform comes next. An influencer speaking into a phone can reach hundreds of thousands of young Australians. The law needs to reflect that. The online rules are therefore particularly important.</para>
<para>The starting point is that gambling advertising online is prohibited. The exception is where a user is logged in, verified as an adult and given a genuine ability to opt out. If a platform cannot meet those requirements, it cannot show gambling advertising. Large technology companies tell advertisers that they can identify what we like, what we buy, what we watch and what we might want next. They cannot suddenly become technologically helpless when parliament asks them to protect children.</para>
<para>There is a limitation that we do need to acknowledge. We know that an adult account does not necessarily mean that an adult is the person watching. Kids use family streaming accounts. They sit beside their parents. They use shared televisions, tablets and phones. An adult account alone cannot guarantee that a child will never see gambling advertising. We should recognise that, and we should test these reforms against what actually happens after they commence. If the protections prove inadequate, parliament should be prepared to strengthen them.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge that some members believe the government should adopt a complete ban on online gambling advertising. The 2003 parliamentary inquiry recommended a comprehensive prohibition phased in over three years. The government has taken a different position. Gambling remains a lawful activity for adults, but the amount, location and method of advertising will be significantly restricted.</para>
<para>People can disagree about precisely where that line should sit, but this bill represents substantial change. It removes gambling advertising from sporting uniforms and venues. It restricts television and radio advertising. It regulates advertising online. It stops athletes and influencers promoting wagering. It prohibits the promotion of odds and it backs those provisions with substantially stronger penalties.</para>
<para>The bill also strengthens action against illegal offshore gambling. Australian licensed wagering companies operate under Australian law. Illegal offshore operators do not. They can avoid Australian consumer protections and harm-minimisation requirements. This bill makes it harder for them to reach Australians and harder for Australians to pay them. Financial institutions will be required to take steps to block payments to designated illegal gambling services. The ACMA will be able to share information with financial institutions. Digital services will be required to block access to designated illegal services, and the ACMA will have stronger removal powers. If an offshore gambling company wants Australian customers but does not want Australian laws, we should make it difficult for them to find them, to access them and to pay them. The internet cannot become a jurisdiction-free casino.</para>
<para>The next part of the legislation strengthens BetStop. BetStop allows Australians to exclude themselves from all licensed online and telephone wagering providers through one registration. More than 63,000 registrations had been made by early June, with more than 39,000 active exclusions at that time. Those numbers tell us something extremely important: tens of thousands of Australians have actively said, 'I do not want access to this anymore.' We should respect that decision and make it effective.</para>
<para>The changes will strengthen BetStop so protections extend beyond email and text messages to apps, push notifications and emerging technology. Self-exclusion should mean self-exclusion, not, 'We stopped emailing you, but here's a push notification instead.' The related levy legislation will also support greater promotion of BetStop. That is important because a service cannot help someone who does not know it exists.</para>
<para>The bill also prohibits online Keno. The concern here is easy to understand. Traditional lotteries involve buying a ticket and waiting for a draw. Online Keno can involve rapid repeated draws, high-frequency play and high spending limits. Under some products, a person can lose as much as $1,000 every three minutes. A rapid play gambling product available every minute of every day on somebody's phone presents a very different risk from buying an occasional lottery ticket.</para>
<para>The legislation also bans foreign-match lotteries. These businesses effectively operate as middlemen for overseas lotteries. Australians pay an operator, somebody overseas supposedly acquires a ticket, and, if that ticket wins, the Australian relies on that chain of arrangements ultimately delivering the prize. There are obvious risks to that model. Overseas authorities have taken action against some of these arrangements, and, if something goes wrong, an Australian consumer may have limited practical ability to recover a major prize. There is also an effect here at home. Australian lotteries support newsagents, clubs and other small businesses. Charity lotteries fund community organisations. That brings me to the fake trade promotion lotteries. There is nothing wrong with genuine promotion. Buy your groceries and enter a competition; purchase a product and go into a draw. That is different from designing a business where the lottery is effectively the product, and they call it a membership scheme or trade promotion to avoid regulation. Some charge recurring membership fees. Some make it extremely difficult for customers to leave. Charity lotteries estimate that these operations diverted more than $60 million from the charitable sector in 2024. The bill closes that loophole while preserving genuine trade promotions.</para>
<para>There will continue to be debate about how far gambling regulation should go, and there should be. We are balancing personal freedom, business interests, sport, media, technology and public health. Some principles should be clear. Adults may choose to gamble, but children should not be recruited into gambling culture. Australians who do not want gambling advertising should have greater control over where they see it. People who choose to exclude themselves should be protected, and companies seeking Australian customers should obey Australian laws. There is also a lesson here that reaches beyond gambling. Do not confuse what you are legally entitled to do with what Australians will indefinitely accept. Do not take your customers for granted. Do not take your workers for granted. Do not take the communities that allow you to operate for granted. The gambling industry has had years to see where public opinion was heading. Too much of it continued pushing—more advertising, more integration with sport, more targeted online, more ways to reach people wherever they happen to be—and then some wondered why Australians demanded change. If an industry continually pushes right up against the boundary of what the law allows, eventually the community may decide to move that boundary, and that is what this parliament is doing.</para>
<para>From 1 January, families watching sport will see fewer gambling ads. Kids will not see wagering brands on their sporting heroes uniforms or around the grounds. Influencers will not be paid to push betting products to their followers, and Australians will have greater control over gambling advertising online. Illegal operators will face stronger barriers, BetStop will be strengthened, online Keno will be banned, and loopholes around foreign-match and fake lotteries will be closed.</para>
<para>Some will argue we should go further. That debate will continue, but the existence of an argument for going further is not an argument for doing nothing. This legislation substantially changes the relationship between gambling advertising and Australian sport. Most importantly, it gives our kids more room to simply enjoy the game. The siren should mean the game is starting and not that it is time to place a bet. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the really important Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 in this place today with a great deal of passion. It's clear that today is a day where reasonable minds will differ about how we should best go about changing the scourge that is gambling and its impacts on our local communities across this country. Before I go into the bill, I want to tell you, my colleagues here and those in the chamber, as well as anybody who might be watching or listening to this, a little story about why I have become so passionate about gambling or rather antigambling.</para>
<para>I was in my early 20s. I was a carpenter by trade. I was on a building site. It was morning smoko, and a new block layer turned up to the site. We were sitting around at smoko. For those of you who don't know, laying blocks is incredibly hard yakka. It's not laying bricks; it's laying blocks. A block probably weighs four or five times the weight of a brick. It's hard, physically demanding work. This gentleman would have been in his late 60s or early 70s—most definitely the oldest block layer I've ever seen in my working life.</para>
<para>At smoko, I got talking with this gentleman. I said: 'Mate, do you mind if I ask why you're here? What are you doing laying blocks at your age?' And he said: 'I'll tell you. My wife has a gambling problem, and we lost our house. We lost all our savings. I was retired, and I had to go back to work.' Here's old mate in, I estimate, his late 60s or early 70s busting his guts laying blocks. That had a profound impact on me as a young man about the scourge that is gambling in this country.</para>
<para>Around $36 billion is lost by Australian gamblers in this country. To put that into perspective, that's $36,000 million each and every year—not gambled, lost. We are the world's worst gamblers in every respect. To put it another way, that same $36,000 million would build six tertiary hospitals in this country each and every single year—blown, gone, never to be seen again, paid to some foreign gambling company who does not give a damn about Australians or Australian families. Madam Deputy Speaker, just think what that money could do for your communities if that money was invested in rural Indigenous health, for example—$36 billion.</para>
<para>I was only a young fella. I went home that night, and I hope mum won't mind me saying this. But mum had shares in a publicly listed gambling company, and I said: 'Mum, you've got to sell these shares. This is terrible. Lives are being impacted by this stuff, by these companies that just don't care.' I'm pleased to say I was successful in my advocacy. She did.</para>
<para>I'm not standing here today to advocate for a total ban on gambling. If adults want to gamble, I guess that's a matter for them. But what I would say to them is: 'Next time you go to have a punt—can you afford to lose this money? Are your kids well fed? Are they appropriately clothed? Are their medical needs met? What else could you be spending the money that you're about to blow on? You will blow it because the house always wins. What else could you be spending your money on?' I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money. It's a matter for you if you're an adult. But what does concern me is that this becomes a societal problem when we know without a shadow of a doubt that there are links between problem gamblers and domestic violence. Marriage breakdowns—that's when a person's individual problem becomes our collective problem; substance abuse—the list goes on.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the great work that our shadow minister, Sarah Henderson, who has put in the really hard yards. I want to acknowledge my colleague Simon Kennedy—I can't remember his seat; someone help me out.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Briskey</name>
    <name.id>263427</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Cook.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I want to acknowledge the great work the member for Cook has been doing working with our colleagues to try and see some meaningful reform here. I'm not for a second suggesting that I or anybody on my side has some sort of philosophical licence on all of this stuff. As I started out saying, this is an issue where reasonable minds differ. We have to get that balance right between protection of personal freedoms and protecting vulnerable Australians, like kids, like problem gamblers. But I, in my heart of hearts, do not believe that the government has that mix right with this bill, and I'll tell you why. Young kids, because of the explosion of gambling ads, particularly during sport, have become incapable of differentiating sport from gambling. It's all about the odds. When I was a kid growing up, on a Monday morning when you were exchanging footy cards, you were talking about your favourite player or who kicked what goal. Now kids are talking about odds. Why? Because gambling companies have preyed upon them.</para>
<para>The explosion of gambling ads during sport doesn't happen by some coincidence. This is a deliberate strategy to hook young Australians in to become high-risk gamblers. Now, lots of people can gamble and stop and not become a problem gambler. I'm not concerned about them. I am concerned about our kids. I am concerned about our problem gamblers. I'm concerned that, when a goal is scored, we see every LED screen light up in a stadium with the name of a gambling company. I'm concerned that wherever I see a jersey or sport shorts being worn by our sportsmen and women, you can bet your bottom dollar—pardon the pun—that there's a gambling company patch on it. It's this proliferation of gambling ads that is so problematic in this country.</para>
<para>I believe some sensible reforms should be in this bill. We should have a ban on sports gambling ads an hour before the game, totally during and an hour after, not this half-hearted approach of the government of five minutes before, five minutes after and still being able to see gambling ads when there's a goal or an unexpected stoppage in the game. That's crazy. What do they think—that kids are not going to watch it? And I think that should apply to live sport as well as replayed sport.</para>
<para>I want to see specific opt-in arrangements in this bill. If you're an adult and you want these inducements from gambling companies to gamble more, you should have to say 'I want that; please send it to me' rather than 'I don't want it', because that's what the arrangement is now. The arrangement now is that you have to opt out. I think you should have to specifically, expressly, opt in for this stuff—for these inducements that we heard so much about in the Senate inquiry last week. I think that, if you want to receive gambling ads on your streaming services, you should have to opt in. These are simple reforms—simple measures that this government could take today, with some amendments, that would protect our kids and protect our vulnerable Australians.</para>
<para>Who's it going to impact upon? It's going to impact upon the gambling companies, on their bottom line. Yes, there will be the sporting codes that will jump up and down. I'm a big believer that nature abhors a vacuum. When the smoking laws came in that said you couldn't have smoking advertising, everybody jumped up and down. Cricket, in particular, jumped up and down and said, 'This is terrible. This will be the death of cricket!' Nature abhors a vacuum. If the gambling companies are prevented from being able to spend their billions of dollars on gambling ads, someone else—some other organisation or some other industry—will fill it. That cannot be an argument. Surely we've learnt that from smoking. We need to adopt a public health approach to gambling. Smoking is legal; yes. Gambling is legal. But we made a decision decades ago not to allow smoking ads. What's the difference? The difference is that this is a strong, powerful, well-heeled lobby group.</para>
<para>We need to stand up. This is an opportunity for Australians. This is an opportunity for us, as parliamentarians. This is why we are here. If not for this, for what? This is why our people, our constituents, sent us here—to stand up for them in this place. If not now, when? If not on this, on what? This is a classic golden opportunity for this parliament to come together to work together for the benefit of Australians. Let's not squib this opportunity. Let's not take the easy road.</para>
<para>Yes, it's a difficult decision. Yes, there will be lobby groups and industries that will be upset about what I'm saying. But you know what? I read a recent poll which said that somewhere around 70 per cent—it may have been even higher: 70 to 80 per cent—of Australians want to see significant reform in relation to gambling. Name me another issue where you get such broadscale support in Australia for reform. It is a no-brainer. We've got political support from our people. All we need now is the political gumption to deliver on that and to deliver for the Australian people.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLUTTERHAM</name>
    <name.id>316101</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. It was not until my mid-30s that I realised just how addictive, how harmful and how toxic online gambling could be. I'm a sports lover. I love most sports—except for those involving animals, which I cannot stand. Sports are for me, and I wish I had been good enough to play sport at a truly elite level. I was a pretty good swimmer but not really elite, and B-grade netball was the highest standard I ever achieved. I've often wondered what it would be like to play sport in front of a crowd and get paid handsomely to do it or to play sport for Australia, to represent Australia on the global stage, at a world championship, Olympic Games or Commonwealth Games, and to hear the roar of the crowd as you shoot that winning goal for the Australian Diamonds or touch the finish line ahead of the US in the 4 x 200 metre freestyle relay or slot the Sherrin between the goalposts for that after-the-siren win. That is the dream.</para>
<para>This love of sport led me to say yes to joining an online betting group made up of friends of friends of friends called the Gentleman's Gambling Guild, or the GGG, about 10 years ago. You didn't have to be a gentleman to join. All you had to do was pay a sum of money to enter the competition, and you had to open a Sportsbet account. Then the rules were simple. For the duration of the AFL footy season, including finals, each week you'd place a $1 bet on whatever you liked—Crows to beat Port, the Adelaide Thunderbirds to beat the Melbourne Vixens, Buddy Franklin to kick six goals. You name it, you could bet on it, but you were limited to $1. You could also place a $10 long-range bet—that is, bet on something at the start of the season in the hope it might transpire by the end of the season. My biggest failed bet was that, in 2017, I bet that Sydney Swan Isaac Heeney, still one of the best midfielders in the AFL, would win the Brownlow that year. I didn't realise he'd been diagnosed with a severe bout of glandular fever and wouldn't be playing that much, so that bet was a fail. The merciless and frankly justified ribbing I received from my fellow competitors in the GGG was very humbling, to say the least.</para>
<para>But, depending on how your bet went and how successful you were each week, you'd be placed on a weekly leaderboard. Multis—maybe a four-leg or a six-leg multi—would see you place higher on the leaderboard, meaning there is more incentive to place riskier and more complex bets, just in case they came off. At the end of the season, you could win prize money depending on where you were on that leaderboard. I was never any good. I was always quite confused about what the line bet actually meant, and my enduring love for the mighty Adelaide Crows during a couple of their less successful seasons meant I was never really a serious threat of winning any prize money. So being part of the GGG and placing $1 bets was just a bit of harmless fun—until it wasn't.</para>
<para>It became less and less fun. It was $1 a week, so I was never really in danger of suffering financially from placing these bets. I consider myself to be a reasonably smart woman, although I accept there'll be differing views on this, but I thought I'd be smart enough not to be affected by placing $1 bets. It's $1—so what? But, for me, I very quickly became obsessed with what was happening with my bet. A six-leg multi meant the entire weekend could be consumed by obsessively watching matches and checking scores, impatiently waiting for the results to see if my bet came up. A lost bet on a Friday night footy match would mean waking up in a bad mood on a Saturday or wishing failure for my competitors in the GGG leaderboard. And then I started to casually, ever so casually, top up my Sportsbet account with small amounts here and there because I was actually starting to become addicted to the thrill of the win, the smugness of knowing that you predicted the outcome of a match, the smugness of knowing your bet had paid out and that you were a sporting oracle with a higher balance in your Sportsbet account—money you'd done nothing intelligent to earn. It's easy to top up your account. You just link your savings account and press a button, and the funds magically appear, ready to be gambled away.</para>
<para>Eventually I stopped. I was fortunate that it dawned on me that it was actually a huge waste of my time and energy and pretty stupid to be getting angry over the failure of a $1 bet, and then the GGG eventually folded. No-one could be bothered administering it anymore, and that was that. I haven't placed a bet since. I'm not interested. I know that for me sport is way more enjoyable when I just watch it for the sheer spectacle of it. But, when I look back, I see in myself those fleeting signs of possible addiction. 'Just one more—then I'll stop.' Then you place another, but, 'This is the last bet I'm ever going to make.' But then the bet pays out, and so you place just one more, telling yourself, 'It's only 50 bucks.' Then $50 becomes $100, and it builds and goes beyond. Although you might win some, eventually, you lose more. Online gambling is addictive by design. It plays on human nature: the innate desire to win, to make money, to be in control of something, to be good at something and—particularly for me, on my multibets—to take a bit of a risk. Online gambling plays on the camaraderie that having a drink with your mates in the pub whilst watching sport can bring. It's easy—again, by design—set up an account, link your savings and away you go.</para>
<para>Not everyone succumbs to the addiction. Plenty of Australians have a flutter with very little consequence. But, for those who do succumb, the addiction can be devastating: irreversible financial devastation, the loss of employment, the breakdown of family relationships, increased drinking, drugs, violence, self-harm or suicide. We need to talk about addiction, to remove the stigma associated with an addiction to online gambling, so people feel comfortable reaching out for support. Addiction is a chronic health condition when someone just cannot stop doing something, even though it hurts their family, their health, their work and themselves. Addiction is real, and talking and listening—starting a gentle conversation, expressing concern without judgement and letting someone know you're there to help—can make a difference. Trying to understand addiction and offering support, not criticism, can make a big difference in someone's journey from addiction to recovery.</para>
<para>We know that governments also have a role to play in providing safeguards that minimise potential for harmful addiction, particularly with respect to children. The sooner the connection between sport and gambling is broken, the better. That is what this bill is aimed at. It aims at achieving this through a ban on wagering advertising content during live coverage of sporting events across all platforms, a ban on radio advertising during school drop-off and pick-up times, and limits on the frequency of advertising on television. Kids don't need to see or hear gambling advertisements. Adults don't really need to see them either—they wreck sport, they are intrusive, they are unintelligent, they feed existing addictions and they provide the foundations for new ones.</para>
<para>In addition, the bill includes a prohibition on displaying wagering advertising content on sporting uniforms and at sporting venues; a prohibition on the sporting heroes of our kids, along with celebrities and influencers, being used to promote wagering advertising content; and a prohibition on the broadcast of the promotion of those addictive odds. The bill also obliges all authorised deposit-taking institutions, such as banks and credit unions, and participants in a payment system to block funds transfers and payments from Australian accounts to accounts belonging to, or associated with, designated interactive gambling service operators. It obliges digital services to block access to designated interactive gambling services online. It includes prohibitions on online Keno and foreign matched lotteries. Importantly, it strengthens BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, by prohibiting licensed interactive wagering service providers from contacting individuals while they are on BetStop. The statutory review into BetStop illustrated that BetStop works. It works; we know this. It works and it is effective. We need to give it the significant publicity it deserves. We need to encourage more people, without stigma and without shame, to sign up to it. Only one in four Australians know about BetStop. This figure needs to be four in four, because it works.</para>
<para>This bill is not the set-and-forget one-size-fits-all solution to the harms caused by online gambling. I support this bill because it is progress. It is progress, and it builds on the previous work this government has done in relation to minimising the harms caused by online gambling. At this moment, let's not let perfection get in the way of progress, even if that progress is not considered fast enough or strong enough for some. It is still progress. Let this bill represent both the continuation of work done and the beginning of further meaningful and effective progress. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to begin by acknowledging the contribution of the former member for Dunkley Peta Murphy in this public debate of great importance. I don't think any of us in this place can pretend to speak for the late Peta Murphy, but I do know that, as a lady with enormous social conscience, she would be heartened to hear members in this place talking about a piece of work that she was deeply engaged in which was directly aimed at reducing the amount of harm caused by problem gambling in our nation.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge there's a great deal of interest across Australia and a great deal of media speculation about where this legislation will eventually land, but it's important that we remember the key principles of what we're trying to achieve in this place—that is, to try to get the balance right on an issue where there are very strongly held views across the chamber, within our individual parties and amongst the crossbench as well. There is a lot of interest, and I recognise and acknowledge the feedback I've received in my own office from people who are very passionate and who have been impacted by gambling when it's got out of control for them in their lives or the lives of their family members.</para>
<para>There are a few key principles that I've tried to consider in reflecting on the legislation and the need for more reform in this space. One is that we still need to respect our freedom of choice in a nation like Australia. We do need to accept a level of individual responsibility for our actions, but we also need to take every step we can reasonably take to reduce gambling harm, particularly as it impacts children or vulnerable people. The challenge for members in this place is to somehow try to get that balance right in our deliberations. People do need protection from predatory behaviour. People do need protection from illegal activities, particularly those younger Australians who are at the risk of becoming addicted by saturation of gambling promotion in our community, because the world has changed. Quite obviously, the world has changed in only a short amount of time. The amount of exposure to advertising in our own lounge rooms and on our screens has changed dramatically from what previous generations experienced, and the legislation that we're seeking to implement here is designed to try to, in some respects, catch up and minimise that harm, particularly, as I said, for younger people.</para>
<para>There wouldn't be a member in this place who hasn't been personally touched in some way by the issues in their own community or perhaps even in their own families when it comes to gambling addiction. It goes without saying but is probably worth repeating that, as members of parliament, we are approached by people whose lives have spiralled out of control as a direct result of their gambling addiction. We see people who have lost their businesses, who have lost relationships, who have self-harmed or who have had their lives destroyed in other ways by being lured into criminality to feed their gambling addiction. There wouldn't be a member in this place who hasn't been approached by someone in their community with that experience.</para>
<para>Alternatively, gambling can be harmless fun. Gambling can be a way for mates to get together, male and female, and enjoy some time with each other, having a bit of a flutter or a punt using money they can afford to lose, if they're in that position. Done responsibly, gambling can be quite an enjoyable experience for a lot of people, and literally millions of Australians do that every year. So, the members who have spoken today and will speak throughout the day will tell their personal stories. Some will be quite emotional, and we've got to try and find the balance here, as an opposition and as a government ,of where the sensible centre is and where the balance is right in terms of the right regulatory reforms in this area.</para>
<para>We have a cautionary tale in this country right now in relation to getting the balance right, because where we've got it wrong is in regulation and taxes around tobacco. The rules we put in place for public health reasons, as well as the regulatory structures and the taxes placed on tobacco have resulted in government effectively outsourcing the supply of tobacco to organised crime. The illicit tobacco and vaping industry in Australia today is worth more than the legal industry. That is a direct result of heavy handed regulation and government tax decisions made in this place and other places, which have resulted in governments outsourcing the tobacco industry to organised crime. In my home state of Victoria, it's resulted in more than 100 firebombings in the past couple of years, as organised crime figures compete for turf to sell their illegal product. There's the example of what I say is a cautionary tale about how we get the settings right and somehow find the sensible centre in this debate to allow people to take responsibility for their own actions but also to protect Australians from predatory behaviour.</para>
<para>The parliamentary inquiry chaired by the late Peta Murphy was aimed squarely at trying to achieve those outcomes. The report was titled <inline font-style="italic">Y</inline><inline font-style="italic">ou win some, you lose more</inline>, but it's better known as the Murphy report. It was also supported in full by the deputy chair, my friend and colleague the member for Cowper, Pat Conaghan, a man who has worked in New South Wales police, worked in the court system and now represents his community with distinction. He, through the lived experience of his former workplace, is fully aware of some of the challenges we face in terms of gambling addiction and the impact it has on our society. Between them, Peta Murphy and Pat Conaghan prepared a report which I think was a work of great substance, and I am pleased that it has remained a subject of debate in this place, though I'm not pleased that it's taken so long for some of the 31 recommendations to actually be actioned.</para>
<para>The focus was on online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm. The inquiry was in direct response to the growing concerns, particularly amongst young people, of the harm caused by online gambling, and it made recommendations which reflected the fact that Australians are the biggest losers in the world when it comes to gambling. Peta Murphy said herself at the release of the report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have a culture where sport and gambling are intrinsically linked. These behaviours are causing increasingly widespread and serious harm to individuals, families, and communities.</para></quote>
<para>I agree with Peta, and I agree with the vast substance of that report.</para>
<para>I've previously worked in government to help introduce gambling advertising bans during live sport. That's not because I'm a wowser. I punt fairly infrequently. I may have a few bets during the Spring Racing Carnival and rapidly lose interest for the rest of the year, but I think we need to draw the distinction between sports which were primarily set up for punting—horse racing, greyhound racing, the trots. They're sports that exist because people can gamble on them. We need to draw the distinction between those and sports like the football codes, which have become saturated with gambling but were never intended to be used for that purpose. That is where the gambling industry and the sports themselves have got to take some more responsibility, because families sitting down to watch the National Rugby League game of the week or the AFL game of the week on a Friday night should not be exposed to saturation gambling advertising, and that is the fundamental issue that many of us in this place can agree on.</para>
<para>There is a major difference in my mind between those sports which exist for the sole purpose of gambling, like the racing codes, and the normalisation of gambling in other sporting codes like our football codes. That's why the coalition took action in 2018 and banned advertising during live sport. I respect the community's view that further action is required, and that's why we've got to this point here today with the legislation.</para>
<para>It's important to note that the legislation before the House today will not pass unamended. The coalition is engaged with the government in negotiations today—and, I'm sure, going forward—about some of the amendments we'd like to see put in place to strengthen the legislation before the House. The bill we're debating right now is not the legislation that will return to the chamber sometime next week after it's been through the Senate.</para>
<para>The Murphy report, amongst its 31 recommendations, which applied a public health lens to online gambling and reducing harm in Australia, included some significant reforms around the Australian government developing and implementing a comprehensive national strategy on online gambling harm reduction supported by a national regulation, an online gambling ombudsman, a harm-reduction levy on online-wagering service providers, a public education campaign, more independent research and improved data collection. It was, as I said at the outset, a comprehensive piece of work. Peta Murphy should be commended for that work. Pat Conaghan, in deputy chairing it, should also be commended.</para>
<para>For reasons that only the Prime Minister can explain, the Murphy report has not been acted on with the level of urgency that members in this place expected. I know of many Labor backbenchers who are anxious to see this legislation finally make it to the chamber, just as there are members on my side of the chamber keen to see more action. We do need stronger protections for vulnerable people. We do need to stop the predatory behaviour. More action is required to target the foreign actors who are preying on Australians. The mainstream sports, such as the football codes, have to get the message that they need to find other forms of revenue and not depend so heavily on the gambling revenue that is flowing their way. They have to reduce their own dependence on gambling for their future financial sustainability.</para>
<para>In closing, I want to refer again to this question of balance. We need to make sure, in this place, that we don't introduce legislation which has unintended consequences. The three fundamental principles that members on this side are seeking to apply to the legislation when it comes back in its amended form are that Australians must have choice, that adults should take a level of responsibility for their decisions and their actions and that governments have an obligation to protect vulnerable Australians, particularly children, from exploitation and harm. I don't think those three principles are contradictory. They provide what I think is a balanced framework that respects personal freedoms while recognising the need for sensible safeguards.</para>
<para>Those principles recognise that there are legal industries, such as horseracing, which employ thousands of Australians and which are an important part of our regional communities in particular. If we are too heavy handed in our approach to this legislation today, we will jeopardise the future of thoroughbred racing, particularly in regional communities. They're the most marginal racetracks in the country. There is nothing to be gained by undermining that sport, which actually exists for the purpose of gambling. The jobs associated with that—the trainers, the jockeys, the course staff, the catering industry, the fashion industry—are all jobs that Australians, quite rightly, want to see maintained and kept into the future. So it is important we do get the balance right in terms of Australians having choice and Australians taking responsibility for their own actions but also government fulfilling its obligation to protect vulnerable Australians, particularly children, from exploitation and harm.</para>
<para>Australians enjoy their sport. For many families, their weekends and their evenings are centred around local and professional sporting events. Sport should not just be an opportunity for gambling products to be marketed, particularly to young people. I think Australians understand that governments can't remove all risk from life, but they do expect us to step in when businesses or criminal figures target vulnerable Australians in order to try and make money. We do need to avoid unintended consequences, but the coalition will support reasonable measures to reduce gambling harm. We support protecting our children, we support protecting vulnerable Australians and we support evidence based reform, but we will not be supporting legislation if it weakens the existing safeguards, ignores the available evidence or creates unnecessary economic consequences.</para>
<para>The government has had three years to get this right. They've got another four or five days in negotiation with the coalition to fix this legislation. Unfortunately, the bill as it stands today falls short of what the community expects and won't be supported by the coalition, but we do stand ready to work with the government to support some amended legislation so it genuinely protects vulnerable Australians.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my understanding that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline> in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> () (): <inline font-style="italic">The incorporated speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<para>I would like to speak in strong support of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. This is a significant and important piece of legislation that reflects the Albanese Labor government's commitment to reducing gambling harm, protecting vulnerable Australians and, most importantly, ensuring that children and young people can grow up without being constantly exposed to gambling promotion. Australians love their sport. It is part of who we are. Whether it is families gathering around the television to watch a weekend match, children pulling on their boots to play for their local club or supporters proudly wearing their team's colours, sport should bring people together. It should inspire participation, teamwork and community pride. What it should not do is serve as a vehicle for relentless gambling promotion.</para>
<para>For too long, gambling advertising has become woven into the sporting experience. It has become difficult to separate the excitement of the game from the promotion of wagering. Families watching together are exposed to repeated gambling advertisements, odds updates and marketing messages that have become so commonplace they are almost expected. The reality is that Australians have told us they have had enough. Community expectations have changed. Australians want stronger protections for children. They want to enjoy sport without gambling messages appearing at every opportunity. They want reasonable limits placed on advertising that has become inescapable across television, radio and online platforms. This bill responds directly to those concerns. It delivers a comprehensive suite of reforms designed to reduce gambling harm while recognising that governments have an important responsibility to protect the community from practices that create unnecessary risk.</para>
<para>One of the most significant elements of this legislation is the package of advertising reforms contained in schedule 1. The government is taking decisive action to reduce children's exposure to gambling advertising by introducing clear and enforceable restrictions. The bill bans wagering advertisements during live sporting broadcasts between 6 am and 8.30 pm. It also bans the broadcasting of sporting odds during those broadcasts. These are practical reforms that acknowledge a simple reality. Children should be able to watch their favourite sporting team without being encouraged to associate sport with gambling.</para>
<para>The legislation also addresses the overall volume of gambling advertising. In recent years, Australians have seen an extraordinary increase in the number of wagering advertisements on television. At times, viewers have been exposed to as many as eight gambling advertisements in a single hour. That level of saturation is simply unacceptable. Under this legislation, gambling advertising on television will be capped at no more than three advertisements each hour between 6 am and 8.30 pm. Importantly, children travelling to and from school will also be protected through restrictions on gambling advertising during school drop-off and pick-up times on radio. These measures acknowledge that reducing harm is not simply about individual advertisements. It is also about reducing the constant presence of gambling messages in everyday life.</para>
<para>The reforms extend beyond traditional media. Increasingly, gambling companies have shifted their focus online, using digital platforms, streaming services, podcasts, search engines and social media to reach consumers. This legislation addresses that reality. Online gambling advertising will be prohibited unless a person is logged into an account, is over the age of 18 and has the ability to opt out of receiving gambling advertising. This triple-lock approach represents a significant shift in the way gambling advertising will operate online. It means children will not be exposed to these advertisements while using online services, and adults who do not wish to receive gambling advertising will be able to opt out. Responsibility also rests with online platforms themselves. If platforms choose not to implement these safeguards, the consequence is straightforward—they will not be permitted to display gambling advertising. This is a balanced and practical approach that places community wellbeing ahead of commercial interests.</para>
<para>The bill also recognises that gambling companies continue to develop new methods of advertising. We have seen increasing use of athletes, celebrities and social media influencers to normalise gambling and encourage participation, particularly among younger Australians. Many young people follow sporting stars and online personalities whom they admire and trust. Those relationships should not be exploited to encourage gambling. That is why this legislation prohibits gambling companies from entering arrangements with athletes, celebrities or influencers to promote wagering products. It does not matter how many followers an influencer has or which platform they use. The principle is clear. Those with public influence should not be used to market gambling products to Australians, particularly young Australians.</para>
<para>Equally important are the reforms designed to break the connection between gambling and sport itself. Australians should not expect to see gambling logos displayed on sporting uniforms, around sporting grounds or throughout sporting venues. This legislation removes gambling advertising from sporting venues and bans gambling branding on players' and officials' uniforms. The reforms also extend to training sessions, press conferences and grassroots sporting events. These measures recognise that sport belongs to communities. It should not be defined by gambling promotion.</para>
<para>The bill also strengthens Australia's response to illegal offshore gambling operators. Illegal gambling services operate outside Australia's regulatory framework and without the consumer protections that licensed Australian providers are required to meet. The government has already blocked more than 1,700 illegal gambling websites since 2019. However, this legislation strengthens those efforts by giving regulators and financial institutions better tools to respond quickly. Banks and payment providers will be required to block transfers to illegal gambling operators. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will be able to share information with financial institutions to assist those efforts. Digital services, including search engines and app providers, will also be required to restrict access to illegal gambling services and their advertising. The legislation further enables ACMA to issue rapid take-down notices to digital platforms and influencers promoting illegal gambling services. Together, these reforms create a stronger and more effective framework for protecting Australians from illegal operators.</para>
<para>Another important feature of the bill is the strengthening of BetStop, Australia's national self-exclusion register. BetStop provides Australians experiencing gambling harm with the opportunity to self-exclude from licensed online and telephone wagering providers. Since its introduction in 2023, more than 65,000 Australians have registered, with more than 39,000 people currently self-excluded. Those numbers demonstrate both the importance of the service and the need for continued improvement. Technology changes rapidly. Marketing practices continue to evolve. This legislation ensures BetStop can evolve alongside them. The reforms extend marketing restrictions beyond emails and text messages to include app notifications, push notifications and emerging forms of digital communication. They also implement the recommendations arising from the statutory review of BetStop, improving clarity, usability and consumer protection. These are practical reforms that strengthen an already valuable harm reduction measure.</para>
<para>The legislation also takes firm action against emerging gambling products that present significant risks to consumers. One of these is online keno. Sometimes described as 'pocket pokies', online keno combines rapid play, high spending limits and continuous accessibility through mobile devices. The capacity for financial harm is significant. People can lose substantial amounts of money within minutes. The government has concluded that these products provide no meaningful community benefit and that banning online keno is an appropriate and necessary response.</para>
<para>The bill also addresses foreign matched lotteries. These businesses have developed operating models designed to exploit loopholes in Australia's existing laws. Rather than conducting lotteries themselves, they purchase overseas lottery tickets on behalf of Australian customers. This creates uncertainty regarding consumer protections and raises legitimate concerns about whether winnings would ultimately be honoured. Beyond those consumer risks, these businesses undermine Australian lotteries, charities and thousands of small businesses that rely on legitimate lottery sales. By closing these loopholes, the legislation protects Australian consumers while supporting local businesses and community organisations.</para>
<para>Similarly, the bill addresses fake trade promotion lotteries that operate under the guise of promotional competitions while using unclear payment arrangements and confusing operating models. These practices have resulted in consumers losing money and, in some cases, prizes not being delivered, because operators failed to comply with relevant licensing requirements. They also divert valuable revenue away from legitimate charity lotteries that provide significant benefits to Australian communities. This legislation makes clear that the privilege of operating lottery products in Australia comes with responsibilities. Consumers deserve transparency, fairness and confidence that, when they participate in a lottery, the rules are genuine and the protections are real.</para>
<para>Gambling harm affects individuals, families and entire communities. While many Australians choose to gamble responsibly, we also know that gambling harm can have devastating financial, emotional and social consequences. That is why governments have an obligation to act where appropriate to reduce those harms while protecting consumers. This legislation represents the strongest package of gambling reforms in Australia's history. It reduces children's exposure to gambling advertising. It breaks the connection between gambling and sport. It strengthens BetStop. It gives regulators stronger powers to tackle illegal operators. It protects consumers from harmful online gambling products. And it supports charities and small businesses by closing loopholes that undermine legitimate lottery operations.</para>
<para>Finally, I acknowledge the lasting contribution of my good friend the late Peta Murphy. Her work as chair of the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm highlighted the need for stronger protections and placed the experiences of affected Australians firmly at the centre of this national conversation. Her commitment to reducing gambling harm continues to influence the work of this parliament, and these reforms represent an important step in continuing that legacy.</para>
<para>This bill demonstrates that governments can respond to changing community expectations and take practical action to protect Australians. It recognises that families should be able to enjoy sport without being overwhelmed by gambling promotion, that children deserve better protection from harmful advertising and that Australians experiencing gambling harm deserve stronger support. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a saying in politics, and that is that you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. With the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, though, I feel like it's 'Don't let the woefully inadequate be the enemy of the good.' I've got to say that I'm torn between supporting this inadequate legislation and voting it down, which is warranted, but this would result in potentially more damage and a further lack of action. This underwhelming bill puts members like me who care about the harm that gambling causes, who care about their constituents, between a rock and a hard place. It's galling to know that eventually this legislation will pass, and it's galling to know that so many in government are going to be high-fiving each other—'Look what we did. We fixed gambling harm'—when you didn't, when you won't, when you have for so long ignored the recommendations of the Murphy report. It's so galling to think of the late Peta Murphy and the tremendous work that she did in this place in such a short period of time, knowing how terribly sick she was in those last months and how she still kept coming in here, knowing her time was finite, because she thought that tabling the report was important. She thought it would make a difference.</para>
<para>On the one hand, we have what's known as the Murphy report. What we had was unanimous bipartisan support from the government, from the coalition and from independent members who were on that committee, which found that gambling was harming Australians, and then we continue to do so without a concerted effort to address gambling harm. The committee made 31 recommendations to reduce gambling harm, including a phase-in of a complete ban of advertising of online gambling, a minister and national regulator dedicated to reducing gambling harm and a public health priority and a banning of predatory inducements. On the other hand, what do we have? We've had pressure from the major sporting codes and broadcasters that profit and will continue to profit directly from gambling. The Australian Football League reported a net profit of $45.4 million in 2024 with a reported betting agency income of around $30 million—$30 million the AFL got from their loyal fans that turn up every day that are so induced to bet.</para>
<para>I think of when I was a young person and watching sport. I think of when I was a child and watching sport and then what our children have to be subjected to today—the constant bombardment of betting advertising. It just never ends. It's pernicious. I think of the National Rugby League, which earned $744.9 million in revenue in 2024, with an operating surplus of around $62 million, and which reportedly earned around $50 million of its revenue from betting agencies. The major broadcasters profit from around $239 million worth of advertising online and on metropolitan radio. State governments benefit from gambling taxes and groups like the Canberra Labor Club, whose gambling revenue from pokies benefits the Labor Party. It's really quite obscene that we have a political party in Australia that has pokie machines. It was reported there were gambling donations of more than $4 million over five years, including $1.5 million in the last election and a Labor fundraiser hosted by pokies and hospitality company Endeavour Group on the fringe of Labor's National Conference in 2026, as reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline>.</para>
<para>It's devastatingly easy to see that the Murphy report's recommendations are being sacrificed by the government on the altar of gambling, sporting and broadcasting profits. A side-by-side comparison of the government's reforms and the Murphy report's recommendations shows that the bill responds to only three of 31 recommendations—that's under 10 per cent—and only responds partially to two out of three of those.</para>
<para>In the absence of meaningful action, gambling harm has continued largely unabated during the more than 1,140 days since the Murphy report was handed down. The harms caused and exacerbated by gambling have continued, and they include family and relationship breakdown, unemployment, poverty, crime, family and domestic violence, elder abuse—one in six older Australians experience elder abuse, and a significant proportion of that is because their children and their grandchildren are seeking money from grandma and grandpa to try and cover debts from gambling—and gambling related suicide.</para>
<para>Gambling losses in Australia are now estimated to be $36 billion every year, more than $95 million every single day. That's according to the Australia Institute. Thirty-six billion dollars equates to more than $1,290 in losses for every man, woman and child in Australia. It's one way that we lead across the world: we have the highest rate of gambling losses on a per capita basis in the world.</para>
<para>I—and no doubt many other members in this place—have heard from many of those impacted. My constituents and Australians from across the nation have been begging for meaningful gambling reform, in particular further restrictions on gambling advertising and inducements. While strengthening BetStop was helpful—at every opportunity, when the government are asked about a question around the Murphy report or gambling harm, they talk about it—that's a voluntary service, which those suffering the most gambling harm may not be able to engage with for a variety of reasons.</para>
<para>The reforms proposed in this bill are piecemeal at best and based on industry preferences rather than respectable research and what we really should be doing in this place. If we're all here to make a better Australia, we're failing today. I've never been more reluctant when deciding how to vote on a bill. Without some of the lodged amendments being passed, this bill can only be seen as a missed opportunity to implement the vision of the late, brave former member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, and the committee report from the inquiry that she chaired with fellow members, many of whom are still in this place, that was handed down well over a thousand days ago. Vale, Peta Murphy, and vale, your excellent work, barely 10 per cent of which is being implemented by government, a government that she so loyally served.</para>
<para>What's particularly galling is knowing that we're not going to address gambling reform again in this place, certainly not in this parliament and probably not in the next or the one after, because there'll be a big tick next to gambling reform that that's being fixed. We have a duty in this place—we have a duty to our children; we have a duty to children who have not been born; we have a duty to vulnerable Australians; we have a duty to current and future Australia—and today, very sadly, we've squibbed it. I just hope that the government consider the needs of vulnerable Australians—in fact, all Australians—over codes, over news channels and over their own self-interests in taking gambling donations and actually truly address and bring to this parliament legislation that addresses all 31 recommendations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WITTY</name>
    <name.id>316660</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. I want to begin with a story from a father in Melbourne who contacted my office. He told me about his 12-year-old son, a basketball fanatic, a kid who loves sport. Like many families, they spend time together watching games, following players and talking about results. His family has also experienced the devastating impact of gambling addiction. What worried him was not what was happening on the court. What worried him was what was happening in the advertising breaks. He described game after game where gambling advertising appeared again and again, so often that they became part of the experience of watching sport itself. One part of his story in particular has stayed with me. His son saw an advertisement connected to sports statistics and said he would like to use it because he enjoyed analysing teams and players. The father could see how easily a love of sport could be turned into something else.</para>
<para>Another parent contacted me with a similar concern. He has two young boys who love footy and cricket. He told me they had started asking questions about getting betting odds and gambling markets, not because they were looking for gambling content but because gambling content kept finding them. He spoke about what felt like a constant stream of gambling promotions attached to the sports his children loved. Most of all, he spoke as a parent. He spoke about feeling powerless to stop it. Parents should not have to carry that burden on their own. Children should be able to enjoy sport as children. They should be able to follow their favourite players, support their team and celebrate a win without being drawn into a conversation about gambling.</para>
<para>Those conversations with Melbourne families have stayed with me, and they are why the Albanese Labor government is acting. This government is taking steps to reduce children's exposure to gambling advertising, break the connection between sport and wagering, and help ensure families can enjoy sport without gambling companies competing for their attention.</para>
<para>One of the first stakeholder events I attended in Parliament House focused on gambling harm and gambling advertising. I was new to this place and a little bit unsure about what went on. I went into a committee room to see some people up on the screen. The people on the screen then shared their stories. One was a young man who was addicted to gambling and had lots of different gambling companies giving him free bets and free things to induce him to keep gambling. But what really stood out to me were the two young women who were there. They looked quite distressed. When they started to speak, I really began to understand why. They told of their brother—one of the sisters told of their brother; the other was just holding her—who had a gambling addiction that got out of hand and, eventually, he killed himself. You could see the pain on the face of the two sisters as they described their brother. This was something that I never even thought about until hearing those stories.</para>
<para>When we debate legislation in this place, it is easy to focus on clauses, schedules and technical provisions. Behind every reform are real people: people trying to rebuild their lives; parents trying to protect their children; families dealing with financial pressure, mental health challenges, relationship breakdowns and the stress that gambling harm can cause. That reality is reflected in my own community. Across the city of Melbourne, Yarra and Stonnington, more than $150 million was lost on pokie machines alone in the last financial year. That is a staggering amount of money—money that could have gone towards rent, money that could have gone towards groceries, money that could have gone towards school costs, savings or everyday household expenses. Every dollar lost tells part of the story. The greater story is the impact that gambling harm has on families and communities.</para>
<para>In Melbourne, we are fortunate to have organisations such as Turning Point working every day to reduce gambling harm in our community. Turning Point provides treatment and counselling services, supports people and families affected by gambling harm, conducts leading research and helps build the evidence that informs better public policy. I've met with their team and heard firsthand about the experiences of people seeking support and trying to regain financial stability, repair relationships and rebuild confidence in their lives. Their continued work in my community shows how gambling harm rarely affects just one person; it affects partners, children, parents and entire families. The people working on the front line see those impacts every day. They also see the difference that prevention, education, early intervention and support can make. Their experience reinforces why measures that reduce exposure to gambling advertising, particularly for children and young people, are so important.</para>
<para>For too many Australians, gambling advertising has become deeply embedded in the way sport is consumed. As representatives of our community, we hear the growing concern about the sheer volume of gambling advertising appearing across television, streaming services, social media platforms, podcasts, online services and radio broadcasts. Many Australians have felt there is simply no escape from it. The parents who contacted my office were asking for their children to be able to enjoy sport without constant exposure to gambling promotions. They were asking for some balance to be restored, and that is what this legislation will do.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's reforms are built around a simple principle: Australians should have more control over where and how they are exposed to gambling advertising. Children should not be the audience of gambling companies, sport should not be a pathway into gambling and families should be able to enjoy time together without being overwhelmed by gambling promotions. The reforms in the main bill take practical action to achieve that. From 1 January next year, Australians will be able to sit down and watch live sport without the level of gambling advertising that has become normalised over recent years. The main bill bans gambling advertising during live sport broadcasts on television between 6 am and 8.30 pm. Outside live sports, a cap will apply so that no more than three gambling advertisements can be shown per hour during that time.</para>
<para>The main bill also tackles advertising where many children and young people increasingly spend their time online across digital platforms, social media and news websites. These reforms reduce the reach of gambling advertising across the online environment while giving Australians greater control over what they are exposed to.</para>
<para>The legislation also bans gambling promotions by celebrities, athletes and influencers. That is an important change. Supporting heroes and online personalities have significant influence, particularly with young Australians. That influence should not be used to encourage gambling activity. The main bill ends that practice.</para>
<para>The legislation also removes gambling advertising from sporting environments themselves. Stadium advertising will be banned. Jersey advertising will be banned. These reforms help restore a clear separation between sport and wagering. When children pull on a sporting jumper, the focus should be on the team they support. When families attend a game, the focus should be on the players on the field. The focus should be on the sport itself.</para>
<para>The bill also bans gambling advertising on radio during school drop-off and pick-up times. That is another practical reform aimed at reducing children's exposure to gambling promotions during key parts of the day. At every step, the goal is straightforward: reduce exposure; reduce saturation; reduce harm.</para>
<para>The bill also contains important reforms beyond advertising. One of those reforms strengthens BetStop, Australia's National Self-Exclusion Register. Since its launch, thousands of Australians have used BetStop as part of their recovery from gambling. This legislation strengthens those protections. It improves the operations of the register. It reduces opportunities for unwanted marketing. It helps ensure that Australians who have made the decision to exclude themselves from gambling receive stronger support.</para>
<para>The bill also strengthens efforts to combat illegal offshore gambling operators. Those operators sit outside Australia's regulatory framework and consumer protections. The reforms provide stronger tools to disrupt their activities and reduce the harm they can cause.</para>
<para>The legislation also addresses emerging gambling products that present significant risks. One example is online keno. These products can operate at an extraordinary speed and carry a significant capacity for harm. The government will ban online keno through these reforms.</para>
<para>The bill also addresses foreign matched lotteries. These schemes rely on loopholes that allow providers to act as the intermediaries of overseas lottery purchases. Closing those loopholes will strengthen consumer protections and help protect legitimate Australian lottery operators, including organisations that support community activity and charity work.</para>
<para>The legislation also cracks down on fake trade promotion lotteries. These operators have been able to exploit regulatory gaps while operating outside the standard expected of licensed lottery providers. Charities have raised serious concerns about the impact these arrangements are having on legitimate fundraising activities. This bill closes those loopholes and strengthens protections for consumers and community organisations.</para>
<para>Real progress on gambling harm comes from many people working together. It comes from families having difficult conversations around kitchen tables. It comes from community organisations supporting people through recovery. It comes from advocates sharing their lived experience. It comes from governments being prepared to act. This legislation is an important part of that broader effort. It sits alongside the work being done every day by health professionals, community organisations, sporting bodies, families and people with lived experience of gambling harm. Together, those efforts are helping build a culture where support is easier to find, protection is stronger and children are not exposed to the same level of gambling promotion as has become normalised over recent years.</para>
<para>As I prepared for this debate, I kept thinking about those parents who contacted my office; I thought about the father watching basketball with his son; I thought about the parent who told me that their young boy was already asking questions about odds while trying to watch footy and cricket. They wanted their children to enjoy sport as children. They wanted to sit down together as a family and watch a game without a constant stream of gambling promotions competing for their attention. They wanted to know that someone was listening.</para>
<para>Today, I want them to know that their voices have been heard. The reforms before the House take practical action to reduce children's exposure to gambling advertising. They take practical action to break the connection between sport and wagering. They take practical action to give families greater confidence that the moments they share around sport are about the game itself.</para>
<para>The stories that shaped my contribution to this debate did not come from boardrooms; they came from lounge rooms and kitchen tables, from parents doing their best to raise healthy, happy and confident young people. Those are the voices I carry with me from Melbourne, and those are the families I am thinking about as I support this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've spent a lot of time in this building talking about gambling reform. The Murphy review was the first inquiry that I participated in, and the personal stories were heartbreaking. I was really impressed by the committee process: the government identifying an issue that needed action; all sides working together, genuinely interested in understanding the issue and what needs to be done. I contributed significantly to that inquiry, suggesting 45 recommendations that I thought should be addressed based on the evidence we heard, with 42 of them ending up in the final report.</para>
<para>Now, in the more than three years since that piece of multipartisan work was tabled in this House with unanimous recommendations, I've continued to fight to keep this issue on the agenda and to hold the Prime Minister to account for his inaction and intransigence. I've asked him questions nine times in question time. I've raised gambling on the floor of this House 250 times since I was elected. Then, like a slap in the face, the government issued its long-overdue response, merely noting the 31 recommendations and going on to talk about small actions that were not identified as priorities in that report.</para>
<para>The package that has been put forward is not fit for purpose. It will not address this problem. It's designed to give the government a handful of talking points. It's about politics; it's not about lives. After four years of advocacy, I want to spend this time addressing three issues: firstly, why this reform is important for Australians; secondly, why the package being presented is woefully inadequate; and thirdly, why this reform is actually important for the government too.</para>
<para>Firstly, why is it important for Australians? Well, we have the statistics. We lose $31 billion a year, the most in the world, twice as much as Americans and New Zealanders. On average, Australian households lose more through gambling than they spend on electricity, gas and other fuels. Half a million Australians have felt the need to ask their own banks to block them from gambling. Harm from an individual's gambling doesn't stop with that person. On average, six other people are directly affected when someone gambles at the highest risk level through the breakdown of relationships, financial and mental distress, and emotional and psychological impacts.</para>
<para>We are normalising gambling for children. It's illegal for anyone under 18 to gamble in Australia but it's not stopping them. It's not illegal to market gambling to them and there are few restrictions preventing it. More 12 to 17-year-olds gamble than play soccer, basketball, netball, AFL, cricket or rugby. This is our blind spot. This is like guns in the United States.</para>
<para>Now, this reform is not, as the Prime Minister has suggested, about stopping someone from having a punt on a Saturday; this is about protecting Australians, particularly our kids, from gambling harms. So they are the statistics. And then there are the stories. Since 2022, I have been contacted by more than 400 constituents in relation to excessive gambling advertising. I have heard heartbreaking stories from parents, family members, partners and former gambling addicts. I've really struggled to choose which stories to tell the House today about the scourge of addiction and the normalisation of gambling as part of sport because of the ever-present ads. There were so many stories and they all have weight.</para>
<para>I've heard from a woman whose nephew committed suicide in the face of gambling debts, and whose son is now struggling with a gambling addiction. He is trying so hard to get away from it, but she knows how hard he finds it when he's bombarded with ads everywhere he looks. I've heard from a year-12 student whose teacher puts the class's weekend gambling wins and losses up on the whiteboard in their maths class. I've heard from a woman who's worked in the advertising industry on gambling ads and has seen how the algorithms are designed to maximise losses. Everyone who speaks to me about gambling shares a common message: stop the ads.</para>
<para>I want to quote two people who have been willing to tell their stories. The first says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Just over two years ago my son lost everything, including his wife and kids, all due to easy online gambling. He also tried to take his own life. When I see these gambling ads constantly on TV, I literally either change the channel or close my eyes and block my ears. My son loves his football, so he constantly sees these ads thrown in his face as well.</para></quote>
<para>The second said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over a period of 25-odd years I gambled away my family, a multitude of friends & other relationships, & my home, before I realised what I'd really done & what I was still doing. Then, I nearly gambled away a second family before a close friend (with different addictions) helped me to realise that I was addicted to this 'pasttime'. Now, seeing the gambling adds shoved in my 12yo daughter's face every time we want to enjoy time watching our favourite teams playing, I nearly cry thinking how close I came to losing her, but I don't; instead we have discussions about how I (& many of my friends) fell for the marketing.</para></quote>
<para>Now I want to talk about what's wrong with this package. The main issue here is the wagering advertising. The stated objectives, from the government, of the wagering advertising measures are, firstly, to break the connection between wagering and sport; secondly, to minimise the exposure of children and other vulnerable people to wagering advertising; and, thirdly, to reduce its saturation across the internet, radio and television. I want to go through these three objectives and explain why they will not be achieved by this package.</para>
<para>The bottom line is that partial bans don't work. We heard this in the inquiry. The 2018 ad restrictions resulted in a 131 per cent increase in ads after 8.30 pm. They just move the ads around. The ads work, so gambling companies will be incredibly creative in finding any loopholes. They've done it before and they will do it again. A phase-out of these ads is the only thing that makes sense. The government's own impact assessment was damning. It showed that a full ban would not only be more effective; it would also be easier to implement and cheaper for taxpayers. All the tinkering around the edges in negotiated amendments between the government and the coalition will make no difference. We need to phase out the ads.</para>
<para>Looking at those three stated objectives: firstly, will this package break the connection between wagering and sport? No, it will not. Currently there are restrictions about showing gambling ads during live sport online, but they're are so ineffective that no-one really talks about them. Under this package, on any streaming platform, there will actually be more ads allowed during scheduled and unscheduled breaks in sport, as long as there's an opt-out option—buried there, somewhere—on each separate platform. How can allowing more gambling ads during sports broadcast online, which is increasingly how people watch sport, be presented as breaking the connection between wagering and sport?</para>
<para>This package does nothing about establishing a national regulator. Gambling companies will continue to find loopholes. They'll seek the lowest-common-denominator regulation in the Northern Territory and find new ways to build that connection between gambling and sport.</para>
<para>The second question is: will it minimise the exposure of children and vulnerable people to wagering advertising? No. It allows three ads every hour, throughout the day, on TV. So, if you sit down with the family to watch <inline font-style="italic">L</inline><inline font-style="italic">EGO </inline><inline font-style="italic">Masters </inline>or <inline font-style="italic">MasterChef</inline>, you'll see a gambling ad every 20 minutes. After 8.30 pm, ads are unlimited, yet 83 per cent of children aged 11 to 16 continue watching sport after 8.30 pm.</para>
<para>The most vulnerable cohort of people we should be protecting here is people who are struggling with a gambling addiction. This bill ignores the Murphy recommendation to ban inducements—or 'generosities', as the gambling companies chillingly call them. So the companies will keep bombarding vulnerable people with offers of free money. Quibbling about VIP flights and accommodation, as we've heard some of these amendments might do, is such a pathetic attempt to reduce inducements that it must have come from the gambling companies themselves.</para>
<para>The third question is: will it reduce saturation across the internet, radio and TV? No. The internet is providing an opt-out model. The only evidence we have is that 0.12 per cent of SBS subscribers have found, and used, the opt-out option. That's about one in every 800 subscribers. That will not reduce saturation. The government knew that statistic when it decided that this was the solution. It is completely dishonest, or at least disingenuous, to call this a 'triple lock', or to say that this will protect people, knowing that the best evidence that we have shows that a fraction of one per cent of people will find and use that option. At the very least it should be opt-in, so that the default option is no ads unless you specifically want them. Then we have TV. No—there are still three ads an hour now. It must be pretty bad, now, if an ad every 20 minutes throughout the day is seen as a step forward. And, after the magical time of 8.30 pm, the ads are unlimited. There is absolutely no evidence to support this piece of policy. The government was grilled on this in the Senate inquiry, and, in the very brief community consultation, the committee was told this was a political decision, not evidence based.</para>
<para>Why is this reform package important for the government? Well, the government has decided that this is not an issue that people are willing to change their vote over; people might not like the ads, but there are other things that matter more when it comes to voting. What they're missing is that this is the perfect case study for what people hate about today's politics. Trust in politicians is appallingly low. Surveys show that more than half of all Australians believe that government is run for a few big interests. We're facing so many intractable problems: productivity; the cost of living; climate action; energy security. Here is an issue with an easy answer: ban the ads—prioritise the public over the vested interests.</para>
<para>But the government is listening to the power and the money, not the people. The gambling companies make significant political donations to both major parties. The gambling industry lobbyists are everywhere in parliament: at Aussie's Cafe, playing basketball with MPs in the mornings, turning up at events, sponsoring the Australian Parliament Sports Club and walking the halls. It's disgusting. The sports codes are also deeply implicated. The AFL and the NRL make about $50 million each from the gambling industry, through multiple revenue streams, and no government wants to be seen to be anti sport. The media companies—the ones that hardly ever cover this story—don't want to lose the gambling revenue. And the government isn't willing to take them on, because they write the stories about the government.</para>
<para>Without some serious improvements to this bill, this will confirm everything that the Australian public fears about how decisions are actually made. Even if polling shows that this isn't the No. 1 voting issue, it becomes an example of why the system is broken. People are turning away from the major parties because they want someone who will actually stand up for them.</para>
<para>I am so disappointed with this. I felt so optimistic, being part of the inquiry. I heard heartbreaking stories in that inquiry, and in my electorate, and I felt, 'Here is a problem that we can actually fix.' I've now seen the way lobbyists work, and I've seen who the government is listening to, and it leaves me feeling disgusted.</para>
<para>I move my second reading amendment to this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, in its unanimous report <inline font-style="italic">You Win Some, You Lose More</inline>, recommended a comprehensive phase out of online gambling advertising, the establishment of a national gambling regulator and a ban on inducements and inducement advertising; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government has failed to deliver on these recommendations, and in doing so has chosen to favour the interests of gambling companies over the wellbeing of the Australian community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to implement a comprehensive phase-out of online gambling advertising, ban inducements to gamble, and establish a national regulator".</para></quote>
<para>That amendment is to hold true to the recommendations of the Murphy report and go ahead with a full phase-out of all gambling ads and a ban on inducements, and to establish a national regulator. If the government had acted immediately after receiving the Murphy report, that phase-out of gambling ads would be done by now.</para>
<para>I cannot support this bill in its current form because it is an insult to everyone who has bravely told their story to me, to the committee inquiry and to all the other people who sit in this House and in the other place. I cannot support the bill in its current form because it is an insult to the memory of the late Peta Murphy, the chair of that inquiry, who cared so much about this issue and oversaw a unanimous report—supported by all sides of politics—for stronger reforms, before she passed away. I cannot support the bill in its current form because it lets the government off the hook and confirms our worst fears about how the government makes decisions. The bill ignores the vast majority of the recommendations in the Murphy inquiry. It has no national regulator, no phase-out of gambling ads and no end to inducements. Its complexity is a joke.</para>
<para>Every member of this House should be thinking very carefully about how they vote on this bill, no matter their party's policy on voting discipline. We have all been sent here to represent our communities, not to represent vested interests and put our political party first. This decision needs to be about what is right for the Australian people, not what is right for the money and the power. Each vote on this bill is each member's opportunity to make that choice.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Scamps</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JARRETT</name>
    <name.id>298574</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Having a punt is a normal part of a weekend for many, and for many gambling can be enjoyed responsibly. But gambling can become a highly destructive addiction without the right safeguards and support measures in place. That's why Labor is advancing one of the most important public health and consumer protection reforms of our time and one of the most significant undertaken by this government: gambling reform.</para>
<para>Many of my constituents in Brisbane have reached out to me advocating for strong action on gambling. I've met many families and individuals whose relationships, finances and futures have been ripped apart by gambling addiction. Gambling can affect self-esteem, relationships, physical and mental health, work performance and social life. Gambling is everywhere you go. If you go to your local pub on a weekend, watch your kids play sport, watch your favourite sports or teams play on the TV, you see gambling. This legislation is not simply about gambling though; it's about protecting families, protecting children, protecting vulnerable Australians and ensuring that corporate profits don't come before the wellbeing of our communities.</para>
<para>As Australians, we really do love our sport. We love our AFL, our NRL, cricket, rugby, horse racing and countless local sporting clubs. But somewhere over the past couple of decades, something has changed. Sports became saturated with gambling. Children can barely watch a football match without being exposed to betting odds before kick-off, gambling advertisements during the break and commentators discussing markets as though betting was simply another part of the game. Labor recognises that this normalisation has gone too far. The Albanese government has responded with the strongest national gambling reforms Australia has ever seen, introducing the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, along with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, to dramatically reduce the exposure of Australians, particularly children, to gambling advertising while strengthening protections for those experiencing gambling. We need this balance. We need both sides. They acknowledge that gambling is a legal activity enjoyed responsibly by many adults while recognising that governments do have an obligation to minimise harm, in exactly the same way we regulate alcohol, tobacco and financial services.</para>
<para>One of the centrepieces of Labor's reforms is restricting gambling advertising. For years Australians have complained that gambling advertisements have become impossible to avoid. We have heard that this morning in this House again. Schedule 1 introduces a comprehensive package of reforms designed to reduce the prevalence of gambling advertising and better protect children and families from exposure to wagering promotions. The measures include legislating a ban on wagering advertising during the live broadcasts of sporting events between the hours of 6 am and 8.30 pm, as well as prohibiting the broadcast of betting odds during these times.</para>
<para>It's clear there is community concern about the volume of gambling advertising on television. In 2024, viewers could be exposed to as many as eight gambling ads within a single hour of programming. To address this, the government, through these bills, will introduce a cap of three gambling ads per hour between 6 am and 8.30 pm, ensuring that Australians are no longer inundated with wagering promotion. The reforms will also protect children during the daily commute by prohibiting gambling advertising on radio during school travel times. In addition, all gambling advertisements that are permitted to be broadcast will be subject to stricter requirements with harmful or misleading advertising practices prohibited.</para>
<para>Children should grow up admiring athletes not betting companies. Parents should be able to watch football with their kids without gambling advertisements appearing every few minutes, and sports should be about teamwork, should be about competition, should be about community, not encouraging people to place another bet. The government is committed to addressing the growing connection between Australia's love of sport and the increasing promotion of gambling. Today's gambling advertising is deeply embedded throughout the sport experience. Gambling logos appear on player uniforms and are at game venues, while gambling promotions are—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JARRETT</name>
    <name.id>298574</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, they are. They're predominantly displayed at sporting venues and broadcasts. Australians are passionate about sport. That's a great thing. However, we really do not want to be constantly exposed to gambling advertising while we're watching our kids or participating in the games that we love.</para>
<para>This legislation will change that. The bill introduces rules that gambling advertising cannot be shown during live play, regardless of the time of day. It also makes Australian sports a gambling-advertising-free environment by prohibiting gambling promotions on sporting uniforms and at sporting venues. These restrictions will extend to training sessions, press conferences and amateur and grassroots sporting events. By taking these steps, we will help restore sport as a space focused on community, on competition, on team building and on self-esteem rather than gambling promotion.</para>
<para>The government is also introducing a ban on online gambling. Digital platforms have become one of the fastest-growing sources of gambling advertising. This prohibition will rightly apply across digital platforms, including social media services, news websites, streaming services, podcasts, music-streaming platforms, video-sharing platforms and search engines. There will be a limited exception, which will apply where a user is logged onto an account, is verified as being over 18 years of age and is provided with a clear option to opt out of receiving gambling advertising. It's a triple-lock approach that is designed to ensure that children are not exposed to gambling advertising online. It will also empower adults who do not wish to see gambling advertising online, whether they're streaming content, using social media, browsing the internet or conducting online searches, to opt out of receiving such advertisements. Just last week, every time I turned on my phone first thing in the morning and went to watch a news broadcast, I was hit with a gambling ad from an online platform.</para>
<para>Online platforms will be responsible for implementing and enforcing these requirements. Where platforms do not comply with these obligations, they will not be permitted to display gambling advertising to any user at any time. This recognises a simple reality: children today—and adults today!—spend enormous amounts of time online. If we are serious about protecting young Australians and older Australians, gambling reform cannot stop at the television. It has to include the digital world as well.</para>
<para>Through the reforms, Labor is also strengthening BetStop the National Self-Exclusion Register. People suffering from gambling often reach a point where they genuinely need help. The challenge is that addiction makes it difficult to stop. BetStop gives Australians a practical way to exclude themselves from licensed wagering providers. Labor's reforms strengthen this system, making it more effective and more responsive for people seeking support.</para>
<para>Many people in my community of Brisbane have highlighted the devastating impact that problem gambling, particularly through poker machines, can have on individuals, families and communities. The government is deeply concerned about the prospect of these harms extending beyond traditional venues and into people's homes and onto their mobile phones. This is why this bill also bans online keno, the so-called pocket pokies. They combine rapid-draw formats, continuous play and high spending limits, creating an environment that can facilitate significant gambling harm. In some cases, individuals have lost up to $1,000 in just three minutes. Given the risks involved in the absence of any broader community benefit, the government really is unapologetic about taking strong action to prevent these products from operating online.</para>
<para>Importantly, Labor understands that regulation alone isn't enough. The government is investing in financial counselling services specifically designed for Australians experiencing gambling related hardship—the flip side of the coin. Families dealing with gambling addiction often experience debt, relationship breakdown, housing insecurity and severe mental health challenges. Providing practical financial support alongside regulatory reform demonstrates Labor's broader philosophy that governments should not simply punish the problem but help people overcome them.</para>
<para>The government is also investing in a public awareness campaign to help with this. Education does matter. Australians deserve to understand the risks associated with online gambling, particularly young adults who've never experienced a world without betting advertisements. Public education has transformed attitudes. I remember way back in the day it was about seatbelts in cars. We've had smoking, drink driving and skin cancer. There is every reason to believe that similar awareness campaigns can reduce gambling harm over time.</para>
<para>Labor is also cracking down on illegal offshore gambling. These companies often operate outside Australian law, providing little consumer protection and avoiding paying Australian taxes. Removing illegal operators helps protect consumers while supporting the integrity of Australia's regulated wagering industry. Through this bill, the government is trying to strike a balance between consumer protection, sporting organisations, broadcasters, employers, employment and personal freedom. Labor has chosen evidence over ideology here, and the reforms, as we've heard earlier today, have been informed by years of parliamentary inquiries.</para>
<para>We should also recognise the broader Labor philosophy behind these reforms. Labor believe markets are powerful. Businesses create jobs. Competition drives innovation, but markets also require rules. When industries profit from products capable of causing addiction and harm, governments do have a responsibility to step in and ensure safeguards exist. As I said earlier, principles like this apply to pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco and increasingly gambling. It's not antibusiness. It's responsible government. Sectors like banking, the aviation industry, food safety et cetera have all operated under significant regulation because Australians expect safety and integrity.</para>
<para>While this bill is introducing significant reforms, we have all seen last week's Senate inquiry, which showed us the most toxic version of inducements. Our government condemns those alleged actions in the strongest form. I also want to thank the people of Brisbane who reached out to me about this and the need for gambling reforms to go further. The government is listening to you and will work with those opposite to strengthen protections. This will be flagged in amendments to this bill. We will continue negotiating in good faith, and I really do call on all members in this place to work with us to get this bill passed for the betterment of our nation.</para>
<para>One particularly important aspect of these reforms is breaking the link between gambling and sport. Many young Australians today struggle to imagine professional sport without betting sponsorship. That should concern all of us. Sports really should inspire participation, teamwork, healthy competition and not encourage financial risk-taking before kids are even old enough to understand probability and the harm it can cause. Reducing that constant association is an investment in future generations.</para>
<para>These reforms also send an important cultural message. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should be aggressively marketed everywhere. Australians increasingly recognise this distinction. We regulate alcohol advertising, we regulate tobacco, and we regulate prescription medicines. Reasonable limits on gambling advertising simply recognise the potential harms associated with excessive gambling. What Labor is changing is the relentless marketing that has normalised betting across almost every sporting event and media platform. It's an important distinction, and it's about informed choice, not prohibition. Ultimately, governments are judged not only by the economic statistics but by the wellbeing of the people they serve—a government that protects children, a government that supports families, a government that helps those experiencing addiction, a government willing to stand up to powerful industries where necessary. Those are Labor values, and the Albanese government's gambling reforms reflect a belief that economic success and social responsibility should go hand in hand. They recognise that freedom must be accompanied by responsibility, that prosperity should benefit communities and that vulnerable people deserve protection.</para>
<para>As implementation continues, there will undoubtedly be further discussion, improvements and refinements to this legislation. What matters is that Australia is finally moving in the right direction. After years of community concern, Labor is doing something about it. Labor is acting. These reforms present meaningful progress towards reducing gambling harm, protecting children from relentless advertising, strengthening support services and ensuring Australia's gambling industry operates with greater responsibility and accountability. We need to continue to work together to get these reforms right.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BOELE</name>
    <name.id>26417</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know the statistics, and they're frightening. Australia has less than one per cent of the world's population but 18 per cent of its poker machines. We gamble the highest amount per capita globally, and we lose more money per person to gambling than any other country on Earth. How much money? Well, together, Australians have lost over $107 billion to gambling since July 2023, which is when the Murphy review, the landmark government report into gambling harm prevention, was tabled—$107 billion. That's $35 billion lost a year. Now, $35 billion a year is more than the government spends on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, more than it spends on childcare subsidy and more than it spends educating our children in schools.</para>
<para>What are the consequences of all of these losses? As many as 20 per cent of the suicides in Australia are caused by gambling harm. About one in seven Australian adults experience gambling related harms every year—that's more than three million Australians—and 18- to 24-year-old gamblers are nearly twice as likely to experience harm. These facts and figures are high level and they could be abstract, but they speak to the thousands and thousands of individual stories. We've all heard these stories; they're everywhere. Most of us have people in our families or our social circles who are struggling with gambling.</para>
<para>Here's what I've heard from some people in my electorate, from constituents, over the past year: a father who describes being constantly and incessantly bombarded with online gambling advertisements while watching sport, whether online or on TV—he describes this as 'bordering on harassment' and feels that his children are being targeted; a constituent who calls gambling 'Australia's gun problem'; an older constituent who grew up in a family unable to buy food because of the father's addiction to betting on horses, and who sees gambling today as even more pervasive; a teenager who, because of the ban on social media for under 16s, now watches more TV and sees even more gambling advertising than ever before; a parent who describes intense and repeated exposure to gambling promotions while watching cricket with their kids, and the fear that this normalises gambling for very young children; and a constituent who describes watching young men at an AFL match paying more attention to their online gambling than to the game being played right there before their eyes. I could go on, but it's almost too painful to do so.</para>
<para>These stories do not reflect individual weaknesses; they are the result of a predatory industry taking advantage of weak regulation over a highly addictive product. They are the result of systemic issues which this bill claims to fix. The government says that these laws are an attempt to break the connection between wagering and sport, and to minimise the exposure of vulnerable people to gambling advertising. The Prime Minister himself says that kids should grow up thinking that gambling and sport are different things, that they're not the same thing—and he's right. But he's wrong when he claims that this bill will achieve that admirable goal. How do I know this? Because over 1,000 days ago, his former colleague the late Peta Murphy handed down a report called <inline font-style="italic">Y</inline><inline font-style="italic">ou win some, you lose more</inline>. That laid out, in comprehensive detail, all the things that the government should be doing to break that connection between wagering and sport. This bill falls far, far short of those recommendations.</para>
<para>What does the bill do? On advertising, it makes some changes. It bans TV ads during live sport between 6 am and 8.30 pm. Outside sport, it caps ads to three hours per day. It bans athlete, celebrity or influencer promotion of gambling, and it bans ads in stadiums and on jerseys. These are welcomed steps forward, but they're small steps. They're too small, because gambling ads continue around these limited restrictions. A partial ban does little to address them. The Murphy report clearly found that partial bans just don't work. Let me read out exactly what was said in that report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media—broadcast and online, that leaves no room for circumvention …</para></quote>
<para>Well, these new laws leave plenty of room for circumvention—three hours per day, every 20 minutes. That's still a lot of ads, and there are more gaps. Advertisers will find ways around partial TV bans and aggressively market their products on social media, for instance. That's what tobacco companies did, and gambling companies will simply repeat that playbook. Then there are, of course, streaming platforms, where most Australians now watch their sport.</para>
<para>This new bill will require platforms to have an opt-out function to allow people to self-select out of gambling ads. But that's not good enough. It's not good enough for governments to defer responsibility to families and children, to make them do the work of avoiding gambling ads and harm. We know that the opt-out model only works if people know it exists, if they know how to change their settings and if they're motivated to change them.</para>
<para>I want to tell the House about organ donations. The top deceased-donor countries in the world for organ donations per million in population are Spain, the United States, Portugal, Belgium and Croatia. What do all these countries have in common? A presumed consent to donate. For these countries, donation rates are as high as 50 per cent. By contrast, here in Australia, where people need to change their default settings from 'no, I'm not an organ donor' to 'yes, I want to be an organ donor', that rate is just 20 per cent. One example closer to home is that, when the SBS introduced an opt-out feature for gambling advertising on its streaming services, it was reported that only 0.2 per cent of active subscribers used that option over almost two years.</para>
<para>We see this across a very broad range of public policy areas. People very rarely change their default settings, and, as gambling-harm prevention expert Professor Samantha Thomas wrote in her submission to the Senate inquiry, 'young people and parents should not be expected to navigate sophisticated commercial marketing systems to continuously identify and block novel gambling promotions'. The government's own impact analysis assessed that a full advertising ban would deliver twice greater net public benefit than a partial ban and at half the administrative cost. Our kids just really shouldn't be forced to endure the flood of ads. This bill does reduce that flood or that flow a little bit, but it's still not enough. Ads teach kids that the only way to enjoy sport is to throw money at it, but gambling is not a normal part of sport.</para>
<para>Professor Thomas poses an excellent question: if gambling promotions are deemed harmful enough to be removed from stadiums and players uniforms, then why are they still acceptable across other forms of media that children consume daily? These inconsistencies, to me, don't make sense, and that's because I think they simply aren't about logic and rationality. They're about caving to corporate pressure over and above the public interest—free tickets to AFL and NRL games, to the Australian Open and to the Melbourne Cup, and direct access to politicians through the parliamentary sports club. That corporate pressure was enough to ensure that the other key recommendations of the Murphy review were left out of this bill altogether, like a ban on inducements, where gamblers are encouraged or even rewarded with free money to keep gambling. Inducements are abhorrent, and they drive compulsive gambling and target our most vulnerable.</para>
<para>Another way that this bill fails and where I feel that the policy makers from the government have caved to that pressure is that there's nothing here about a national gambling regulator, a national watchdog that is solely responsible for all licensing and regulation and is tasked with reducing gambling harm. Without a national regulator, we cannot have consistent monitoring and enforcement. It's just not possible. Any changes to the law will only be effective if they're supported by strong national oversight. As submissions to the inquiry have explained, there is already evidence of the gambling industry engaging in regulatory shopping across state and territory borders. The NT racing commission has become a de facto regulator because it offers the lowest taxes and the least stringent regulation. It's just simply unacceptable.</para>
<para>This process has been flawed from the start. We've had to wait over 1,000 days to get the government response to the Murphy review, and then that response was released on the afternoon of budget night, when the nation's political journalists were quite literally locked up in Parliament House without their laptops and phones so they couldn't properly report on it. Then the response and the legislation that followed were grossly inadequate, but that's not all. The consultation process on the new legislation was flawed. Some gambling-harm prevention stakeholders were invited with less than 24 hours notice, and then that consultation was short and crowded, without opportunities to meaningfully engage and to raise concerns. The department has been unable to provide evidence for multiple parts of the bill, which diverges from the recommendations of the Murphy report, and the likelihood is that they can't. They can't, because there is no solid evidence. The Murphy review was the solid evidence, and this bill just doesn't stack up. These decisions, in my opinion, are purely political. They're about serving corporate interests and protecting party revenue provided by the gambling industry. The government says that what it's doing is sensible and is landing somewhere in the middle between the two opposing sides and entrenched views. But when one of those sides is the gambling lobby and the other side is people who are dying because of gambling addictions, landing in the middle does not make sense whatsoever.</para>
<para>The sensible centre is arbitrary when it comes to issues like gambling, where the choice is clear between public harm mitigation and corporate profit because four in five Australians support a ban on gambling ads, and there's major support across all voting intentions. The government needs to listen to this public opinion and be brave to stand up for Australians and to keep them safe. It has an opportunity here to do that by improving these laws before they are passed. The crossbench will not waive this bill through in its current form. We will keep pushing for what Peta Murphy actually recommended in that report—a total ban on gambling advertising, regardless of whether it's delivered online or broadcast on platforms. At the very least, and I mean at the very least, the government should change the opt-out requirement for online ads to opt in. That would mean that people wouldn't see ads unless they actively choose to. I'll be moving an amendment to that effect.</para>
<para>The crossbench want the government to implement all 31 recommendations of the Murphy report in full. We want a national regulator. We want a ban on inducements, and we have proposed a raft of amendments to make that happen. But watch the government. They'll try to ignore them all or try and find some middle ground for what is clearly never going to happen when people are literally dying in Australia from harm and addiction from gambling. But with your help, we can keep the pressure on and make this bill the strongest that it can be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and the National Self-Exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 are important reforms. They are legislative changes that recognise a simple reality: gambling in Australia has changed dramatically over the past decade yet our laws have struggled to keep pace. Once upon a time, if someone wanted to place a bet, they made a conscious decision to do so. They might have gone to a TAB, picked up the phone or visited a venue. Today, gambling sits in every pocket. It's available 24 hours a day, seven days a week through a device that millions of Australians carry with them everywhere they go. That unprecedented accessibility has brought unprecedented harm. This is a new reality that we cannot ignore.</para>
<para>The Albanese government takes seriously its responsibility to protect Australians, particularly children, young people and vulnerable Australians from the harms of online gambling. This legislation is about ensuring that Australians remain in control of what they see, when they see it, and how often they are exposed to gambling advertising. Most importantly, it is about making sure that children can grow up loving sport without believing gambling is simply another part of the game.</para>
<para>I've spoken to teachers who have told me some of their students are already using gambling apps. Think about that for a moment. Teachers are now raising concerns, not simply about excessive screen time or social media but about children engaging with gambling products. That should concern every member of this House, because if young Australians are interacting with gambling before they're even old enough to place a legal bet then something has gone seriously wrong. We cannot pretend this has happened by accident. It is the result of years of gambling becoming normalised in Australian life. It's become woven into our sporting broadcasts, our entertainment and our online experiences in ways that would have seemed unimaginable only a generation ago.</para>
<para>Now, I love Australian sport. Like millions of Australians, I enjoy sitting down with family and friends to watch the footy or the cricket. Sport has always been one of the great unifiers of our country. It brings communities together; teaches teamwork, resilience and respect. It gives young Australians heroes to look up to and dreams to chase. But today it is becoming almost impossible to turn on a football match without being bombarded by sports gambling advertisements.</para>
<para>Before the opening bounce, there are betting odds. During the breaks, there are gambling commercials. At half-time, there are gambling promotions and live bet trackers. As soon as the final siren sounds, the advertisements begin again. If you're watching online, they follow you there too through streaming services, social media, news sites, podcasts and search engine results. Quite frankly, they have become unavoidable. That constant saturation has consequences. When children repeatedly see gambling promoted alongside every major sporting event, it sends a dangerous message. It tells them that betting is simply part of supporting a team. It tells them that gambling is as normal as buying a ticket, wearing a guernsey or cheering from the stands. That is not the message we should be sending to the next generation.</para>
<para>Our children deserve the chance to fall in love with sport because of the skill, the teamwork, the courage and the community it inspires, not because they know the betting odds before they know the team lists. This legislation recognises that distinction. It seeks to restore a healthier relationship between Australians and the sports they love. Importantly, these reforms are not about telling adults that they cannot make their own choices. Australians are perfectly capable of making informed decisions. This government recognises that. What we reject is the idea that every Australian, whether or not they gamble, should be subjected to an endless stream of advertising designed to encourage them to place just one more bet.</para>
<para>The purpose of this bill is to strike the right balance. It protects individual choice while recognising that governments have a responsibility to reduce harm where harm is clearly occurring, and it reflects the expectations of Australian families who simply want to watch their favourite sporting team without gambling being pushed into their living room every few minutes. This parliament has an opportunity to reset that balance, and I believe we have a responsibility to do so. This legislation achieves that balance through a comprehensive package of reforms that recognise that gambling harm cannot be addressed by a single measure alone. Instead, it tackles the issue from multiple angles, reducing unnecessary exposure to wagering advertising, strengthening consumer protections, disrupting illegal operators and closing loopholes that have allowed harmful products to flourish online.</para>
<para>At the heart of these reforms is a simple objective: we want Australians to be able to enjoy sport without gambling constantly being placed in front of them. That means changing the environment that has developed around our major sporting codes. For too long, wagering companies have been allowed to attach themselves to some of Australia's most cherished sporting moments. The result has been the gradual erosion of the line between watching the game and betting on the game. That line should never have become so blurred.</para>
<para>From 1 January 2027, gambling, advertising during live sport will be significantly restricted. Television advertising will be prohibited during live sporting broadcasts between 6 am and 8.30 pm, ensuring that children and families watching weekend football, cricket and other major sporting events are no longer subjected to a relentless stream of wagering promotions. Outside live sport, strict limits will apply to the volume of gambling advertising shown during daytime and evening viewing hours. These are sensible reforms. They recognise that Australians should not have to accept gambling advertisements as the price of enjoying free-to-air television.</para>
<para>The legislation also addresses another growing concern. Increasingly, wagering companies have relied on celebrities, current athletes and online influencers to promote betting products. This has been particularly effective in targeting younger audiences. Many young Australians spend far more time watching content creators online than they do watching traditional television. Those personalities carry enormous influence. When gambling is promoted by sporting heroes or internet personalities that young people admire, the advertising becomes more persuasive and far more difficult for younger audiences to critically assess.</para>
<para>That is why this legislation prohibits gambling promotions by celebrities, athletes and influencers. Sporting stars should be remembered for their achievements on the field, not for encouraging young Australians to download betting apps. Likewise, influencers should not be used as a back door to market gambling products to audiences that include children and teenagers. The connection between sporting success and gambling promotion has become far too close. This legislation begins to untangle that relationship.</para>
<para>It also extends beyond our television screens. Australians increasingly consume entertainment through streaming services, podcasts, social media platforms, music applications and online news. The advertising industry knows that. Gambling companies know that. They have followed Australians wherever they spend their time online. That is why these reforms include comprehensive restrictions on online wagering advertising. Whether someone is watching a video, scrolling through social media, listening to a podcast or searching for information online, the expectation should not be that gambling advertisements are waiting around every corner.</para>
<para>Online platforms will have a clear responsibility to comply with these reforms. If they choose not to implement the necessary restrictions, then the consequence is equally clear: they simply cannot display gambling advertising. The responsibility rests with the platforms because they are best placed to control what appears before Australian users.</para>
<para>Importantly, the legislation also provides users with greater control over their own online experience. Australians who maintain wagering accounts will have access to improved opt-out functionality and family-friendly account settings, giving individuals more say over whether gambling advertising appears in their digital environment. Technology should empower consumers, not manipulate them. Australians deserve greater control over what enters their homes, appears on their phones and reaches their children.</para>
<para>Another welcome reform contained within this legislation is a prohibition on gambling advertising appearing on sporting jerseys and within stadiums. For many children, their first football jersey is something they genuinely treasure. It represents the club they dream of playing for one day. Those symbols should not become walking billboards for gambling companies. Likewise, our sporting venues should celebrate athletic excellence and community spirit, not serve as permanent advertisements for wagering operators. Removing gambling branding from jerseys and stadiums sends an important message: our sporting culture should be defined by the game itself, by the players who inspire us and by the communities who support them, not by the betting markets that seek to profit from every contest. Most importantly, they are reforms that put Australian families ahead of the commercial interests of the gambling industry.</para>
<para>These reforms extend well beyond advertising restrictions. Reducing exposure to gambling advertisements is only one part of the solution. If we are serious about reducing gambling harm, we must also strengthen consumer protections, disrupt illegal operators and close the loopholes that continue to exploit vulnerable Australians. That is exactly what this legislation does. A key feature of the bill is the strengthening of BetStop, Australia's national self-exclusion register. Since its introduction in 2023, more than 61,000 Australians have registered to exclude themselves from licensed online wagering services. Behind every one of those registrations is someone making a difficult decision to seek help. That decision deserves the support of this parliament.</para>
<para>The review of BetStop found that public awareness remains far too low. Only one in four Australians know the service exists. Even among people who have gambled in the previous 12 months, awareness rises only to one in three. That tells us there is more work to do. These amendments will strengthen BetStop by providing greater protection from gambling, marketing and inducements for those who have chosen to self-exclude. The accompanying cost recovery levy bill will also support the national awareness campaign, ensuring more Australians know where to turn before gambling harm takes hold.</para>
<para>The legislation also delivers stronger action against illegal offshore gambling operators. Australians deserve the protections provided under Australian law. Illegal operators sit outside those safeguards and expose consumers to greater financial risks with little accountability. This legislation is designed to help Australians, from teenagers to the elderly. At its core, this legislation will better protect children from exposure to gambling and wagering products. Australians experiencing gambling harm will have stronger support and more effective pathways to seek help. Greater enforcement powers will help disrupt illegal operators seeking to circumvent Australian law.</para>
<para>Importantly, existing regulatory gaps will be closed to ensure emerging gambling products cannot exploit loopholes at the expense of consumers and communities. Most importantly, it ensures that from 1 January 2027 Australian families can enjoy the sports they love without gambling dominating the experience. Like so many people in this room, I have a young adult child. I've got many nephews and nieces that are in that target audience. They've got friends at school who've just left school who are struggling with addiction. They need every single support we can offer them and that's exactly what this bill does.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Landcare Week</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was recently Landcare Week and I'm proud to acknowledge the active and important presence of Landcare across my electorate for an incredible 40 years. Landcare is a remarkable community based land management and environmental movement. In 1987, a group of passionate local environmental advocates established four foundation Landcare groups in north-east Victoria, whose legacy stewardship remains active today. Since then, the movement has grown to include 63 Landcare and 'friends of' groups across my region. Each brings its own focus, passion and expertise to build diverse and resilient landscapes and communities.</para>
<para>Landcare plays a significant part in our environmental patronage. It has led the charge with volunteers to restore habitats, improve waterways and encourage sustainable land management. A standout example is the Gardens for Wildlife program, run by Wodonga Urban Landcare Network, recognising the role that residential gardens can play as habitats for native birds and threatened species.</para>
<para>I commend the North East Catchment Management Authority for hosting the recent 40 years of Landcare celebration in Beechworth on behalf of all Landcare groups across Indi. I acknowledge the dedication of everyone involved in Landcare and I look forward with great optimism to your many important future projects still to come. I thank you for your work and I absolutely appreciate the legacy of your efforts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Solomon Electorate: Darwin Nines</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Only in Darwin could you bring together Larrakia, Tiwi, Wadjigan, Ireland, New Zealand, Greece, Africa and the US Marines for an Aussie Rules competition. The sixth Darwin Nines was held on the weekend, bringing these teams together for a fast-paced version of our great Australian game. Congratulations to our champions, the Tiwi teams, who won both the division 1 men's and women's competitions. Congrats also to Wadjigan, who were winners of the division 2 men's. Massive congratulations to the best on ground players: Tiwi Bombers' gun Taniesha Forrest; former St Kilda star Raph Clarke; and AFL NT legend Stanley Tipiloura.</para>
<para>We've been championing footy nines for the Brisbane Olympics 2032 for some time, and the case is very strong. Nine players a side, played on rectangular fields, means that our game can be played just about anywhere in the world. Australian Rules was a demonstration sport in the Melbourne Games of 1956—you remember those, Bob—and, 76 years later, its time has come again. The American NFL and its international federation worked together to get flag football on the Olympic program for LA in 2028, and we should do the same with Aussie Rules.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind members to refer to each other's proper titles in future.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FARLEY</name>
    <name.id>62329</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> () (): My constituents presented me with a question to bring to the chamber: Are we, within this chamber, committed to productivity for Australia—regional employment, growing and exporting to the world? If not, why not? And why aren't we debating this? The winter rains have come, rivers are flooding, dams are filling, and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's objectives are being met. Producers and processors don't have the confidence to risk capital, to employ workers or to commit to forward markets because policy distracts from prudent risk taking. Spring planting intentions are weak, not from drought but from policy. Farmers cannot grow at current water prices. Water is being sold, not to grow crops but for speculation. Rice mills, cotton gins, vegetable processors, dairies, wineries—industries turning our regional produce into jobs are switching off quietly while members of this House sit with eyes closed to the collapse. We call upon Minister Collins and shadow minister Chester. We need to debate this travesty into our sovereignty. We need to be having this debate preceding the delivery of the 2026 Murray-Darling Basin Plan review, preceding the 2007 Water Act review and preceding the National Food Security. The last two were due in 2007. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it's safe to say that we all know the feeling of getting home after a long day at work and having absolutely no desire to step into the kitchen and cook dinner. For some these days, a meal can be only a few taps away, with Australians able to open an app, place an order and have food delivered directly to their door. Behind that convenience, however, are thousands of delivery workers who head out in rain, hail or shine to get those orders where they need to go.</para>
<para>For too long, many of these workers have been among the most vulnerable in our economy, without the basic pay protections Australians should reasonably expect at work. That is now changing thanks to the Albanese Labor government, the Fair Work Commission and the Transport Workers' Union. From 17 August, gig economy food delivery workers will benefit from a new minimum pay rate of $31.30 an hour, delivering greater security and certainty for the people working in this growing industry.</para>
<para>These world-first protections recognise a simple principle—new technology and new ways of working should never mean leaving basic workplace standards behind, because every worker deserves fairness, dignity and proper recognition for the work they perform. I really want to say a huge thank you to the hard work from the Transport Workers' Union over a number of years to be able to make this come into effect. Young riders like Nabin here in Canberra have really relied on the certainty of outcomes like this, and I couldn't be prouder to be part of a government that's delivering such.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gas Industry</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is a land of vast natural wealth, yet we have become a giant quarry for the rest of the world. Could be a good thing, but is it? Many countries provide heavy subsidies and reserve much of the resources to make industry cheaper and provide jobs. For example, in Iran and Algeria—consistently the cheapest industrial natural gas price in the world—industrial natural gas costs 40c. Where in Queensland we are paying between $14 and $17 a unit, they are paying $4. Western Australia at least is fighting back, introducing a reserve resource policy on gas. This has halved the gas price from around $6 a unit to less than half of that price.</para>
<para>We urgently need a Western Australian-type domestic gas reservation policy applied on the east coast. It must include a price ceiling. We applaud the government for introducing a reserve resource policy, but they have not attached a price to it. It's no use reserving it if we're still going to be paying world market prices. So we urge the government—we congratulate them on doing the first step, but we need them badly to do the second step. If that is not done, Mount Isa, the fourth biggest industrial centre in Australia, will be closed down. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Glasgow Commonwealth Games</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KARA COOK</name>
    <name.id>316537</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There must be something in the waters of Moreton Bay in Bonner because, once again, our corner of Australia has produced some extraordinary sporting talent. At the Glasgow Commonwealth Games four incredible athletes from my community pulled on the green and gold, and they gave us plenty to celebrate.</para>
<para>Amelia Weber made her Commonwealth Games debut in the 400 metre freestyle and finished an incredible fourth. What a way to announce yourself on the international stage after earning her place on her first Australian Open team and becoming dolphin number 886. Cara Feain-Ryan also finished fourth, this time in the gruelling 3,000 metre steeplechase. Cara's journey has strong Bonner connections. She in fact met her coach through Moreton Bay College, and she continues to show us just what's possible. Then there's the incredible Hani Watson, who once again showed exactly why she is a powerhouse. Hani won bronze in the parapowerlifting, backing up her bronze in Birmingham and becoming the first Australian parapowerlifter to win two Commonwealth Games medals. Last but certainly not least, Georgia Godwin made history. She helped Australia win gold in the women's artistic gymnastics event, our first gold since 2010, and, in doing so, became Australia's most decorated female gymnast in Commonwealth Games history. Congratulations to all four.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate is outraged over the Albanese government's decision to cut the higher private health insurance rebate for older Australians. I've received countless phone calls, letters, emails and personal appeals on the street and at my mobile offices of people citing their disgust at the government for this grave betrayal. It's a betrayal because these people have been paying for private health insurance for decades, only to be told that they now need to cough up more money or drop their coverage altogether at a time when they need it most. The government is saying around 44,000 people will drop their private health insurance, but this could be as high as 270,000, based on National Seniors Australia research. That's 270,000 more people that will pile into our overburdened public health system.</para>
<para>The outrage was so strong that I launched a petition to reverse the decision. Over 3,300 people have signed it online, and over a thousand signatures have been collected so far. This is proof that the Albanese government does not care about Australia's seniors. It does not care about our public hospital system and the workers within it. Labor is stabbing Australia's seniors in the back. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul, and Australia's seniors will not forget, and they will certainly not forgive. They will not forget how this Albanese government turned their back on them. Unless this government writes this massive wrong, they will not forgive them for it either.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Alkira Disability Services</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NG</name>
    <name.id>316052</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Alkira Disability Services is an amazing NDIS provider who has been supporting my community in Box Hill for over 70 years. I've been fortunate to visit Alkira a number of times in the past few months, and I had the great pleasure of visiting recently with the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing. I'd like to give a special shout-out to Matthew and his red panda, Fluffy, for acting as our official tour guides. Alkira is a bit like the Tardis. It doesn't look that big from the street, but it's spread across multiple floors and rooms that are all used to their maximum capacity to provide a choice of activities to participants. Matthew and Fluffy showed us the kitchen, where we had a chance to try some blueberry muffins. There was a music room, where people were singing along to Bryan Adams, and the art room with sculpting and painting. We met a group playing Dungeons and Dragons, and we were shown an op shop staffed by participants and where members of the public could get a bargain and a new outfit.</para>
<para>Afterwards, Minister Butler and I had a chat with Alkira's CEO, Julia, as well as members of the board and staff about how we can support them to have another successful 70 years. Thank you again to Alkira for having us and for providing an inclusive, respectful community for people with disabilities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I condemn the Albanese Labor government's appalling $11 billion attack on older Australians through its cuts to the loading on the private health insurance rebate. At a time when people are struggling with Labor's cost-of-living crisis, this cut to the rebate loading for Australians aged over 65 makes private health insurance less affordable for those who need it most. Any short-term budget saving will come at a far greater long-term cost to taxpayers and the health system. According to the government's own modelling, this counterproductive step will see around 44,000 older Australians abandon their private health insurance. These Australians won't miraculously be healed and disappear from the healthcare system. They will turn to the already overstretched public hospital system, increasing pressure, lengthening wait times and worsening outcomes for all patients.</para>
<para>The health minister defended Labor's cuts by saying 'there's no lazy free money lying around'. This dismissal of the need for support for older Australians is deeply insulting. Older Australians have spent a lifetime working, paying taxes and contributing to our nation. Seniors deserve respect not cuts, and they deserve a government that values their contribution not one that makes them pay for Labor's budget mismanagement.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rail Safety Week</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JORDAN-BAIRD</name>
    <name.id>316021</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Set fire to your hair. Poke a stick at a grizzly bear. Teach yourself how to fly in a two-week-old unrefrigerated pie. This Rail Safety Week we are reminded that those are dumb ways to die. Rail safety is a shared responsibility. This year, Rail Safety Week is also an opportunity to recognise the work of the rail workforce—drivers, guards, station staff, maintenance crews and safety professionals—who work every day to keep passengers, freight and communities moving safely and to shout-out the important advocacy of the RTBU and the TrackSAFE Foundation, who support our little ones to be safe around trains in partnership with the world's most beloved train, Thomas the Tank Engine, who was kind enough to stop at Parliament House station yesterday along with the ARA.</para>
<para>Millions of Australians rely on our rail network to get around our communities. Every day, rail also carries freight, delivering goods around our country to keep our economy moving. When it comes to rail, this Labor government has got its priorities on track. We've opened the Metro Tunnel. We're on our way to electrify the Melton train line, and the Melbourne Airport Rail link is full steam ahead. So this Rail Safety Week here's your reminder not to 'set fire to your hair', not to 'poke a stick at a grizzly bear' and not to stand on the edge of a train station platform but to be safe around trains.</para>
<para>Happy Rail Safety Week. Choo choo!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite have presided over the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world, and I've got to tell you that every galah in the pet shop right now know that we need a change. We need a change brought about by a strong plan, a plan to restore Australia's standards of living and protect our way of life. That plan needs to prioritise a number of things, and I'll start with the first and most important one: we need lower taxes. We can't continue on this road that is an assault on aspirations for ordinary, everyday Australians. The next thing we need to prioritise is cheaper power, and I give a shout-out to our current Ambassador to the Holy See, the former member for Hinkler. He knew, in his time in this place, how important cheap and affordable reliable electricity was. We need a migration plan that deals with a situation where we have the numbers that are far too high and standards that are far too low. We have a plan to deal with that. And, finally, we need a plan that prioritises putting Australians first. One of the most important things we can do is establish a future fund that will start to pay down the trillion dollars of debt that those opposite have put on Australian citizens' credit cards. Like I said, we need a strong plan to restore Australia's standards of living and protect our way of life.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr TRISH COOK</name>
    <name.id>312871</name.id>
    <electorate>Bullwinkel</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>More than 50,000 home batteries have been installed in WA under the Albanese government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program. I'm particularly pleased to inform the House that my postcode, 6112, in my electorate of Bullwinkel, is leading WA in the uptake of the program. This is a real testament to outer suburban communities embracing rooftop solar and home batteries to harness renewable energy and lower their power bills.</para>
<para>To mark the 50,000-battery milestone, I joined the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Josh Wilson, visiting a local family in Bedfordale who benefited from the program. Homeowners Dave and Ellen Gibbs are proud foster parents who can be caring for up to 10 young people at any one time. For a family of 12, this can understandably put pressure on household energy costs. They told us their bills could be as high as $1,400, which is why they installed a home battery system, and they've seen a reduction in their power bills to more than half, at just over $600. The savings began before they even switched on the battery, with the total cost of installing their system reduced by 50 per cent thanks to the Albanese Labor government and the WA Cook Labor government.</para>
<para>I'm proud that our government is making it easier for families, like Dave and Ellen's, to make the most of free, clean energy generated from their rooftops.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government: Taxation</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VENNING</name>
    <name.id>315434</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's $11 billion private health tax grab is nothing short of a disgrace. It lands hardest on people who can least afford it. In my electorate of Grey, more than 23,000 residents face increases of up to $807 per year just to keep the cover that they have. Labor's own department admitted in writing what happens next. Pensioners will cut, downgrade or drop their cover. Many will cut back on essentials. Some will go without treatment, and everyone will be worse off. That is life under this Labor government. The health minister claims that 44,000 pensioners will be affected, yet new data says almost 40 per cent of seniors in outer suburban and regional Australia are ready to walk away from their cover. When will the minister tell the House which hat he pulled that number from?</para>
<para>Nearly 90,000 people in Grey hold private health insurance. It pays for over 26,000 hospital admissions a year, of which almost one in five are cancer related. Take that away, and it is our regional hospitals, doctors and nurses who will be left to pick up the pieces. This government cannot find the money to keep a pensioner in their health insurance, but it can find billions for their corrupt mates in Victoria.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health: Young Australians</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COFFEY</name>
    <name.id>312323</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The mental health of young people is an issue very close to my heart. Prior to entering parliament, I served as the CEO of a national youth mental health charity, and I saw every day how early intervention and prevention, alongside expert care, can change a young person's life. But I also saw gaps in our care system for young people with more complex needs. That's why I'm so proud to serve in an Albanese Labor government that is investing more than $149 million to upgrade 30 headspace centres to the headspace Plus Model of Care to respond directly to that need.</para>
<para>I was delighted to be joined again by the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, Minister McBride, at Griffith's headspace in Woolloongabba, which will be among the first in the country to transition to the new headspace Plus model. Funding for our Woolloongabba headspace will roughly triple, meaning more psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, peer workers and counsellors providing coordinated care close to home. I've spoken with many young people in our community who have told me that headspace Woolloongabba has been a lifeline when they needed it most. This upgrade will strengthen our local mental health service and will provide more comprehensive, coordinated and wraparound support closer to home for young people with more complex needs, keeping them connected with local community.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is proud to invest in the mental health of our young people and proud to give them the support to build a healthy future. That is what Labor governments deliver—free, accessible mental health care and support in our own communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government has made a decision that speaks volumes about its priorities, and older Australians are the ones paying for it. For Michael, in his 80s, it means $7 more every week for the health cover he and his wife rely on. As he told me, 'That's not much to Albo and his mates, but a nice whack to the income of pensioners.' Michael is not alone, and he is not exaggerating.</para>
<para>From 1 April next year, Labor will strip away the higher private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over. Those are 3.2 million seniors who will now pay more, around $250 extra every year. Australia is ageing rapidly. In just four decades, the number of Australians over 65 will double, and the number of those over 85 will more than triple. At the very moment we should be strengthening support for older Australians, Labor is weakening it.</para>
<para>This change will bank $3 billion for the government over four years, but it won't save the taxpayer, because, when seniors drop private cover, they don't stop needing care. They go to Medicare. They turn to our public hospitals. The pressure is on the public system already, and it is Australian taxpayers that will be paying for it. Let's call this what it is—a tax on ageing, a quiet penalty for living longer. Older Australians deserve respect, security and certainty, not a budget fix at their expense. Leadership means protecting those who built this country, not raiding their pockets when it is convenient.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Liberal Party of Australia</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Former prime minister John Howard issued a clarion call to today's Liberal Party. Don't countenance a coalition with One Nation. Find your principles and oppose their divisive politics.</para>
<para>Pauline Hanson has loomed large over much of my political life. I remember hearing, as a teenager, her first speech. It was the first time I questioned my place in this country. As the daughter of migrants, I knew it was my family and my community that she was targeting. She has spent almost three decades stoking fear and division in Australia, providing glib solutions to challenging issues and blaming and demonising migrants. During all those years, there have always been members of the coalition who were willing to take a stance against her divisive politics. John Howard disendorsed her. National Party senator Ron Boswell ran against her and won. Malcolm Turnbull rejected her anti-immigration policies.</para>
<para>This time, it's time the Liberal Party found its principles again. It's time they stopped flirting with One Nation. It's time the Leader of the Opposition stood up against some of his colleagues and ruled out a coalition with One Nation. Because that's the position of the Labor Party—we will never demonise migrants for the sake of populist policies.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to read to the House something that is very stark and very sobering. It comes from realestate.com.au, dated 8 August, and it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has hit its highest risk of mortgage defaults in 25 years and a looming interest rate hike threatens to leave many families teetering on the edge of crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">New analysis revealed the sharpest quarterly uptick since records started in 2001 with an 18 per cent increase in average national risk of missed mortgage payments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Outer suburbs around major cities regularly rank as the most vulnerable and NSW saw a 25 per cent jump in mortgage default risk in the same three months.</para></quote>
<para>Amongst the mortgage-default areas hardest hit is Turvey Park, a suburb in Wagga Wagga. This being the case, why are Labor members—including the member for Bennelong—out celebrating a crash in the property market? Why is this so?</para>
<para>A little bit south-west of Wagga Wagga, we've got SunRice confirming 92 positions, across its Deniliquin, Leeton and Australian grain storage operations, being made redundant. They've found work for 14 of those 92 workers, but that is 78 families that will now be without an income, without a job, without a future, and it's all on Labor's watch.</para>
<para>The housing market is crashing. Those people are out of work because of the water policies. Shame, Labor, shame!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>One Nation</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the member for Bennelong, I listen when my predecessors speak. John Alexander told us how to fund high-speed rail. Maxine McKew was part of the education revolution, modernising school halls across the country. John Cramer was a quintessential local politician.</para>
<para>And then there's John Howard. I have a lot of respect for Mr Howard, even if I disagree with him on many issues. But today, John Howard and I are on a unity ticket. It has taken John Howard to intervene in that rabble over there, by calling on the Liberals to cut their ties with One Nation. So devoid of a spine are the modern Liberals that it has taken someone who has been out of politics for 19 years to show them how to find one.</para>
<para>Howard knew in 1996 that Pauline Hanson was bad news, and he was right. In 1998 he put One Nation last on the ballot paper, and he was right. And in 2026, John Howard knows that the Liberals should have nothing to do with One Nation, and he is right.</para>
<para>Despite his wise counsel, all bar one of them over there are happy to cosy up to that chaos, to wreck our economy, to attack migrants and to be partners in the division that One Nation brings. This is from the former member of Bennelong and the current one: stop waltzing with ruin over there, and put One Nation last.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation: Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the one hand, Labor hands out welfare and home deposits to non-citizens. On the other hand, Labor is cutting the private health insurance rebate to older Australians. What a disgrace!</para>
<para>The rebate is an important discount that reduces costs for older Australians. These are older Australians who will have to pay higher premiums because they want to be able to get access to a knee replacement or cataract surgery, or to see a heart specialist, in a timely way. But Labor doesn't give a damn about older Australians—Australians who have worked hard, paid their taxes all their lives, raised families and helped to build this great country.</para>
<para>Well, with Labor's policies, millions of Australians will pay more for private health insurance—millions. According to new research, some 40 per cent of Australians over the age of 65 will drop their private health cover altogether. And where will they go? Into the public system. That will mean more queues and more ambulance ramping, and, of course, more state taxes and more state debt as a result of this, and more pressure on stressed public hospitals.</para>
<para>The modern Labor Party is misguided and mean-spirited.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: Eather Family</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This year, the Eather family is celebrating something pretty special: 200 years of farming in the Hunter Valley. That's two centuries of hard work, family resilience and having a crack. That story goes back all the way to 1790, when Thomas Samuel Heather arrived in Australia aboard the <inline font-style="italic">Neptune</inline> with the Second Fleet. He married Elizabeth Lee. They built a life in Windsor, and, from that story, that family grew. They found rich country at Bulga. They made it home, and generations of Eather have been part of the Hunter story ever since.</para>
<para>Over the years the family turned their hand to cattle, citrus, sheep, table grapes and eventually wine grapes. Then, in 1991, Rhys Eather suggested the family start making wine under the Meerea Park label. Thirty-five years later, that name is still proudly connected to the Hunter Valley. We thank you for all the work that you did in the Hunter. To the Eather family, thank you for the 200 years, and I look forward to the next 200 years. Cheers!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Acknowledgement</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the house that present in the Special Visitors Gallery today is His Excellency the Hon. Keith Pitt, Ambassador to the Holy See. Welcome back, Mr Pitt.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia and Japan</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Millions of Australians have now seen with their own eyes the Prime Minister's appalling behaviour on the Bush Deep podcast. Now, he embarrasses all of us by refusing to apologise to the Prime Minister of Japan. Why won't the Prime Minister stop treating us like fools? Man up, and say sorry to the Prime Minister of Japan.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The leader asked his question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My office and my team have spent four years carefully rebuilding our relationships in the region. We take our relationship seriously, including our regular engagement with Japan, and that is why we will always put the national interest first, and we continue to do so. The Prime Minister of Japan is a good friend of Australia. Prime Minister Takaichi is the third Japanese prime minister I have had dealings with. All of them have been constructive. She was a welcome guest here, as was one of her predecessors, Prime Minister Kishida. I have had the privilege of visiting Japan on three occasions, and our relationship has never been more strategically aligned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KARA COOK</name>
    <name.id>316537</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change to strengthen Australia's economy, including by backing workers' wages and aspiration? What are the threats to this approach?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bonner for her question. Labor is growing an economy that works for people, not the other way around, and that strategy has Australia performing strongly right across the board. Australia is indeed growing faster than all the G7 countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United States of America. Unemployment is lower than Canada, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. We have a higher participation rate than all G7 countries, and stronger employment growth than six of the G7 nations, and, just last week, Australia's stable economic outlook and AAA credit rating was once again confirmed.</para>
<para>That is not to say, though, that there aren't cost-of-living pressures in the economy, which is why we understand that we need to deliver on cost-of-living measures. We understand, as well, that Australia's success comes directly from working people, from their hard work and from their aspiration to build a better life. That's why we're about delivering real change, and that begins with a fair go at work, with penalty rates being protected, with wage theft now a crime. If you work the same job, now you get the same pay.</para>
<para>Today I met with the national executive of the SDA, looking after people who work in retail, and they told me about examples of increases in salary of up to and above 30 per cent as a direct result of same job, same pay, where people who are working together, with the same experience, with the same supervisor, working the same hours, were getting paid differential rates—unfairness in the workplace, due to a manipulation of the system. We've stopped it, and it's making a real difference to working people.</para>
<para>Just yesterday, we delivered new minimum standards and new minimum pay for gig economy workers. Today, we have introduced our legislation locking in wage justice for early childhood educators, to deliver a growing, skilled workforce. That is how Labor governs: building our resilience, backing aspiration and delivering real change, here and now, while always keeping an eye on the horizon, to set Australia up for a stronger future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia and Japan</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question goes to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that neither his office nor his department leaked official and private correspondence from the government of Japan? And what steps has he taken to satisfy himself that this is the case?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. We take our relationship seriously, including our obligations for engagement, including with Japan. I note that, in a political stunt from the opposition, they have referred matters to the AFP. The AFP is, of course, completely independent of the government, and they'll undertake their work and I'm confident about that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education and Care</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOLZBERGER</name>
    <name.id>88411</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support early educators while keeping costs down for parents? What has been the response?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my friend the formidable member for Forde for his question. Childcare workers do one of the most important jobs in this country, and, when we were elected, four years ago, many of them were leaving the job. They were leaving in droves. That's not because they didn't love what they were doing; it was because they could earn more in a lot of other jobs than they could educating our kids. The attrition rate in some places was as high as 40 per cent. That's 40 per cent of the workforce out the door in any year. That's a crisis.</para>
<para>But that's now changed, and it's changed for a reason. It's changed because of the 15 per cent pay rise that we have delivered. As proof of that, there are now 20,000 more childcare workers right across the country. Job applications in some places have jumped by 30 per cent. Job vacancies are down by 31 per cent. In other words, it's worked. It turns out that, if you pay people more, more people want to do the job.</para>
<para>The legislation that I introduced this morning locks all of this in. It's good for workers because they get paid more, but it's also good for parents, because part of the legislation here is that childcare centres only get the funding if they also cap their fee increases. That'll save the average family about $1,500 over the next two years.</para>
<para>As part of the legislation this morning, I've also added another condition and that's this: childcare centres only get this funding if they meet the minimum safety standard. Ninety-five per cent of centres do this already; I want to get that to 100 per cent. It's the sort of thing that I think every parent across the country would expect. It's certainly what all of our children deserve.</para>
<para>So this is the trifecta. It's good for workers, it's good for parents and it's good for kids. It's why everyone across the country is backing it—everyone except the Liberal Party and One Nation. But that shouldn't be a surprise, because, whether it's cutting student debt, whether it's expanding paid prac, whether it's fixing the funding of our schools or whether it's paying childcare workers what they deserve—this only happens because of this Labor government and because of this Labor prime minister.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Avian Influenza</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BOELE</name>
    <name.id>26417</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We know that Australia's species extinction crisis is due to habitat destruction, invasive species and runaway climate change. Now, one in five Australian bird and mammal species is at high risk from H5 bird flu, including seabirds, black swans and seals. Conservation scientists are calling for $200 million over two years to build the resilience of these critical species. Will the government commit that funding to give our wildlife populations the best chance of recovery?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Bradfield for that question. I know that she, like so many people in this place, is concerned about the impact of the H5 bird flu, and I know many members of the government have actually raised threatened species with me many times in relation to what the government is doing. As I have said in this place many times, we have invested early with a $113 million investment in preparedness for the bird flu. Of that $113 million, $47 million has specifically gone to improving habitat and improving biosecurity for captive-held threatened species, native species, with a focus, obviously, on birds and the mammals that will be impacted by the H5 bird flu. The minister for the environment and the environment department also have another program, which is $99 million for Saving Native Species, which is also about improving the habitat of threatened species. Since the incursion of the H5 bird flu, we've also unlocked almost $25 million—it's $24.8 million now—with the states and territories in terms of the response on the ground in relation to the H5 bird flu, and that includes the preparedness that is happening on the ground by the states and territories.</para>
<para>I announced in this place yesterday that part of that is the vaccination program. I'm pleased to be able to say to the honourable member that the Victorian government has actually announced today that their state will begin vaccinating penguins, little penguins, and that vaccines from the Commonwealth have now arrived at Phillip Island, with little penguins at both Phillip Island and St Kilda to be vaccinated, starting as early as next week. As part of the vaccination trials, we have looked particularly at wild birds and vaccinations, knowing that vaccination is just a complementary part of that process and that biosecurity is our first line of defence.</para>
<para>As part of the original $47 million investment, that biosecurity improvement has been really important, particularly for those threatened species that are held in captivity. Lots of wildlife parks, including in my own electorate—I've seen at Raptor Refuge that they have protected wedge-tailed eagles and masked owls, for instance, and made sure that they've improved their biosecurity and the separation from native wild birds to protect them, particularly in relation to their food and water supplies as well.</para>
<para>So there has been a lot of preparedness done to make sure that, as a government, we're doing everything we can do to protect our threatened species. Certainly we know that biosecurity is the front line, but the vaccination and the vaccination program will also be complementary, and I look forward to hearing from other states and territories as they work on those vaccination programs. But it is terrific news that we're going to start vaccinating little penguins in Victoria.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged-Care Workforce</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. How are pay rises delivering real change for aged-care workers and the older Australians they care for? Why is this change needed, after a decade of neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. She's always been a champion for working people and for the people that they care for as well.</para>
<para>On 1 August, aged-care nurses got their fifth pay rise under this government. It means a registered nurse on the most common classification is now more than $36,000 a year better off than in 2022. An enrolled nurse on the most common classification is almost $32,000 a year better off. That's the type of money that helps people buy a home, take their kids on holiday or just set up their family for a better future.</para>
<para>All up, this Labor government has invested almost $18 billion into aged-care wages in the past four years—the biggest investment in the history of our country. The Fair Work Commission determined that aged-care work had been undervalued for decades. Let's be honest—a bloody big part of that was because it's mostly done by women. Better pay isn't just giving nurses what they're owed; it actually means better care for the older people who built our communities. We need those nurses, so we need to pay them properly.</para>
<para>It seems fairly self-explanatory. It's a bit of a no-brainer. Yet, in a cosy speech to the Sydney Institute last month, the Leader of the Opposition didn't quite agree. He said that the care economy has exploded. He said that this workforce is disproportionately unionised. He said that it's been awarded hefty pay increases, and he said that Labor then backed those increases with billions in additional taxpayer funds.</para>
<para>I've read that passage a bunch of times now, and, for once, the Leader of the Opposition might actually be onto something—because you know what? That's all right. That's all correct. It's all true. When he says the care economy has exploded, he means we hired the nurses that Australians need. When he says they were awarded hefty pay increases, he means we gave them the pay rise they deserve. The Leader of the Opposition calling nurses disproportionately unionised, I can assure him, will be a badge of honour for the mighty ANMF. When he says Labor backed it with billions in taxpayer dollars—yes, we did. That's not an attack; that is our record.</para>
<para>He put 'care economy' in inverted commas in his transcript—inverted commas around the word care—like it's a rumour going around the place. Then he told us that the country is in a death loop. He had aged-care nurses in the frame when he said it. When an aged-care nurse's pay goes up— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Acknowledgement</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Mr Ben Goldsborough MP, the member for South Norfolk in the UK parliament. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of congressional staff from the United States Congress, including the speaker's office, who I had the pleasure of meeting earlier today. Also, we have Mr Conor Pall, a social worker, author and survivor-advocate who is working to transform the family violence system to prioritise the unique needs of children and young people. At just 22, Conor's advocacy is helping shape national conversations on family violence to ensure young victims-survivors receive the support they need. Welcome, Conor.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister accused millions of Australians who have used capital gains tax and negative gearing to get ahead of taking 'taxpayer funded landlord welfare'. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing have all personally used capital gains tax and negative gearing on their investment properties. Why is the Prime Minister attacking millions of aspirational Australians for trying to get ahead just like he did?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member is either deliberately or accidentally misleading the House with that question, because yesterday, as he will know from <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, I was quoting Scott Pape, the Barefoot Investor, in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline>. If the member wants to attack the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> for its coverage of housing issues, then that is a matter for him. I was quoting Scott Pape, <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline>, News Corp. If you have a problem, I suggest you take it up with Mr Pape.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help with the cost of living, ease pressure on Australians and improve the budget? How does that compare to other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Canberra for the wonderful job she does representing her community and also the influential role she plays in our economic policy as well. The member for Canberra would know that inflation has come down now for three months in a row. It finished the financial year much lower than the RBA and Treasury forecasts. This is one reason why the RBA was able to hold rates steady yesterday for the second time since the budget. They also put out new forecasts for lower underlying inflation and slightly stronger growth.</para>
<para>These are welcome developments, but we know that there are still substantial challenges in our economy. We know inflation is still too high and that productivity is too low, and we know that people are under pressure. That's why we are helping with the cost of living by cutting income taxes again and again and boosting wages. It's why we're expanding paid parental leave, strengthening Medicare, making medicines cheaper and delivering real change to make the housing market fairer for first home buyers and young people.</para>
<para>We're doing this all at the same time, as the Prime Minister said, as we are managing the budget more responsibly than those opposite did—two surpluses, two updates in a row with more savings than spending, $200 billion less debt than the trajectory we inherited from those opposite, and one of the three strongest budgets in the G20. This is why the global ratings agency, S&P Global, reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating just last week, pointing to our sound public finances and modest debt by international standards. It now means we are one of only nine countries with a stable AAA from all three major ratings agencies, a feat never achieved in any year of the Howard and Costello government. We are managing the budget responsibly in the face of inflationary pressures and global uncertainties.</para>
<para>Those opposite have announced commitments totalling $110 billion in bigger deficits over the next four years and $530 billion more debt within the next 10 years. By their own logic, their announced policies would push up inflation and push up interest rates. When the member for Goldstein was asked about this by Andrew Clennell on Sunday, he said that he would offset it, and that's before Senator Bragg said today that the benchmark is another almost half a trillion dollars in budget cuts. They can only offset numbers that big by coming after Medicare again, like last time, or pensions and payments again or jobs and wages.</para>
<para>This is another reason why the divisive and dangerous antiworker agenda shared by the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation would make cost-of-living pressures worse not better. This side of the House is delivering real change. We're delivering cost-of-living relief. We're delivering tax cuts that those opposite opposed and voted against.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, the member for Gippsland has been pushing the behaviour, which is unacceptable. He's warned, just like yesterday and like the member for Goldstein. Any more interjections—the member for Goldstein was yelling during that answer as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Abdo</name>
    <name.id>316915</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yeah, you were.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Calwell is warned. Everyone giving their commentary—I just remind you that we won't have the MPI today if we have a round 2 of yesterday, member for Goldstein.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, the member for Sturt reportedly told a constituent she's working on big changes to the Prime Minister's toxic taxes on young people and shares. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am also very conscious of young people using the share market to try to build up a house deposit and how this might work for them too.</para></quote>
<para>Does the Prime Minister accept that his toxic taxes will make it harder for young Australians to save for their deposit?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Whether it's the Prime Minister, the Treasurer or members of the cabinet—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not again!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moncrieff is going to resume her seat. You don't give commentary once you've asked a question. It's highly disorderly. The Treasurer now has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister and every single member of his cabinet takes the views of our caucus colleagues very seriously. We take seriously the views that are put to us in our regular engagements in the communities that we represent around the country as we go about implementing these very important and very ambitious reforms. It's not unusual for good local members to relay to ministers issues which are raised by their constituents. That's how it's supposed to work.</para>
<para>The member for Sturt is not just a good local member; the member for Sturt is an outstanding local member. The good people of Sturt, in that wonderful part of Adelaide, are learning, for the first time in some time, what it's like to have a good, engaged, effective local member.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause. There is far too much noise. I'm not happy with the level of noise. That clapping and yelling will stop.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for McEwen then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When I'm bringing the House to order and reminding everyone about the standards and dignity of this House, trust me, that's not the time to interject. I'm asking everyone to be a little better today. The Treasurer has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the reasons why the member for Sturt is such a good local member is the member for Sturt, in conjunction with everyone on this side of the House, is delivering tax cuts for every one of the working people in Sturt.</para>
<para>I know that in Sturt there are 93,000 taxpayers who are getting a tax cut from this local member and this Prime Minister, and his government, because of her work. And every single one of those 93,000 taxpayers in Sturt would not be getting a tax cut if those opposite had their way. And the same goes for the 80,000 workers in Sturt who will be getting the working Australians tax offset, which is at the core of our tax reform agenda in the budget.</para>
<para>Now, the member for Sturt, and every single member of this government, has seen a distortion in the housing market that needs to be addressed because, for too long now, the way that our housing market has interacted with our tax system has locked out too many people, particularly young people, from the great Australian dream of owning their own home. So, whether it's the member for Sturt or every single member on this side of the House we've decided not to neglect that or deny that or delay that and consign another generation of Australians to a broken status quo. We have chosen collectively to do something about it and we're proud of that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Violi</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to table the member for Sturt's email to her constituent. If you're a good local member, you'd want it on the record surely?</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Information and Privacy</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRISKEY</name>
    <name.id>263427</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Attorney-General. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to address the privacy implications of smart glasses?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Maribyrnong for her question and acknowledge her ongoing commitment to this government's reform of privacy. As smart glasses capable of capturing images and recording video become more affordable and accessible, community concerns are also growing about privacy, surveillance and the potential for misuse. Recent media reports suggest a discounted AI enabled version has sold out across Australia. Last week, I asked the Privacy Commissioner to prioritise consideration of the privacy implications associated with this technology. The potential for these devices to be used to covertly record, track, stalk and harass requires prompt and careful consideration. Their discreet design can make it difficult for people to know when they are being filmed, increasing the risk of unwanted surveillance and undermining Australians' ability to control how their personal information and images are collected.</para>
<para>The increasing availability of this technology could have significant implications, particularly for women and children, who may be disproportionately exposed to inappropriate recording, harassment, intimidation or other harmful conduct. Research from the University of Sydney found many women are being filmed in gyms, workplaces, shops and university campuses, despite expressing discomfort or refusing consent. Analysis of hundreds of Instagram videos captured using these devices found a staggering 60 per cent of point-of-view content contained behaviour classified as potential harassment. Let me be clear—this government stands against the use of smart glasses for nefarious purposes.</para>
<para>While state and territory laws already restrict the use of recording devices in some circumstances, the commissioner's expertise is critical in identifying emerging privacy risks and appropriate safeguards. The commissioner has noted that, where technology companies receive and store personal information collected through wearable devices, they must comply with privacy laws, but there are real questions as to whether they will be able to do so. Robust privacy laws are essential to Australians' trust and confidence in the digital economy and the services provided by governments and industry. In our first term, we created a new statutory tort against serious invasions of privacy. We outlawed doxxing, and we significantly increased penalties for breaches. The government will continue to progress work on a second tranche of legislative reforms to ensure our privacy laws are fit for the digital age. Australians rightly expect their privacy to be respected, and that is exactly what this government is focused on delivering.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Acknowledgement</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to advise the House that on the floor of parliament today is a historic delegation from the national parliament of Timor-Leste, led by the first female president of the national assembly—the first time a president of the assembly has ever sat on the floor of our parliament—Her Excellency Ms Maria Fernanda Lay and an all-female parliamentary delegation. Welcome to question time. Welcome to Australia.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. By bringing 1.5 million migrants into Australia over the past four years, Labor's record of migration has killed the Australian dream of homeownership. How many more migrants does the Prime Minister intend to bring into Australia before his government builds enough homes to house them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lyne for her question. I do want to state that it is just a fact that under this government we have cut net migration by around 45 per cent from its peak. The number of people arriving now is lower than it was under the coalition. Indeed, the former immigration department deputy secretary under the coalition has said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Coalition stomped on the accelerator. They did all sorts of things we've never done before, in order to increase the numbers …</para></quote>
<para>Indeed, the Grattan Institute as well—Brendan Coates—has said that the coalition is wrong to suggest record migration is the result of policy decisions by the Albanese government. The single biggest policy change contributing to record migrant numbers is the pandemic-era decision by the former coalition government to first relax and then completely uncap working hours for international students from January 2022.</para>
<para>Thirdly, I have some more facts. Population growth is expected, in the population statement that was released in January, to slow to 1.3 per cent in 2025-26 and 1.2 per cent in 2026-27, which is lower than the average of 1.4 per cent that was experienced during the decade of the 2010s. By 2030-31, Australia's population is expected to be 754,000 smaller than what the former coalition government was forecasting prior to the pandemic.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Swan is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australians when it comes to energy? What policies would put a stop to this change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, 504,470—that's how many Australians have put in a cheaper home battery in the last 12 months. Australia is now the home battery capital of the world. To put this in perspective, Australians have put in 14.1 gigawatt hours worth of home battery capacity in just over 12 months. The United States has a total of nine gigawatt hours of home battery capacity. Australians have put in more home batteries in the last 12 months than the United States has put in in history. That is the Albanese government and Australians working together to reduce their bills and emissions—reducing bills for themselves and reducing bills for everyone else. Batteries have played a huge role in seeing the 47 per cent reduction in wholesale prices in Australia over the last 12 months.</para>
<para>As the House knows, this is a transformation that is being led in our outer suburbs and regions. When the House last sat, I was able to tell the House that there are five federal electorates where more than 10 per cent of the households have put in a cheaper home battery. I congratulated the Leader of the Opposition for the people of Hume having 10 per cent of that electorate having put in cheaper home batteries. I can update the House: after the break, it's now 12 per cent, so a big congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
<para>That's a great result—not as good as the member for Wright, who now has 14 per cent of the households in Wright having a cheaper home battery; the member for Greenway at 13 per cent; the member for Mitchell at 13 per cent; or the member for Mayo at 30 per cent. But there's other news. I can tell the House that there is now one more federal electorate that has tipped over and now has more than 10 per cent of the households in that electorate having an installed cheaper home battery, and that is the one of the honourable member who asked me the question. The people of Macquarie in Western Sydney are leading the way as the honourable member herself has led the way when it comes to climate action.</para>
<para>I'm asked what could get in the way of change, and the Liberals and Nationals have made it clear that they would abolish this policy. I understand. I get it. The concept of a popular energy policy is one that they have a lot of difficulty dealing with, given that they went to the last election with a $600 billion nuclear plant, which played no small part in costing them that election, and we're back here again. The member for Wannon said just a little while ago: 'We'll have more to say with our nuclear plan in coming months. There's a lot of work being done. It's nearly finalised. We'll be able to put it out very soon.'</para>
<para>Remember the former leader of the opposition saying it would be out in weeks and it was eight months later and there was no costing? The next time, there'll be no costing and there'll be no locations either, because they won't even tell the Australian people where the nuclear reactors will go. We look forward to that debate. We look forward to the difference of Australians getting on with reducing their bills. The Liberals would put them up with their nuclear fantasy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. In Fowler, 46 per cent of renting households are in rental stress and median personal income is $520 a week. Sydney house rents rose $50 a week last quarter. I'm hearing from landlords that they're lifting rents ahead of the government's looming tax changes to meet costs. Within weeks of the COVID crisis in March 2020, National Cabinet acted to protect renters. Prime Minister, will you convene National Cabinet to put renters on the agenda before these changes begin?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fowler for her question. I note that in the tax changes—which were in the budget—for existing people who have negatively geared properties, those changes absolutely continue. They can still negatively gear those properties, because they're grandfathered in, in spite of what some of the contradictions and some of the commentary have been.</para>
<para>I note also that in an area that is growing, such as the member for Fowler's, there will still be a negatively geared properties available for new builds, which, in an area where you have expansion of new housing, is a good thing because that not only benefits the people who want to take up the opportunity of negatively gearing a property—and good on them if they choose to do that—but also, importantly, they're building supply, which will make a difference as well because everything that we have done has been focused on supply.</para>
<para>I'm asked about cost of living in Fowler as well, and I do note that around 65,000 taxpayers in the member's electorate will benefit from the tax cuts that came in on 1 July as a result of our re-election in May last year—tax cuts that wouldn't have taken place had the Leader of the Opposition been elected as a minister and if a Dutton government was sitting on this side of the House. I note also there'll be another tax cut on 1 July next year. I note as well, in terms of LISTO, that around 8,500 could benefit. In terms of student debt relief, some 24,000 people in Fowler have benefited. The Liverpool Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has seen 21,900 presentations. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pacific Islands</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CAMPBELL</name>
    <name.id>312823</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government working to help make our region safer, more prosperous and more resilient? How will the network of agreements with Pacific nations deliver for Australia and the region?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question and for her deep interest in this area. We're in a permanent contest in the Pacific and the Albanese government is strengthening relationships with our neighbours to deliver in the national interest. We turn up, we listen and act on Pacific priorities. We do this because the Pacific is our home, and our security and prosperity depend upon the security and prosperity of the region.</para>
<para>Yesterday we tabled two landmark treaties with Fiji, the Ocean of Peace Alliance and the Vuvale Union. The Ocean of Peace is Fiji's first alliance and only our fourth. Through 125 years of Federation, Australia has had two allies. In the last year under this Prime Minister we've doubled that number. Entering an alliance is the greatest act of trust possible between two countries, promising to come to each other's aid at a time of existential danger. But assuming this responsibility with Fiji was a natural step. We have a proud history of serving together and will now cooperate even more closely and develop even deeper levels of interoperability. The alliance also creates an obligation to consult on security threats to the sovereignty, peace and stability of either party.</para>
<para>The Vuvale treaty sets out ambitious commitments across the breadth of our bilateral relationship. The Vuvale Union will be a multigenerational endeavour to integrate our economies, our security and our peoples. This is only natural given Australia proudly has the largest Fijian diaspora in the world, including the first cabinet minister of Fijian heritage in the Attorney-General. This treaty commits us to combat transnational crime, to work together on health issues like HIV, to address the impacts of climate change and to build infrastructure like ports to connect our region and grow the Fijian economy. These treaties build on a network of agreements which seek to protect our interests and keep Australians safe. The Pukpuk alliance is with our closest neighbour PNG. The signing of the Nakamal Agreement with Vanuatu confirms Australia as the policing partner of choice and precludes the establishment of any foreign military base in Vanuatu. Our treaties with Naoero and Tuvalu respond to their priorities.</para>
<para>We're also pursuing comprehensive treaty negotiations with the Solomon Islands, to reset the relationship with them, as well as with Tonga. From Prime Minister Albanese walking the Kokoda Track with Prime Minister Marape to the DPM's energetic engagement to Foreign Minister Wong's visits to the PIF countries and my 37 visits to the region, we're working tirelessly to deliver a stronger region in our national interest, and I commend the two treaties to the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Acknowledgement</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to advise the House that we have present in the gallery—as guests of the member for Groom—Jim Rawlings, Tony Beverland and Tom Carroll from the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the honourable member for Mallee.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Today I met with older Australians at Parliament House who are scared of Labor's $11 billion tax on private health insurance. This health tax means older Australians will face a 21 per cent surge in insurance premiums, and out-of-pocket costs increasing by over $800 a year for an individual and more than $1,600 for a couple. Why is the Prime Minister imposing another toxic tax on millions of older Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. I don't agree with various aspects of the modelling that the shadow minister has obviously picked up from the industry, and I'll address that. But she asks why we have taken this decision. As we've made clear from the time I announced it, before the Treasurer's budget speech, we have taken this decision—which is a hard decision, I accept—to fund a necessary expansion in aged-care services: to deliver more beds, to deliver more packages at home and to deliver better care. One of the reasons why we had to do that, to the shadow minister's question, is the appalling state that the former government left the aged-care system in when we came to government. After their cutting the budget time and time again, leaving the sector in a position described by the royal commission in one word—neglect—we unapologetically have prioritised investment in care and dignity for older Australians who need it.</para>
<para>Now, this is a hard decision, but it is a decision that returns the treatment of private health insurance subsidies to its original position, which did not differentiate between age groups. What we will now see is two households next door to each other on exactly the same income who take out private health insurance receiving the same level of support from taxpayers for the payment of their private health insurance premiums. In the case of most members of private health insurance, taxpayers will fund about a quarter of their private health insurance, and that will remain the case.</para>
<para>Now, the shadow minister has talked about some modelling. The Treasury has made it very clear what the modelling of this will mean—at about 44,000 people leaving private health insurance, or less than half a per cent of membership, at a time when membership is increasing by two per cent. The shadow minister parrots modelling from the insurance industry. We well remember when the insurance industry said that 1.6 million people would leave private health insurance when we means tested the private health insurance premium under the last government, and, indeed, insurance membership went up. It didn't go down at all. We also know that Melbourne university—not the government, certainly not the insurance industry—last week indicated modelling that was even more modest than the modelling released by Treasury.</para>
<para>I'll return to the question of why we are doing this. We are doing this as a hard decision to fund the necessary budget investment in an aged-care system to support a growing number of older Australians who need it. So the question is: what is the opposition proposing here? We don't do this aged-care investment? We don't invest in more beds? We don't invest in more packages? Or have you got another idea to pay for it? If you have, tell us what it is.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing: Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr TRISH COOK</name>
    <name.id>312871</name.id>
    <electorate>Bullwinkel</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government providing safe and secure housing for women and children escaping family and domestic violence? And what are the risks to these policies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bullwinkel for her question. She is a brilliant advocate for her local community and brings into this chamber a lifetime of service to our health system and to Australians through her career in nursing. I thank her for the particular focus that she has put on this problem that we face as a nation—domestic violence.</para>
<para>Our country faces a domestic violence crisis. I think every single person in this chamber cares about that and I think every person in this chamber agrees with that. Australian women tell us that one of the main reasons they choose not to leave a violent relationship is they do not have a safe house to go to. That should not be happening in a country like Australia. Tragically, family and domestic violence remains the leading reason why Australian women and children find themselves homeless in our country. When someone asks 'Why doesn't she leave?', there is a better question for us—that is, 'What home would she go to?'</para>
<para>Our government is helping provide an answer to that question. Today we announced an investment of $308 million for 448 new crisis and transitional homes right across Australia. These homes will provide, through the lifetime of that investment, safe housing for 22,000 Australian women and children at that moment in their lives when they most need and deserve the support of governments. These houses will not just be a roof over people's heads; they will be connected to the support that women and children need, to heal from these completely traumatic experiences they've gone through. This will connect women and children to the supports. They will regain their independence and have the support they need to rebuild their lives. This is what housing delivery looks like, and it's part of a $1.2 billion record investment that our government is making just in crisis and transitional housing around our country. It sits alongside 7,200 social and affordable houses that we have already built, most of which have already been tenanted, on the pathway to 55,000 homes.</para>
<para>I'm asked about alternative approaches. I think we use similar rhetoric when we talk in this chamber about domestic violence, but we don't see the same level of action. Over the nine years the coalition were in government, they built just nine crisis and transitional homes around our country. I don't want to politicise an issue like this, but the parliament does need to be accountable.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear the guffaws and I hear the laughter on the other side of the chamber, but you can't hide from these numbers. Nine crisis homes delivered over a nine-year period in government—that is a disgrace.</para>
<para>Under this Labor government and under this Labor Prime Minister, we take a different view. We're delivering real change and we're making a real difference to the safety and security of Australian women and children. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. I've referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission my concern that individuals in the federal government, when formulating gambling policy, have been improperly influenced by individuals in the private sector. Clearly, donations, gifts, hospitality and personal relations have resulted in a gambling policy diametrically opposed to research, public opinion and the public interest. Do you agree this constitutes corruption? Do you understand how the donations et cetera have compromised your government and its judgement?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ordinarily, the reflections contained in a question like that can only be done by direct motion, not through a question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to rule out the reflection at the end of the question, as previous Speakers have done before on that kind of topic. The Prime Minister can deal with parts of that question—just not the reflection at the end.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I note that the member for Clark stated in his own letter that there's been no allegation of wrongdoing against any individual. I also note that the member for Clark is very genuine in his commitment and his longstanding position on these issues, so he deserves to be taken seriously. What we need to do in a debate like this, that can be emotional, is make sure that we get the policy right—and our government is determined to get the policy right.</para>
<para>We have exchanged views across the parliament, including with crossbenchers, including with the opposition, and we will get it right. We will get it right to make sure that we actually address an issue, which is problem gambling. I've said before—and some have been critical of it, but I stand by my view—that there is nothing wrong with someone having a punt on a Saturday in the pub. What there is something wrong with is if people are addicted to any form of activity. You could put drinking—the difference between having a beer and being addicted to alcohol has consequences. That is the issue of a range of other areas.</para>
<para>The member refers to the NACC. I note at this point that the National Anti-Corruption Commission was promised for a long period of time. It took the election of my government to deliver one. We established it. When it comes to political donations, of course, they're a matter for the party and the organisation in accordance with the relevant laws. And, of course, anyone is entitled to make a referral, but I would say to the member, with respect: have a consideration of the debate based upon substance rather than motives. I know, from the exchanges I've had with members of the opposition and with members of the crossbench, people come to these issues with a genuine perspective, and we have genuine differences, as well, on some of these issues. But to question people's motives is, I think, undermining the civil debate that is required on these issues.</para>
<para>We'll continue to promote the legislation that is before the parliament today. It hasn't been influenced. Certainly, my position has not been influenced in the way that is suggested, I'm sure, of all of the members on this side. I don't suggest members on any side of this debate have been influenced other than by how we deal with an issue that is complex. It isn't simple. Overwhelmingly, as the member full well knows and as was experienced in the last parliament, the major issue of addiction and problem gambling is poker machines, which are not dealt with by this jurisdiction but are dealt with by state and territory governments. So we will have a debate on our legislation. Constructive discussions are continuing. I expect there will be amendments to the legislation that I hope receive the support of the entire parliament.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEESDALE</name>
    <name.id>314526</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare and making it easier to see a doctor for free after a decade of cuts and neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Bass for her question, for her support for our Medicare agenda and for hosting me again during the winter break in beautiful Launceston. We got to see the terrific urgent care clinic in that town again. It's seen more than 65,000 people—more than any other urgent care clinic in the network. It's a terrific exemplar.</para>
<para>We also got to meet some of the doctors who've taken up the bulk-billing incentives that have been part of our budgets. Like the rest of the country, as the member knows, bulk-billing rates in Bass were in freefall when we came to government, thanks to a decade of cuts and neglect, but our investments have turned that around. Bulk-billing for pensioners and concession card holders in Bass had gotten down to just eight in 10 visits, but now I'm pleased to say it's over 90 per cent again and continuing to climb. Bulk-billing increases for people without that concession card have been even bigger in Bass. They've climbed by more than 21 per cent. We've seen similar increases right across northern Tasmania. Indeed, bulk-billing is up in every single state and territory thanks to our record investment delivering literally millions and millions of additional free visits to the doctor every single year. And that's delivering real change for Australians. It's delivering real cost-of-living relief in their household budgets, and it's delivering a stronger Medicare.</para>
<para>But that could not be further from the position of the opposition on Medicare, evidenced by that decade of cuts and neglect. We've known for decades, literally, that they've never supported bulk-billing. The father of the modern Liberal Party, John Howard, described bulk-billing as 'an absolute rort', and, through that decade of cuts and neglect, the former government tried to abolish bulk-billing entirely. The shadow treasurer has described Medicare as 'a system designed to keep people ill'—a pretty extraordinary description. But at least the shadow treasurer has had a stab at it and expressed a view. The Leader of the Opposition—I continue to search his website every week or so and I still can't find a single mention of Medicare or health policy on the Leader of the Opposition's website.</para>
<para>And of course, the shadow minister has had to ask my department for help in understanding what Medicare means in the first place—to ask the department for a definition. We've helpfully provided her with that, and hopefully that will give her a foundation to put together a health policy for the next election, so they don't have to simply copy ours.</para>
<para>The member for Bass knows what Medicare means. She knows it means universal access to the best healthcare system on the planet, no matter where you live, no matter your ability to pay. And that means a healthier Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's the crossbench.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the member for Mackellar.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dental Health</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week is Dentists on the Hill week. Dental decay remains the most common preventable chronic disease in Australian children. Roughly one in three children has tooth decay by school entry, and one in four is living with untreated decay.</para>
<para>After the UK implemented a sugar-sweetened-beverage levy 10 years ago, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of children requiring tooth extractions due to decay. When will the government put the health of Australian children first and implement a sugar-sweetened-beverage reformulation levy?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the Minister for Health—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaker, I'd just like to point out that it was our question—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, there was—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and the member was on his feet. Now, you've said that sometimes—and it happened earlier—when a member wasn't up, getting the call, that we have to have the right order. So I'd respectfully ask you to give the member the question, just for the consistency and order of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will admit that I made the mistake there. When I make mistakes, I own up to them.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order! No, we're just going to deal with this. I like to treat everyone fairly, and I will treat the opposition fairly. So I apologise to the member for Mackellar that I had the wrong order list here. I'll take that responsibility. With the House's indulgence, I will give the call to the member for Fairfax—and, before that, the Prime Minister?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, just a point of order, Mr Speaker: it might be just efficient, given we've heard the question, to get the answer, and then have the member for Fairfax next, and then we'll conclude question time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If that's with the concurrence with the manager, we can do this in a—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As long as the member for Fairfax gets to ask his question, we're happy to oblige.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order! Teamwork is the dream-work. The member for Mackellar has asked her question, so we'll go to the minister for health, and then we'll go to the member for Fairfax.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to take the question on behalf of the government, and I acknowledge the member's interest in this area and our many conversations about public health issues, around obesity. But the way in which the member has framed it today is around childhood tooth decay.</para>
<para>First of all, I'd like to give a shout-out to the work the member for Sydney did, when she was health minister, to put in place the childhood dental benefits scheme—a great advance around oral health for young children. We've been consistently struggling with the low uptake, frankly, of that program. I think it's still less than 40 per cent of eligible children that are taking advantage of significant free dental services that they're eligible for, if they're from a family with family tax benefit. I'd love to talk with the member and anyone else about ideas to lift that uptake, and I've talked to the dental industry about that.</para>
<para>The member raises the question of sugar consumption, which is a very significant public health issue. I can indicate as a short answer to the member's question that there are no plans to introduce a tax on sweetened beverages, if you like, of the type that the UK and some other countries have done. But I do want to indicate a couple of other things that we're doing here. One of the challenges for parents, as I think we all know, is understanding what is in the food that is on the shelves of the supermarkets. Although there are different views about a tax in the community, there is overwhelming support for better front-of-packet labelling.</para>
<para>We introduced that scheme back when I was the assistant minister for health, well over a decade and a half ago. It was on a voluntary basis, with an expectation that uptake by industry would have reached about 70 per cent by this year. It's about half of that. So the assistant minister for health, working with her colleagues, has indicated that that front-of-packet labelling that tells parents exactly what is in the food that they're putting in the trolley will be made mandatory. There's a process under way right now, and that will return to health ministers, I think, early next year.</para>
<para>There's also, frankly, the question of formulation of foods, including sweetened beverages. One way of changing that is through a tax. We are conscious of the fact, for example, that a can of Fanta in Australia might have more than six teaspoons of sugar in it; it now has less than four teaspoons of sugar in the UK. But we want to continue to talk with industry about whether there are different ways to skin that cat. I would like to see a reformulation of a range of products that have high levels of sugar in them that particularly children consume. The assistant minister will be meeting again with industry later this month to put together a work plan to work through some of that. I think industry frankly needs to consider the question of why they voluntarily could not reduce the sugar content of some of these sweetened beverages down to the level you do see in other countries, without the imposition of a tax.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia and Japan</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question goes to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has now been asked three times why he will not apologise to the Prime Minister of Japan for his appalling behaviour on the Bush Deep podcast. Three times he has refused to give a straight answer. My question to the Prime Minister is whether or not he will follow the example of someone else in this House who has made it very clear, when he makes a mistake, he owns up to it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the fact is that I have worked and the government has worked to improve relations in our region and indeed right around the world—to repair them—and our relationship between Australia and Japan has never been stronger. We have never been more strategically aligned than we are today.</para>
<para>My government has made the significant decision to procure the upgraded Mogami-class frigates for Australia's general purpose frigate program, a reflection of the trust between our two nations. Our enhanced defence and security cooperation increases the interoperability between our defence forces. Indeed one of the activities that I've done as Prime Minister is to welcome the naval fleets from all of the Quad countries into Sydney Harbour for the joint operations that are occurring. Indeed throughout the visit of the Japanese Prime Minister, as well, one of the things we did was to establish the Australia-Japan Leadership Dialogue. This is a 1.5 track dialogue which will bring together leaders and experts from across government, academia, business and civil society to help address the most important issues in the Australia-Japan relationship. I look forward to continuing to have a very good and positive relationship with the Prime Minister, as I have with leaders in our region.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MATT SMITH</name>
    <name.id>312393</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's free TAFE program backing Australians, including in the Torres Strait, to get the skills they need to support their community? Does anything stand in the way of more of these opportunities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to my friend the member for Leichhardt for his question. In a short time in this place, he has already made a really significant contribution. When the Deputy Prime Minister and I had the great privilege of joining the member in the Torres Strait last week, we saw just how effective a member he is—respected and recognised everywhere. Although, as he did say, he is hard to miss.</para>
<para>It was just over a year ago that I was on Thursday Island in the Torres Strait to announce our investment in a new health hub for the TAFE campus, which meant that people could study nursing without having to leave the Torres Strait. It was fantastic to return to see what this investment, together with free TAFE, is delivering, and it was great to meet Ash, a Torres Strait Islander who is well on the way towards completing his Diploma of Nursing. He'll be one of the first to have completed his whole course on country. Ash told me and the Deputy Prime Minister that studying this course simply would not have been possible but for free TAFE.</para>
<para>Ash is one of the hundreds of thousands of success stories that have come from free TAFE, and Ash symbolises why free TAFE is so important. Free TAFE is changing lives. It's backing more Australians into good, secure jobs, which our communities need right around the country. It's also backing more First Nations people to learn and to train on country, which we know means more course commencements and more completions. It also engages more people around those students in learning. It's stories like Ash's that remind us on this side of the House how important the work we're doing is, especially making free TAFE permanent. It's why I continue to be surprised—shocked indeed—that the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation have teamed up to try to block permanent free TAFE. But, thanks to the work of the Albanese Labor government, free TAFE is here to stay.</para>
<para>Free TAFE is here to stay, with 100,000 places guaranteed each year from 2027, and the only thing that stands between more Australians accessing those opportunities that Ash has and more opportunities from the jobs that come from free TAFE are those opposite. They're a coalition of cuts and chaos who always talk down Australians and talk Australia down. This side, Labor, is the party of TAFE. The opposition leader can't even say the word 'TAFE' or look up Medicare online, it seems. But, on this side of the House, with free TAFE, we keep on delivering real change by backing Australians like Ash to get the skills they want to do the jobs we need, from the Torres Strait to Tasmania and right across to WA and everywhere in between.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the member for Goldstein claim to be misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>During question time, the Minister for Health and Ageing, as he walked out, made a series of claims which were false. He abbreviated a quote and removed all context. The quote said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think we should run a healthcare system focused on patient outcomes that actually empowers Australians to be able to get the health and support and community through primary care to minimise long-term dependency on tertiary care and, more importantly, to make sure that people can live their best, full lives as healthy, engaged participants in the community and the workforce so that they can be happy, not a system designed to keep people ill to feed the benefits of the unions and the people that they are paid to represent and to maintain the political control by the Australian Labor Party.</para></quote>
<para>There is no mention of Medicare.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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 <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's deliberate stoking of inflation, leaving Australian families to pay more at the supermarket.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians around the country are wondering why it is they're going to the supermarket, swiping things into their trolley or their basket, and seem to always be paying more and getting less. We know why that's happened. It's because the Albanese government has an active inflation agenda that enables them to go on and make sure they take more out of the hip pockets of Australians by stealth—exactly as the Leader of the Opposition has correctly said—through forms of taxation. Australians are living right now with the consequences of an active inflation agenda from the Albanese government. You just need to look at the numbers. Eggs are up 36.5 per cent. Australians needing protein to be able to live and to support themselves and their families, and some of the cheapest ways are facing a more-than-a-third increase in the cost. Milk, a primary staple of so many kitchens around the country, is up 29.7 per cent. Bread is up 22.7 per cent, and food overall—one of those essential things that people need to live—has gone up 18.1% under the Albanese government.</para>
<para>This is established very clearly in the inflation data. I made the point yesterday that it was census day, so it was a good time to be able to compare what the underlying inflation rate was the last time we had a census. In August 2021, it was 2.1 per cent—barely in, I do acknowledge, the target band of the Reserve Bank—but it was on the lower side under a coalition government. Let's fast forward to yesterday and ask what the underlying inflation was on this census day. It was above the target band at 3.6 per cent.</para>
<para>I heard the Prime Minister come into the parliament yesterday and somehow run around thinking he can make funny comments about the fact that interest rates have been lower in the past. They have been, Deputy Speaker. In fact, you just need to go back to 2020, when some of us were concerned about how low they were. They were 0.1 per cent. He thought it was such a killer point to observe that. Since then they've gone up 4,350 per cent. This government run around boasting about their incredible economic management while Australians are getting poorer, real wages are going backwards, small businesses have record low confidence, households and consumers have record low confidence and we've had record small-business insolvencies. They have the temerity, the hubris and the arrogance to come into this chamber and talk about their superior economic management.</para>
<para>This is a government completely adrift. They like to blame international conflicts for their persistent inflation problem, ignoring the fact that the Reserve Bank increased interest rates at the start of the year off the back of data from last year before a single bomb was dropped in Tehran. It has persisted during the on-and-off-again conflict and of course continues to rise up as a consequence of domestic factors. This is now abundantly clear to everybody except the smokescreen that manages to stop members of the Labor government from understanding the consequences of their economic agenda—to stoke inflation, to tax inflation—so they can then spend the inflation.</para>
<para>As the Leader of the Opposition correctly points out, this is not some accident of incompetence. It's deliberate, and it's an economic model designed to feed the Labor Party and the government not the Australian people. What we have is too much money chasing too few goods. What we have is a problem of government spending. It's not government spending that's improving the lifestyles and dignity of Australians. It's spending that has gone towards corruption—corruption that feeds the Labor Party ecosystem, corruption that has gone towards feeding fraud in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, corruption where the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has got out the taxpayer chequebook and written it out to projects in Victoria to go on and be fed to the CFMEU and to organised crime. Yes, corruption is inflationary too.</para>
<para>Of course, we've seen replicas of what happened in the NDIS, in the aged-care system and in child care. It's not something that needs to be referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, because it's deliberate. It's designed and backed into the legislation that this government introduces into the parliament and into the decisions it makes. But Australians are paying the price for this.</para>
<para>We've had 15 interest rate rises under this government while Australians have been looking at their balance sheets and saying, 'Can I afford anything more when we're already financially drowning?' Yesterday, following the release of the <inline font-style="italic">Statement on monetary policy</inline>after the decision of the Reserve Bank to hold interest rates, a journalist simply said: 'At the last meeting, you didn't even think about an interest rate rise. But at this one you're saying the only debate was whether to hold interest rates or increase them.' The Reserve Bank governor has confirmed that they are still looking at further interest rate rises and that 15 may not be the end.</para>
<para>What we have is a government, through its active inflation agenda, that is playing a game of chicken with the Reserve Bank, seeing whether ongoing spending, handing over money and doling out cheques to corrupt interests will lead to further interest rate rises. They're daring the Reserve Bank of Australia to continue to increase interest rates. I think this is one of the problems with this government and, particularly, this prime minister. He's forgotten where he came from. He's lost empathy or understanding about what this means for people in places like public housing. He's forgotten what the impact of his policies is on young Australians who are aspiring to do better than their parents. Instead, we've seen—and we saw this in the budget—housing commission mums that save what little they have and put it in things like term deposits. He's come along and said, 'That's not yours; that's mine.' This is the problem. The government have lost sight of the consequences of their agenda and, more importantly, who they are and who they're there to serve. What we've seen is an export of the corrupt Victorian model under Dan Andrews. It's been brought to Canberra under this prime minister.</para>
<para>They stoke inflation, and we know where this ends; the numbers speak for themselves. In Victoria now, business confidence and consumer confidence are so low that one in 10 jobs is created by private investment. The rest come from direct and indirect public expenditure. Not to be outdone—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's more like socialism.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's not even socialism, Leader of the Opposition, though it is that. It actively stokes inflation and makes Australians poorer because it does not attract the investment to grow the economy and to actually enlarge the pie. It turns Australians against each other, feeds social division and eats into young Australians' equity and opportunity and the hope and aspiration that they have for their future.</para>
<para>Not to be outdone, the Albanese government has achieved two in 10 jobs being created by private investment and eight in 10 being created by public direct and indirect expenditure. This is the export of the corrupt Dan Andrews model, brought to Canberra by the Prime Minister, and Australians will become poorer every step of the way because it stokes inflation—it feeds inflation—and that means higher interest rate rises for anyone who is just simply trying to get ahead.</para>
<para>What Australians need now, more than ever, is a sense of hope. Australians, particularly households and small businesses, need to be able to look to the horizon and believe that things can get better. But there will be no good economic news while the Albanese government stays in charge. We need a change of government and, in particular, we need our plan, which has things like the tax-back guarantee to back Australians and make sure that inflation is not the silent tax thief in the night, where the Treasurer can just rely on inflation to slowly increase the revenue that he gets to monopolise and spend. What we need is a government that understands that the strength of this country comes from families, households, communities and small businesses that are strong and confident and that believe in a better future.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nine years of the former coalition government left Australia with too much market power and too little consumer power. I could not be happier than to be debating the shadow treasurer on this MPI about which side of this House stands up for consumers against the power of oversized corporations.</para>
<para>I will take the House back to what the situation was in 2022. When we came to office, competition and consumer penalties were too low. They were being treated by firms as a cost of doing business. The maximum dollar penalty was $10 million, a 10th of what that figure is today. When we came to office, the former government had left payday lending reforms on the shelf. They'd accepted recommendations from a review back in 2016 and released exposure draft legislation the next year, but by 2022 they hadn't done a thing on payday lending reforms.</para>
<para>The former government fought the banking royal commission for ages. Throughout 2016 and most of 2017 they were fighting the banking royal commission, and they only agreed to have the banking royal commission when the banks themselves called for it. It was the four major banks that called for a banking royal commission before the then coalition government. Of course, that banking royal commission found widespread misconduct across banking, insurance and financial advice, making 76 recommendations.</para>
<para>Under the former government we saw buy now, pay later explode outside credit regulations. Providers didn't need a credit licence or to comply with responsible banking obligations. Under the coalition it was buy now, regulate later. They didn't stand up for consumers.</para>
<para>Under the former government, when we came to office, unfair contract terms were legal. Courts could declare them invalid, but there was no offence on a firm that put an unfair contract term in a standard form contract, and that meant small business was getting hurt.</para>
<para>Under the former government, they failed to revive national competition policy. They commissioned the Harper review, and in 2015 it called for a revitalisation of national competition policy, but those opposite—big on reviews, small on reform—did nothing to work with the states and territories on competition reform.</para>
<para>Under the former government, they failed to tackle growing market concentration. We know now that market concentration and mark-ups rose steadily during their time in office, with competitive pressures decreasing in sectors like supermarkets, banking, aviation and digital platforms. The coalition failed to tackle the issue of growing market concentration.</para>
<para>While those opposite, particularly those in the National Party, say that they stand up for farmers, they failed to do so in their dealings with the big supermarkets. They put in place a toothless voluntary code of conduct in the food and grocery code, and then they reviewed it, with the member for Maranoa as their agriculture minister, and they decided to keep it—a toothless voluntary code. And it remained toothless throughout the coalition's time in office, despite repeated calls from the farmers, from growers to get a fair deal in their dealings with the major supermarkets.</para>
<para>By the time we came to office, those opposite had rejected merger reform. Rod Sims's major speech in August 2021 called for merger reform, and it took just a matter of hours for then treasurer Frydenberg to rule it out. The ACCC sounded the alarm; the Liberals pressed the snooze button. They didn't believe that we needed to do merger reform. They didn't believe in the kind of merger reform that would speed up approvals for the low-risk mergers and focus more scrutiny on the high-risk mergers.</para>
<para>And those opposite failed to ban unfair trading practices, including subscription traps. We had a report from the ACCC back in 2019. The ACCC had been warning about subscription traps since at least 2016. But, despite repeated ACCC advocacy, the coalition left office without doing a thing on unfair trading practices, subscription traps and drip pricing.</para>
<para>Since Labor took office in 2022, we have put in place the biggest suite of competition and consumer reforms that Australia has seen. We've overhauled our merger laws—merger reform had been necessary for half a century—getting rid of that largely voluntary system and replacing it with mandatory notification and an ACCC led administrative regime. That sees greater focus on the areas where the ACCC needs it, and it was supported by business because it allows those low-risk mergers to go through more rapidly. Previously, the ACCC wasn't even seeing three out of four mergers. Now it's seeing the mergers it needs to see and stopping the mergers it needs to stop.</para>
<para>Under us we've revitalised national competition policy, working with states and territories, whether they be Labor run or coalition run, on a new reform agenda, including regulatory reform and measures to strengthen the single national market. That's good for workers that need to work across state borders. It's important for getting planning and zoning reform. It's vital that the states and territories work together on the kinds of competition reforms that turbocharged productivity in the 1990s and have been foreshadowed to boost household incomes by up to $5,000 a household if we get them right.</para>
<para>We're banning non-compete clauses for most workers. From January next year, workers who are below the high-income threshold—currently $190,000—will no longer be able to see non-compete clauses in their employment agreements. That means workers will have the freedom to move to a better job. Those opposite claim they stand for freedom, but it takes a Labor government to give workers the freedom to take up an offer for a better job as well as to crack down on wage fixing and no-poach agreements. Getting rid of non-compete clauses puts money back in the pockets of workers. Those workers who are subject to a non-compete clause earn less, are less likely to innovate and are less likely to encourage new firm creation. You need workers to move if you're going to start up a new firm in a full employment economy.</para>
<para>Under Labor, we're putting in place supermarket competition reforms. We not only made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory so farmers get a fair deal but also raised the penalties to $100 million for competition and consumer misconduct in the supermarket sector and across the economy. We've banned price gouging, we're strengthening unit pricing and we're tackling shrinkflation. Putting in place that ban on price gouging is something that those opposite didn't have the gumption to do. It takes a Labor government to make clear with large supermarkets that they can't charge prices that are excessive relative to supply costs plus a reasonable margin.</para>
<para>We have overseen the introduction of right to repair in the automotive sector, supporting independent mechanics, and we're now building on the motor vehicle information sharing scheme to make sure we've got independent repairers able to fix agricultural machinery. It's another reform strongly supported by the National Farmers' Federation but which it takes a Labor government, not a National-Liberal government, to deliver.</para>
<para>In the area of consumer protections, we've made unfair contract terms illegal, not simply allowing courts to void them but putting in place substantial penalties for businesses that are using them. We are regulating buy now, pay later as credit, bringing buy-now pay-later providers into the consumer credit framework, including the licensing and the responsible lending requirements. That massive increase to penalties doesn't just apply to firms that are breaching competition laws but also applies to firms that are doing the wrong thing by consumers.</para>
<para>We've banned unfair trading practices, including taking specific action against subscription traps and drip pricing, which will take effect from the middle of next year. It passed in the last sittings of parliament. We've got a scams protection framework that imposes stronger obligations on banks, telcos and digital platforms. We've created stronger aviation consumer protections, including the new Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. We're strengthening consumer guarantees and product safety, including stronger supplier accountability and reforms dealing with product safety risks such as e-mobility devices.</para>
<para>Only Labor is the party of competition. Only Labor is the party of consumers. Only Labor will stand up for the kinds of reforms that boost dynamism, put downward pressure on prices and help Australian households.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, you should always listen to the speeches of the minister opposite, because sometimes it's not about what they say but what they choose not to say. In that 10 minutes, the minister chose not to defend or mention the disastrous budget handed down by the Treasurer. He didn't want to talk about those changes, although he did talk about competition and he did talk about dynamism.</para>
<para>So let's talk about the tech sector. The tech sector is fundamental to driving competition in this country. The tech sector is fundamental to creating start-ups and creating competition in this country. However, the budget changes passed by this government will cripple the tech sector. And don't just take don't take my word for it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What does the Tech Council say?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister asks, 'What does the Tech Council say?' Thank you for that, Minister. I was about to quote from the Tech Council—perfect. The Tech Council, talking about the innovative business CGT concession, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As proposed, however, the IBCC would leave Australia a less attractive place to start, fund and grow a technology company.</para></quote>
<para>The minister walks out of the chamber. He clearly doesn't want to hear from the Tech Council. It wasn't a great interjection, champ.</para>
<para>Who else signed that statement? It was the Tech Council of Australia, Robotics Australia Group, EduGrowth, FinTech Australia, Aussie Angels, Climate Tech Australia, the Medical Technology Association of Australia, AusBiotech, (Energy)Lab, Australian Agritech Association, Stone & Chalk and Startmate. They all signed that statement confirming that the tax changes proposed by this government will cripple the tech sector in Australia. Again, we have a minister in this government who is not across their brief, asking for a quote from the Tech Council. He didn't like what he heard, and then he walked out.</para>
<para>Many others have criticised the budget changes. The member for Sturt has provided commentary on those changes. Now, the government wouldn't let us table the member's letter. They were embarrassed by their own member's words. But the member for Sturt did say—and I'm going to quote from the member's email to her constituent:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have had difficulty coming to terms with the extension of these changes to other asset classes, for the specific reason you identify.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I agree with your concerns.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A little bit of honesty.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, a little bit of honesty. The member for Parramatta is always smart enough to never put it in email, but he did speak in the media about how he had concerns about the budget changes. The member for Bennelong has also spoken about his concerns. They were a little bit more cryptic in their criticism. They've been around a little bit longer.</para>
<para>What concerns does the member for Sturt have such that she agrees with her constituent? Well, let me quote from Mr Cooper:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think the government spends more than they need to because it helps keep them in power. They may need the money but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. I think if they are going to do tax changes, they should have taken it to an election in the same way John Howard took the GST to an election.</para></quote>
<para>So the member for Sturt agrees that the Prime Minister broke his word, he misled the Australian people and he should have taken these changes to an election. While I admire the courage of the member for Sturt, I do fear for her career options, because we know what this Prime Minister does to those who dare question him. He is very vindictive. He runs the facade of unity. He forces unity. But, as they say, he protests too much. We know that quietly behind that there is a group that aren't happy.</para>
<para>The member for Brisbane has told her constituents that she will raise this matter with the Treasurer when she's next in Canberra for parliament, referring to the tax changes. I wonder how that conversation went. She wasn't prepared to defend the changes to the constituents. She said she'd have a conversation with the Treasurer. We know that the Treasurer, as he said today, doesn't listen or doesn't care about the backbench.</para>
<para>Another MP—and this MP didn't want to be named; they had a bit of sense—said a 'group of Labor politicians' were calling for further changes after hearing complaints from self-funded retirees, young people who are investing in shares to save for a home deposit and younger women who may have had time out of the workforce. These budget changes are a disaster, all overseen by this Treasurer. Those on the Labor backbench know it. They were prepared to vote for it, and it cost their own communities.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aussies don't need anyone in this parliament telling them the weekly shop costs too much; they already know it. Families across the Hunter know it every time they walk into Coles or Woolies. They know it when they buy meat, fruit and veggies, school lunches and the basics for dinner. The pressure is real and some people are angry, and they've got every right to expect their government to act. That's what we've done.</para>
<para>From 1 July 2026, very large supermarkets have been banned from charging prices that are far too high compared to their costs and a reasonable profit margin. If they break the law, the penalties are very serious—up to $10 million, three times the benefit they got from breaking the law or 10 per cent of their yearly turnover. That's action. We've also made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. We've also given the ACCC more power. We've increased maximum penalties for serious breaches of competition and consumer law from $10 million to $100 million. We're strengthening unit pricing, we're cracking down on shrinkflation, we're funding choice to compare supermarket prices and we're acting on the recommendations of the ACCC supermarket inquiry. That's the record.</para>
<para>Let's look at those opposite. They love to come into this House and make a lot of noise about grocery prices. They act angry, they point fingers and they tell Aussies they're on their side. But where was their concern when they were in government? Where was the action then? When they had the chance to make the food and grocery code mandatory, they left it voluntary—a toothless tiger. They had the power, they had the time, but they didn't do it. Yes, they put forward their own plan for a mandatory code, but that doesn't wipe away their record. It doesn't wipe away the years they failed to act. I've got a question for those opposite: if these tougher rules are so important now, why didn't you bring them in when you were in charge? If stronger penalties matter so much now, why did you wait? If supermarket competition matters so much now, where were you before?</para>
<para>This is the problem with the opposition. They're always very brave after the decision's been made. They're always very loud after somebody else has done all the work. They are always ready to complain—not so ready to act, though. We see the same thing again and again. They voted against our tax cuts, they opposed Help to Buy—and then they lecture everyone else about household budgets. Give us a break! You can't vote against help for Australians and then pretend you're the only one who cares about cost of living. You can't spend years doing too little on supermarket power, then turn up later pretending you're leading the fight. People can see straight through it. People in Cessnock see through it. People in Singleton see through it. Families across Lake Macquarie in the Hunter can see straight through this—and I'll keep reminding of them of that record. This isn't about who can shout the loudest; it's about what you actually do. It's about how you actually vote. It's about whether you stand up when it counts.</para>
<para>Families want less pressure on their budgets. Farmers want a fair price. Small suppliers just want a fair go. Shoppers want to know they're not being ripped off blind. And the biggest supermarkets need to know there are consequences for when they break the rules. That's what government is meant to do. Are families are still under pressure? Of course they are. No-one on this side is pretending everything is fixed. People are still counting every dollar, still checking every price and still making hard choices at the checkout. But there's a big difference between trying to fix the problem and dog whistling about it. There's a difference between action and barking out noise. There's a difference between doing work and standing on the sidelines and simply complaining.</para>
<para>We'll keep backing the ACCC, we'll keep pushing for stronger competition and we'll stand up for farmers and suppliers. We'll keep working to give shoppers a fairer deal. And every time those opposite stand up and start shouting, Aussies should ask them three questions: 'What did you do when you were in government? How did you vote when it mattered on cost-of-living relief? And what are you actually offering now?' Aussies deserve more than angry speeches; they deserve action, they deserve stronger rules, they deserve real penalties and they deserve a government that is prepared to do the work—not just sit on the sidelines and complain time after time again, as those opposite have done ever since we've been in government. That's what we're doing, and that's what we'll keep doing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ALDRED</name>
    <name.id>11788</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this matter, because—having spent the last four or five weeks in my electorate, speaking with people in the Latrobe Valley, Bass Coast, South Gippsland and West Gippsland—one thing's clear: Australians have never worked harder for less and faced more challenges than they do right now.</para>
<para>It's been interesting to listen to the shopping list of self-congratulatory acclaim that members opposite have listed. I've got a couple more that perhaps they could consider addressing, which have gone on for far too long, including superannuation death benefit payouts—big super lagging in service standards. That's holding on to money that Australians have worked very hard for—that big super are not letting go of, not putting back where it belongs. This government's taken 18 months of 'soon, soon—we're going to legislate soon', but we haven't seen anything yet, and Australians right across this country are suffering deeply because of that.</para>
<para>On cuts to the private health rebate for older Australians, speaking to those in my electorate right now—they are making some very tough decisions. I was speaking with a lady who was telling me about her husband. He's a bricklayer and a landscape gardener. He has worked very hard all his life. They don't have a great deal of income, but what they have they've worked hard for. They've put away some money for private health care precisely because of the circumstances that they're looking at right now. The lady I was speaking with is really heartsick with worry right now because, under the cuts this government is looking at, she's not going to be able to afford that private health care going forward, and that is a great indictment of this prime minister.</para>
<para>The deliberate stoking of inflation is leaving Australian families to pay more at the supermarket, and there are a couple of points I want to pick up. Australia's economy is now heading towards its weakest run of growth since the 1990s. And, while the RBA left the cash rate unchanged this week, the downgrading of its labour productivity forecasts to a fall of 0.5 per cent for the rest of this year should be cause for concern. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver has pointed to the massive public spending of the Labor government and referenced its impact on productivity. Tom Richardson, writing in the Nightly, notes the scale of this Labor government's spending, which has reached a record 28 per cent of gross domestic product, and he writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The huge government spending is also contributing to the inflation that has outpaced wages growth since 2021.</para></quote>
<para>Returning to the reference drawn by Shane Oliver, he says that consumer prices are up 25 per cent since 2021 but average wages are only up 19 per cent, and that is what Australians right across this country are staring at right now. Their rents are up—their mortgages, their cost of living, their gas bills. Electricity is up 40 per cent. They cannot afford to live under this government and pay their bills every week.</para>
<para>Indeed, the price we've seen at the supermarket shelves doesn't just start at the check-out; it starts at the paddock. In an electorate like mine of Monash, where we grow, make and manufacture products the rest of this country rely on—the best food and fibre across this nation—we see that every step of the journey from the paddock to the plate. Our farmers are paying more to produce our food. Their fuel, fertiliser, fodder and freight are among the biggest costs of running a farm, and those costs remain painfully high. Their margins are being shrunk, and everyday Australians are paying more at the check-out thanks to the mismanagement, overregulation and reckless disregard of this government. We have to make sure that our farmers, locally, are able to get their produce off the farm, and to do that means trucks. And, to drive those trucks, they need diesel, and they need freight. In an electorate the size of Monash, that often means transporting our food along roads that are riddled with potholes, crumbling at the edges and desperately in need of investment.</para>
<para>I couldn't give you a better example than one this week. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis where people can least afford to have to shell out for repairs and extra equipment, we had an absolute doozy along the Princes Highway in west Gippsland, with the heavy— <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MATT SMITH</name>
    <name.id>312393</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Judging from the letter that we received, I was under the impression we would be discussing supermarkets. Instead, we've had various amounts of ponderous philosophical wonderings. Let's go back to supermarkets. People know and understand that the prices are high at the moment. It's hurting people in the hip pocket. It's making decisions a little bit harder. When you're worried about money, it's hard to really think about anything else, so this government takes action.</para>
<para>It took meaningful action, action that needed to take place not just at the supermarket checkout but with the suppliers as well. I grew up in dairy country. I remember the milk wars and what that did to our farmers as the price dropped and dropped and it became less economical for farmers to go about their daily business milking the cows, making the money and doing something that had worked for generations. That is something that we are addressing. Price gouging—knowing that a conglomerate of big companies can take advantage of everyday Australians doing the little and simple things in life like buying the food, preparing for a kid's birthday and making the Sunday roast when the grandparents come over. People don't want to pay more for that, so we took action with some of the harshest penalties available. They know now not to step out of line, but prices aren't just a consequence of inflation or some random singularity. There's a whole-of-life thing going on here. It's a circular issue.</para>
<para>For an electorate such as mine, which is huge—bigger than some European countries—or the actual regions, where the roads are dirt and the rivers flood, sometimes it's very hard to get that freight up there. Sometimes it's difficult, and we're cut off for months at a time, but this government is acting. For regional, discrete Aboriginal communities, we are investing to make sure that people there pay the same amount that people in the cities do. That was not always the case. Some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country now get food for the same price as the member for Goldstein pays. That makes a massive, massive difference on Saibai Island, Lockhart River and Aurukun—places that need our help and places that want fairness and equity for food. That's what this government does. It finds a way. It finds the weak points in the system and makes a difference.</para>
<para>I talked about a holistic approach. The Bruce Highway is the main artery of Queensland. As the Bruce Highway goes, the rest of Queensland goes. It's prone to flooding and gets cut off. It's not in great shape. That is why this government has made the largest investment in its history to repair it, build it back better and increase the resilience in an area known for its disasters. That will make the transportation of food more efficient. It will make it cheaper, and, most importantly, it will make it safer for the truck drivers who are working every single day.</para>
<para>The member for Monash mentioned diesel. We know what's been going on with the price of diesel. We know why the price of diesel has gone up. As an aside, we also remember, leading up into Easter, when there were a series of reckless and irresponsible claims made by those opposite about potential rationing: 'Are we going to run out of fuel? Will farmers have enough fertiliser?' That damaged the far northern economy. That stopped people going on holiday. That hurt the small businesses you claim to represent.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister made an emergency address.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MATT SMITH</name>
    <name.id>312393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>People cancelled holidays. People didn't go to places. That money was not spent. It hurt my electorate to make a silly political point.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'Let your tyres down. Take your roof racks down.'</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MATT SMITH</name>
    <name.id>312393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's disgraceful. You make all of this noise, but you're not helping—a lot of noise, not a lot of help.</para>
<para>Diesel continues to be run in this country because of the work of our prime minister and our Foreign minister. They did the work that needed to be done to make sure that our country keeps moving forward, to make sure that my farmers have fertiliser and to make sure that the people in the leafy suburbs in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane will eat tonight. That's because of the work our prime minister did. It's because he went to Asia to make sure that those fuel lines were there. There is no crisis, no scaremongering, just getting the work done—doing what is needed to help Australians. We know it's hard out there. We're taking the work. We're doing what needs to be done to make sure that Australia is the leader in the world again.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REBELLO</name>
    <name.id>316547</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak to this matter of public importance raised by the shadow treasurer. From listening to some of the contributions opposite, in particular the contribution that we've just heard—the member for Leichhardt said there's 'a lot of noise, not a lot of help'. I think that's exactly what Australians are feeling right now. They're hearing a lot of noise from Canberra, from this government, but they're not feeling the help, they're not seeing the help, and they're not hearing the help, and that is something that is hurting Australia at the moment. The people that I speak to on the southern Gold Coast and across the country are telling me that they're at breaking point. We come to this place to represent the people that have put us here.</para>
<para>For the time that I've been here—just over a year—we've been labouring a very key point, and that is that the government has lost control over our economy. They don't know how to generate wealth, so what are they doing? They're finding pockets across the economy where people have worked hard—they've done the right thing; they've built up and accumulated assets—and they're going after that, because there is no long-term strategy for how government can generate wealth, or create wealth, and then better enable Australians to provide for themselves in the future. That, ultimately, is frustrating me as a member of parliament, because there are only so many times that we can come to this side of the chamber and make noise so that those opposite not only hear but take action. It goes back to the point made by the member for Leichhardt: there's a lot of noise but not a lot of help. And Australians are worse off because of it.</para>
<para>When we come into this place and when we speak in front of the media and we talk about the 15 interest rate rises that Australians have had to deal with under this government or when we speak about the fact that the cost of living is going up for Australians—eggs up 36.5 per cent, milk up 29.7 per cent, bread up 22.7 per cent, and food overall up 18.1 per cent, let alone rents, let alone mortgages, let alone everything else—we're doing it for a reason. We're doing it for a reason, and that is because those numbers mean something to Australians. It means they can purchase less. It means they spend less time with their families because they're having to work extra hours, and it means that Australians who feel that they're putting in the effort—they're doing the right thing. Australians are not doing the wrong thing, but they feel that their government's decisions are resulting in them being worse off, and they're not being rewarded for doing the right thing. If that is the precedent, if that is what we are setting Australia up for, we're setting Australia up to fail.</para>
<para>The fact that those opposite not only don't understand it but are not prepared to engage in it—I listen to some of the comments made by those opposite. They're still focused on us. After being in government for 4½ years, they're still focused on us. That's something that's really concerning to me. I know that, when we hear Australians across the country saying, 'We're sick of the politics in Canberra,' this is what they're sick of, because they want government to be actually making their lives easier.</para>
<para>I think about the next generation because, while this is all happening—if we had a situation where the government was spending more money but Australians were seeing the benefit, I think Australians would at least look at that and say, 'Well, okay, we're seeing the result of this.' But we're seeing the opposite. We're seeing a government that is spending at record levels. Australians are feeling worse off. They're not feeling the pressure taken off them when they're looking at their monthly bills. Instead, they're also being told that we've got a debt that is accumulating for our future generations. So, on all fronts, this government is failing.</para>
<para>It is absolutely important that this is discussed today. Very often, we overlook the fact that this is a matter of public importance. This is important, and, if the government can't see that—I assure you that the people in the galleries and the people watching will be making the noise between now and the next election, because Australians deserve better from this government. They deserve a government that's actually going to stand up for them. They deserve a government that's going to recognise their concerns and act on them. To use the words of the member for Leichhardt again, there's a lot of noise but not a lot of help.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COFFEY</name>
    <name.id>312323</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Goldstein for raising the matter of pressures facing Australian households at the check-out. The Albanese Labor government recognises the pressure. Families expect practical action to keep supermarket prices fair and hold the major chains to account. We have responded with stronger protections for shoppers, farmers and suppliers across the food and grocery sector. Last month, on 1 July, excessive pricing by Australia's very large supermarkets became illegal. We amended the mandatory food and grocery code and gave the ban force of law. Major retailers can recover their supply costs and earn a reasonable margin, but they cannot charge an excessive amount above those costs.</para>
<para>The ACCC now monitors prices and enforces the ban. The supermarkets must retain pricing records for at least three years. A breach carries a penalty of $10 million, three times the value of the benefit gained or 10 per cent of annual turnover, whichever is the greatest. Labor made the food and grocery code mandatory on 1 April 2025. It protects farmers and suppliers from retribution and carries multi-million-dollar penalties. We funded a $2 million education program so fresh food produce suppliers can understand their rights and stand up to the major chains. Powerful retailers should never squeeze farmers at one end and families at the other.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is cracking down on shrinkflation too. Shoppers know the trick. The packet looks familiar, and the shelf price stays the same. But there is less food inside. That is a hidden price rise. A family pays more per gram, per litre or per item. We are strengthening the unit pricing code and introducing shrinkflation notices. Shoppers should see clearly that a pack has become smaller and compare its real unit price. We've given the ACCC almost $100 million in extra funding for stronger enforcement. We fund CHOICE to publish independent quarterly comparisons of grocery baskets.</para>
<para>Food waste also belongs squarely in this debate about supermarket costs and pressures on families. Food bought and not used also comes out of the household grocery budget, and Food Waste Australia puts that loss at up to $2,500 per year, or close to $50 a week, for a household. It costs the Australian economy $36.6 billion annually and drains 1.4 per cent of GDP. Across Australia, we waste 7.6 million tonnes of food each year, and households account for about 2.5 million tonnes of that. Every year, land the size of Victoria is used to grow food that ends up wasted. Farmers absorb losses from rejected produce, businesses bear handling costs, and councils fund collection and landfill. Those costs flow through to household budgets, businesses and public services. Cutting waste must remain part of this work.</para>
<para>Recently, at Labor's national conference, I moved an amendment calling for exactly this—stronger national action on food waste—which was seconded by my friend the member for Reid. The amendment was adopted unanimously by delegates at the conference, and it's now part of Labor's national platform. Labor believes good food should reach people rather than fill bins and landfill. Prevention must come first, and safe surplus should reach families who need it. An unavoidable surplus should go to its highest value use. I note here that the government's consultation on Feeding Australia, our first national food security strategy, has been completed and the strategy is due to be released next year.</para>
<para>The government has banned excessive supermarket pricing and made the grocery code mandatory. We are exposing shrinkflation. We're cutting food waste, and we're helping families get more value from every grocery dollar. On that, I want to note the incredible work of our food relief charities and our food rescue charities. In my patch, we have OzHarvest. We also have SecondBite, FareShare and Food Bank, who help us in my electorate office in Griffith supply a community pantry. We've distributed two tonnes of fresh produce through the doors of my office. I shout out all of their work. They do amazing work in this space but also a lot of community education about the role of food waste and how that can be limited.</para>
<para>The coalition voted against Labor's supermarket code of conduct and tried to block multimillion-dollar penalties for supermarkets doing the wrong thing. Labor chose to put those penalties in place. No Australian should be treated like a mug at the checkout. The Albanese Labor government is standing with families and delivering a fairer deal on the weekly shop. We are helping Australians manage the cost of living through cheaper medicines, stronger Medicare and fairer supermarket prices. Our work is clear, our purpose is firm and our priority remains Australian families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VENNING</name>
    <name.id>315434</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I like to thank the gutsy the member for Goldstein for bringing forward this important MPI today. Because when Aussie families head to the supermarket for their weekly shop, the prices on the shelf are telling a story this government will not. Since the change of government eggs are up 36.5 per cent, milk is up 30 per cent, bread is up 23 per cent and food, overall, is up 18 per cent. Every one of the 12 staples on my shopping list has risen faster than inflation itself, and that is just the weekly shop—all before our family has filled up the car or been jumped scared by their power bill.</para>
<para>While we're on the topic of power bills, I'm pleased to give this House an update on how those opposite are going with delivering on their promise to take $275 off Australian power bills. Well, electricity is up—and it is up big time—by an eye-watering 40 per cent. You might think it can't get any worse than this, but under this government it can—and it is getting worse. Gas is up more than 40 per cent, insurance is up more than 43 per cent, rents are up 24 per cent. This Labor government will do anything but take responsibility for stoking the inflation fire, pouring debt diesel on the inflation inferno.</para>
<para>Prices set here in Australia are up 4.8 per cent in a year. Inflation is homegrown and this government keeps on feeding it. The Reserve Bank says government spending will continue adding to demand, and it has downgraded productivity once again. This is the first generation in our history where our kids will have a lower standard of living than their parents. Last year, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer told Australians they had turned the corner on inflation. Yet, like most promises made by this government, they promised a feast but delivered a toastie.</para>
<para>Inflation in Australia is set well above the Reserve Bank's target. Our underlying inflation is higher than every other economy in the G7. This is not merely a coincidence. Australian families are paying more at the check-out; they are paying more on their mortgage. Yesterday, the Reserve Bank unanimously held the cash rate at 4.35 per cent—the highest rate under this government and the highest since November 2011. After 15 interest rate hikes under this government, and more than four years of poor economic management, relief is nowhere in sight. A family on an average new mortgage is paying $26,000 a year more, and that's after tax. Real wages have gone backwards by two per cent, with prices up to 16.2 per cent and wages up only 14.2 per cent.</para>
<para>Under Labor, Australians are earning less and keeping less of what they earn. Living standards have collapsed and families have tightened their belts. But there is one man who won't—the Prime Minister. More spending, more taxes, more pressure on the household budget: this is his record. We have the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. GDP per capita, which is what's important, has been going backwards in 10 of the last 15 quarters and inflation is averaging four per cent a year under Labor against 2.2 per cent under the coalition. Note: 2.2 per cent is in the target band.</para>
<para>The coalition have a plan for the economy. We will restore living standards and protect our way of life. We'll deliver lower taxes, cheaper power, less migration and more homes. It starts by cutting Labour's waste and delivering on our tax back guarantee so that Australians can keep more of what they earn. Australians have a clear choice at the next election: 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 lowers your living standards, hikes your taxes and has lost control of the economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MONCRIEFF</name>
    <name.id>316540</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to speak to the impact of this government's efforts to assist Australian families at the supermarkets, where Australians need our support, but not just at the supermarket—at the pharmacy, at the doctor, at services upon which Australians rely right across the country, including my electorate of Hughes, from Maianbar to Macquarie Fields, from Moorebank to Menai. We're doing this to combat cost-of-living pressures, because we know Australians are feeling it at the supermarket.</para>
<para>The most significant combatant to the cost of living is wages. Wages are what Australians are using to pay their rent, their bills and their groceries. Under this government, the national minimum wage and award wages have continued to increase. From July 2024, minimum and award wages increased by 3.75 per cent. From July 2026, the national minimum wage increased again to $26.44 an hour, while award wages increased by 4.75 per cent. This is a government that backs increases to wages, because we want Australians earning more and having that flow through to what they can get at the check-out.</para>
<para>But we don't just want Australians earning more. We want them keeping more of what they earn. That's why on this side we voted to cut income taxes for working Australians last year and again this year. What did the Liberals and Nationals do? They voted against it, both times. The Leader of the Opposition called it a cruel hoax when he was shadow treasurer, and senior Liberals said it was a handout. On this side, we don't believe that keeping more of the money that Australians have earned is a handout.</para>
<para>These wage increases and income tax cuts matter because the people most exposed to cost-of-living pressures are those on the lowest incomes. A government that ensures workers receive higher wages is making sure that people have more capacity to meet rising costs, not making families poorer. Under those opposite, inflation was out of control. In 2022, when this government came to office, inflation got as high as 7.9 per cent. We've been disciplined. There is more work to do on inflation, but we are acting responsibly, and now inflation has a three in front of it.</para>
<para>I want to focus on one word that the member has used in bringing this MPI, and that's 'deliberate'. This government has deliberately supported wage rises for our lowest-paid workers. This government has deliberately cut income taxes for working Australians. This government has deliberately helped with cost-of-living pressures, with measures like cheaper medicines and greater access to seeing a doctor for free through Medicare bulk-billing. There are now 23 bulk-billing clinics in Hughes—53 per cent of total practices. That's because this government is delivering on the single largest investment into Medicare in its history. That is deliberate.</para>
<para>We slashed the cost of PBS medicines to $25, saving Australians over $99 million as of today—millions of Australians with multiple conditions or prescriptions across their family saving thousands on essential medicines. That's a deliberate design feature of the Albanese Labor government's health policy. And this government is cracking down on supermarket price gouging. We're banning large supermarkets from charging excessive prices compared to their cost of supply and normal margin, with $10 million in penalties for breaches.</para>
<para>But what did those opposite do deliberately when they were in office? When those opposite were in office, they identified low wages as a deliberate design feature of the economy that they ran. When those opposite brought in a GP tax, that was a deliberate policy to introduce price signals in health care and make families think twice before accessing the care that they need. When our government proposed tough price-gouging penalties for big supermarkets, those opposite floated thought bubbles about divestiture powers not supported by a single review of competition in the sector.</para>
<para>When Australians rejected those opposite at the polls in the last election, they sent a message about the kind of government they want leading this country—one that backs them at work, cuts their taxes, reduces the cost of their scripts, makes it easier for them to see a GP and gives them a fairer go at the check-out. The adage is true: empty vessels make the most noise. Despite all the noise, the composition of the benches opposite is no accident. It's a deliberate design feature of their policies.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This discussion has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATT</name>
    <name.id>315478</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Capability of </inline><inline font-style="italic">law enforcement to respond to money laundering and financial crime</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATT</name>
    <name.id>315478</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I rise as deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to present the committee's report for the inquiry into the capability of law enforcement to respond to money laundering and financial crime. Money laundering is a serious and pervasive threat to Australia's national security, economy and community wellbeing. It enables criminals to reinvest illicit profits into further criminal activity while undermining the integrity of Australia's financial system. The ACIC conservatively estimates that approximately $38 billion in proceeds of crime was available for laundering in Australia in 2023 and 2024.</para>
<para>This inquiry was initiated in the 47th parliament and re-referred in the 48th parliament. The inquiry examined the scale and forms of money laundering, Australia's legislative framework, law enforcement capabilities and challenges, information and intelligence issues and the role of the private sector. The inquiry heard from federal law enforcement, intelligence, regulatory and prosecutorial agencies, state and territory police, the private sector, academics and others. Based on the evidence received, the committee makes 10 recommendations which collectively aim to strengthen Australia's anti-money-laundering framework, close identified gaps and position law enforcement to keep pace with an evolving threat environment.</para>
<para>Several challenges face law enforcement in combating money laundering. Technology is increasing the scale of the problem. Digital payment platforms are being exploited by criminal networks to move and conceal illicit funds at speed. Information sharing between federal agencies and the private sector, while improving through existing platforms, remains constrained. The availability of timely, accurate and shareable information is central to effective anti-money-laundering efforts. The committee recommends a significant government investment into implementing a secure, real-time, public-private information-sharing capability that allows banks, regulators and law enforcement to share financial crime intelligence instantly and respond to suspicious activity faster. A public beneficial ownership register, which would make it harder for criminals by eliminating corporate anonymity, is underway but will not be operational until 2028-29. The committee supports expediting this work.</para>
<para>AUSTRAC receives approximately half a million suspicious matter reports annually but lacks ready access to criminal intelligence databases that would allow it to contextualise and prioritise referrals to law enforcement. The committee recommends improving AUSTRAC's access to criminal intelligence databases to enhance the quality of actionable intelligence flowing to enforcement agencies.</para>
<para>Workforce capability requires sustainable investment. Agencies across the law enforcement and intelligence community face challenges in recruiting and retaining personnel with the specialist financial, technological and analytical skills required to combat modern money laundering. The committee recommends establishing a dedicated national centre of excellence to uplift workforce training across law enforcement, regulatory and intelligence agencies to ensure that investigators are equipped to analyse complex transactions across rapidly evolving digital platforms.</para>
<para>Criminal networks operate across borders, exploit jurisdictions with weaker controls and use the international trade system for money laundering. The committee notes the AFP's success in working with Five Eyes and European partners to target offshore money-laundering networks and supports continued investment in these relationships. The committee heard that our federal agencies, including AUSTRAC, the AFP and the ACIC, are accelerating their adoption of AI and advanced analytics to keep pace, and the committee encourages this trajectory. Industry partnerships are proving valuable and should be deepened.</para>
<para>The committee commends the significant achievements of Australia's law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies for continuing to perform in an exceptionally challenging environment. The committee will continue to monitor developments in the financial crime and money laundering space. I wish to thank all those who gave evidence to the committee and my fellow committee members for their contributions. To finish, I'd like to thank the secretariat staff on the law enforcement committee for their work during this inquiry and for putting this report together. I commend the committee's report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2026.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report No. 9 of 2026. In this report, the committee considers 33 new bills and 281 new legislative instruments of which it has commented on nine bills and nine legislative instruments. The committee has also concluded its examination of two bills and two instruments. In particular, the committee concluded its consideration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.</para>
<para>The committee commented on a number of measures that they would like to restrict access to the NDIS and reduce the availability of NDIS supports for participants. Depending on the availability of alternative supports and services, the measures could have an adverse impact on participants' independence and quality of life, and accessibility and affordability of disability supports and services. In this way, the cumulative impact of these measures in the bill may constitute a significant interference with the rights of a person with disability, the rights of the child, and the rights to an adequate standard of living, health and social security.</para>
<para>The committee considered that for many of the measures in the bill, questions remain regarding whether the measures pursue a legitimate objective and are rationally connected to that objective. The committee retains numerous concerns regarding the proportionality of several measures, particularly due to the lack of flexibility and the lack of adequate safeguards. The committee therefore considers that there is a significant risk that many of the measures in the bill, including the provisions that seek to tighten how permanence is to be assessed and reduce the availability of NDIS supports may not be compatible with multiple human rights, including the rights of people with disability.</para>
<para>The committee has also made several recommendations to assist with proportionality, such as requiring a person's individual circumstances to be taken into account when assessing whether treatment may be appropriate and ensuring that a participant would be no worse off if a support was provided by another scheme or service instead of the NDIS.</para>
<para>The committee also concluded its consideration of the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill seeks to make various amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, including, among other things, establishing a new Defence mental health tribunal. The committee notes that, while the new Defence mental health tribunal may be less rights restrictive than the current system, the proposed system still raises serious and complex human rights concerns. It is not clear to the committee that the service tribunal procedures relating to mental health would be compatible with the rights of a person with a disability, the rights to health, privacy and liberty. While there are some safeguards in the bill, it is not clear whether these are sufficient.</para>
<para>The committee notes that the bill would apply relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to promote legislative consistency. However, it has not been demonstrated that these provisions are themselves compatible with international human rights laws. The committee has therefore recommended that the government undertake a foundational human rights assessment of chapter 2 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental health impairment and criminal responsibility.</para>
<para>The committee has further recommended that the government consult with specialist human rights bodies regarding the human rights compatibility of the proposed measures in the bill. I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the committee scrutiny report No. 9 2026 to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>82</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7522" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>82</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Calare be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than seven members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Page be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:35]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aldred, M. R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Batt, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boele, N.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Farley, D.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Penfold, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Rebello, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Small, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Venning, T. H.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, T. R.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>83</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abdo, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Ambihaipahar, A.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Berry, C. G.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Briskey, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Campbell, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Clutterham, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Coffey, R. K.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Comer, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Cook, K. M. G.</name>
                  <name>Cook, P. A.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C. J.</name>
                  <name>France, A. A.</name>
                  <name>French, T. A.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P. P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Gregg, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Holzberger, R. A. V.</name>
                  <name>Jarrett, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Jordan-Baird, M. A. M.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Moncrieff, D. S.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>Ng, G. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. J. H.</name>
                  <name>Soon, X.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Teesdale, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>White, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Witty, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to this bill and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026. I seek leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (23), as circulated, together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 17), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">cash distribution system</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">cash-related contractual chain order</inline> means a road transport contractual chain order (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>) that is made in relation to work performed in the cash in transit industry (within the meaning of paragraph (d) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">road transport industry</inline> in subsection 15S(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 28, page 25 (after line 22), after note 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: There is an exception to this civil penalty provision in section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 28, page 26 (after line 13), after note 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: There is an exception to this civil penalty provision in section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 41, page 38 (after line 32), after paragraph (2)(f), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(fa) any relevant cash-related contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 41, page 39 (line 10), omit "undertake", substitute "undertaking".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 41, page 39 (after line 12), after subclause (3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Without limiting subsection (3), the ACCC may consult the Fair Work Commission or the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to interactions with any relevant cash-related contractual chain orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Clause 43, page 43 (after line 7), after subclause (7), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7A) Without limiting paragraph (7)(a), the ACCC may consult the Fair Work Commission or the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to interactions with any relevant cash-related contractual chain orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Clause 46, page 44 (after line 31), after paragraph (2)(b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) any relevant cash-related contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Clause 54, page 51 (after line 32), after paragraph (2)(e), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ea) any relevant cash-related contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Clause 55, page 52 (line 18), after "Note", insert "1".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Clause 55, page 52 (after line 19), after the note, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: There is an exception to this civil penalty provision in section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Clause 55, page 53 (line 3), after "Note", insert "1".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Clause 55, page 53 (after line 4), after the note, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: There is an exception to this civil penalty provision in section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Clause 63, page 60 (line 32), at the end of subclause (4), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) any relevant cash-related contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Clause 63, page 60 (after line 32), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting who the ACCC may consult, before making a service-level standard the ACCC may consult the Fair Work Commission or the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to interactions with any relevant cash-related contractual chain orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Clause 67, page 62 (line 7), after "Note", insert "1".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Clause 67, page 62 (after line 8), after the note, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: There is an exception to this civil penalty provision in section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Clause 67, page 63 (after line 6), after note 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: There is an exception to this civil penalty provision in section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Clause 80, page 80 (line 31), omit "Criminal", substitute "Crime".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Clause 179, page 193 (before line 3), before subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Use and disclosure</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">general</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Clause 179, page 194 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Use and disclosure</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">cash-related contractual chain orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting subsection (1), a person covered by subsection (2) may also use, make a record of or disclose information covered by subsection (3) in the course of or for the purposes of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) considering cash-related contractual chain orders, including proposed and draft orders; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) dealing with interactions between this Act and such orders; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) assisting the Fair Work Commission or the Fair Work Ombudsman to perform functions or duties, or exercise powers, under or in connection with the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline> that relate to cash-related contractual chain orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Reserve Bank and ACCC may impose conditions on disclosed information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Reserve Bank may, by notice in writing given to a person who is to be a recipient of information disclosed by the Reserve Bank under subsection (1) or (5), impose conditions to be complied with by the recipient in relation to the disclosed information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The ACCC may, by notice in writing given to a person who is to be a recipient of information disclosed by the ACCC under subsection (1) or (5), impose conditions to be complied with by the recipient in relation to the disclosed information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) An instrument under subsection (6) or (7) is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Clause 189, page 206 (after line 10), after paragraph (b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders under the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>, to enable those orders to take precedence over competing obligations under this Act where appropriate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Page 212 (after line 2), after Division 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3A — Interactions with contractual chain orders under the Fair Work Act 2009</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">195A Interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Notifying the ACCC of interaction with cash-related contractual chain order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a cash-related contractual chain order applies (within the meaning in section 536NR of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>) to a designated entity, or will apply to a designated entity when the order comes into operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the designated entity has an obligation (the <inline font-style="italic">competing obligation</inline>) under any of the following civil penalty provisions of this Act:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) subsection 28(1) or (2) (which relate to entering into agreements on approved standard terms);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) subsection 55(1) or (2) (which relate to entering into agreements in accordance with an arbitration determination);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) subsection 67(1) (which relates to failing to comply with a service-level standard);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) subsection 67(3) (which relates to failing to comply with an ACCC direction to comply with a service-level standard); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the designated entity reasonably believes that complying with the competing obligation would cause the designated entity to contravene a term of the cash-related contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the designated entity must notify the ACCC, in writing, within a reasonable time after forming the belief.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The notice must specify:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the details of the relevant competing obligation and term of the cash-related contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the reasons why compliance with the competing obligation would cause a contravention of the term of the order, and the conduct the designated entity considers it would not otherwise be able to engage in as a result; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the extent to which the designated entity intends not to comply with the competing obligation to prevent the contravention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Exception to complying with competing obligation in certain circumstances</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a cash-related contractual chain order applies (within the meaning in section 536NR of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>) to a designated entity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the designated entity has a competing obligation referred to in paragraph (1)(b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) complying with the competing obligation would cause the designated entity to contravene a term of the cash-related contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the designated entity has given the ACCC a notice relating to the competing obligation and the cash-related contractual chain order in accordance with subsections (1) and (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the competing obligation does not apply to the designated entity, but only to the extent necessary to prevent the contravention of the cash-related contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7513" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7509" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7508" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now be read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>87</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7520" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7521" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>87</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are four problems that remain in this bill. Firstly, the bill allows unlimited gambling advertising online. Secondly, the bill leaves predatory inducements untouched. Thirdly, on social media, it allows personalised, repeated predatory advertising when no-one is watching. Lastly, it's missing any future review to look at the consequences of the bill on gambling harm victims, the media industry and sports codes.</para>
<para>Australia has the highest gambling losses on planet Earth. That means this government, our government, does the worst job on planet Earth of protecting vulnerable people from gambling harm. In the coalition, we believe in three principles: freedom of choice, protecting kids and protecting the vulnerable. We want to apply these three principles to the bill and to those four problems I just outlined.</para>
<para>I want to be very clear. No-one on our side, or even the other side, is talking about doing anything to how you can gamble. It has never been easier to gamble in anyone's lifetime. You can gamble in question time. You can gamble in the party room. You can gamble in the bathroom. All you need is your phone—and no-one is talking about doing anything to that. No-one on our side is even talking about banning gambling advertising. We're not even talking about banning the ads. What we're talking about is protecting kids and vulnerable Australians from predatory advertising—with choice, not bans. It's just the advertising. I think it's very clear for the public listening to understand that.</para>
<para>I've socially punted, and I occasionally still do. So do many, many Australians. There's nothing wrong with that. Anyone who socially punts knows that, over time, you lose, but you do it for entertainment. That's not what we're talking about. We are not talking about that at all. What we're talking about is the parents of a young man I met, who read me a letter from him.</para>
<para>The letter said he was walking down the beach, and he talked about the addiction he had and the pull he felt. He had to pull his phone out, even though he was walking with his girlfriend and their dog, and he talked about the shame and self-hate he felt to look at the phone, to look at the odds, to put on a bet at the beach with a woman he wanted to marry. He talked about the shame he had that his mum had to take another job, in retirement, to pay off his gambling debts. And then his parents and his sister looked at me and cried when they told me he'd killed himself and that that was his suicide letter. That's what we're talking about.</para>
<para>What we're talking about is a young footballer with a gambling addiction, in his early 20s, who has a VIP manager looking after him—an older man, trying to be his mate. But this man is paid a percentage of what he gets this footballer to lose. The more he gets this footballer to lose, the more money this man takes home—performance pay. And so what does this man do? He buddies up with this footballer. He asks him what drugs he wants—asks him if he wants cocaine. He introduces him to the betting executives: 'Let's do a few lines with the CEO and the founder.' That's what we're talking about.</para>
<para>We're talking about the man in my office who was given hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonus bets, to lose millions. He was told: 'If you turn over a million dollars in the next month, we'll give you this big chunk of bonus bets.'</para>
<para>A man who loses his houses, his life and his livelihood—well, we're talking about the teacher I idolised at school. I watched gambling take everything from that man, over 15 years.</para>
<para>We're talking about protecting the vulnerable from advertising—that is it: the vulnerable, and kids. And it's surprising if anyone can disagree with that.</para>
<para>We're talking about watching the World Cup recently, where 850 kids from a local primary school in my electorate were watching Australia play Paraguay and 20 minutes before kick-off they see a bet365 ad where a talking head comes across the screen and walks them through the odds. This bothers me deeply, and I think it bothers millions of Australians deeply. We know that 80 per cent of people want to see fewer gambling ads.</para>
<para>Let's talk about the Prime Minister and his role in this legislation. For three years, the Prime Minister had the bipartisan Murphy report on his desk. He ignored it, day after day after day, for three long years. When it came time to draft the legislation, the Prime Minister capitulated—he bent to the betting companies, to the sporting codes, to the tech giants. When he did that, he ignored ordinary Australians. He ignored those people I just talked about, that this legislation should be about.</para>
<para>These vested interests have lobbyists who walk the halls of this parliament, in and out of offices. But the people who don't have lobbyists are those kids at the primary school, that teacher I had, and the young man with his betting VIP manager who's getting paid a percentage of what they can make him lose. These people do not have lobbyists. And this is the job of the Liberal Party. This is the job, I believe, of all elected representatives in this building.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister tried to stop this bill going to a Senate review, personally. He told the Senate and every Labor senator there to vote against the Senate review. They lost that vote, because the Liberals teamed up with the Greens. And that inquiry exposed exactly why scrutiny was needed.</para>
<para>What did we learn in this Senate inquiry that the PM didn't want us to hear? We learnt he didn't touch inducements. We learnt about these VIP predatory managers being paid on a percentage of losses or turnover and giving illegal drugs to people. We learnt about the unlimited gambling advertising online. We also learnt that the department was unable to explain where the three ads an hour came from or the gambling broadcasting windows. Why couldn't his department, the elected officials, explain this? Why?</para>
<para>The Prime Minister then said, at this very dispatch box right in front of me, 'Take it or leave it.' His words were:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is a major step forward, and the parliament should vote for it.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If they don't, then they do have the option of the status quo.</para></quote>
<para>That's a threat unfitting of the office of Prime Minister—the threat of a small man, a schoolyard bully. Well, the Prime Minister has lost this public debate.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, he was—he was incredibly small and tried to bully this House and this chamber into accepting his substandard legislation. I won't be lectured to about a man who stood here and told this whole parliament to take it or leave it. Do you think we should take it or leave it?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Giles</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think you should follow the rules of parliamentary debate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you think we should have taken it and left that debate? That is indefensible. The scale of this problem should shock every member of the House. It's $100 million a day that is lost—not gambled, lost. It's $100 million today and $100 million tomorrow. They are the highest losses on planet Earth.</para>
<para>ACMA—the only thing we're talking about is the ads—found that there were one million gambling advertisements aired across free-to-air television and metropolitan radio in a year, as well as more than half a million online. This advertising doesn't just tell people that gambling exists; it normalises it. It turns odds into part of the conversation with young kids at primary schools watching Australia versus Paraguay. For gambling addicts, it can provide a trigger at precisely the wrong moment to put them back into the tailspin. The first loophole they left was unlimited gambling advertising. This legislation allows it during sporting events' scheduled and unscheduled breaks. It's unlimited, all day, every day. Who drafted this? The Prime Minister needs to front up and ask those questions. Who drafted that?</para>
<para>Secondly, it completely ignored inducements. The late Peta Murphy was clear on this. This is the temerity of this man, to try and lecture me and bully this parliament to ignore that, telling us, 'Take it or leave it,' after he left that out. Thirdly, it ignores social media that uses personalised data to repeatedly target people. It happens when no-one else is watching. It happens when you're alone with your phone. All through my electorate, I see kids on their phones. The social media ban hasn't worked, and they can be targeted personally and repeatedly when no-one is watching.</para>
<para>The last thing I would say is that I commend the Labor members who stood up here today and spoke on this bill. I commend you for having the courage to do what not many do, which is talk about the need to go further, in spite of this prime minister, who tried to silence his backbench and silence his own party. I commend those Labor Party members because this is what this prime minister thinks democracy looks like: silencing his own party, trying to threaten the parliament—'Take it or leave it'—but he's been pushed into a humiliating backdown, a capitulation, because we're standing up for average Australians, and I commend those Labor Party members who are as well. That is what the Prime Minister thinks of this democracy, and that's what he thinks of your role as a backbencher. He wants to shut you up, get you into line and not have you speak out—'Take it or leave it.'</para>
<para>I welcome some things in this bill—to get gambling advertising off sporting uniforms and out of venues, restrictions on celebrities, stronger action on illegal offshore operators. Those are genuinely good stuff that will address harm. But good measures in a bill that allows those loopholes don't work. I want to be clear. We need a healthy, free-to-air television and journal television sector, a free press and a healthy free press. Because of that, I think we should look at removing what is a digital ID. They want to digitally ID every single person who logs into every single website—Facebook, Instagram, Claude, ChatGPT, Spotify, Kayo, Foxtel, Go, the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>, The Australian, the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline>, you name it! You're going to have to digitally ID yourself. It's a digital ID by stealth. Remove that. There are 20 million customers who've got 7plus and 9now apps.</para>
<para>Secondly, we need to prevent digital leakage. We can't have this leak away from Australian free-to-air providers to these tech social media giants. We need to shut that down. If that means looking at an opt-in on the social media giant, so be it. Social media needs tighter advertising. Thirdly, we need to pass a fair news media bargaining incentive to support the free press and support free TV. We should be looking at protection with AI companies for the copyright for journalists and free-to-air networks. We should look at the anticompetitive behaviours by Google on their adware and advertising platforms. We need a healthy, free-to-air sector and free journalists and press sector.</para>
<para>This should not, ultimately, be an argument between Left and Right. It shouldn't be an argument between people who gamble and those who do not. It shouldn't be a contest to see which industry lobby can get the most meetings in Parliament House. This is about whether we are prepared to acknowledge the enormous harm that gambling advertising—just the advertising—can cause and if we can design laws that genuinely reduce the harm.</para>
<para>We want the next generation to grow up loving sport without being taught to gamble on it. We may not be able to undo the damage that gambling has already done to families in Australia, but I don't want the kids, those 10-year-olds at my local primary school, who were watching to see a Sportsbet ad and be walked through the odds before they're about to do it. Those 10-year-olds want to watch the Socceroos. They want to think about the players and have pride in this country, the green and gold. They want to think about the score and the excitement of representing Australia, about how they might take that back to the football pitches in their local area or to their local teams. I don't want the first lesson, just before the game begins, to be about the odds on the game or on the first goalscorer or what you can do with a multi, and neither does the rest of Australia. So, Prime Minister, stand up, grow a backbone and listen to Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a really important debate that we are having today about protecting Australians from gambling harm, and I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging the brilliant work of Peta Murphy, the former member for Dunkley, and her committee that gave us the report <inline font-style="italic">You win some, you lose more</inline>. I want to acknowledge what she did to really elevate the voices of Australians who had experienced gambling harm and the recommendations that she and that committee made for how we can better protect all of us from that and how we can break the link between sport and gambling.</para>
<para>Through that process, I want to acknowledge everyone who has shared their own experiences of gambling harm and everyone who has advocated on this important issue—from the constituents that have spoken to me, written to me and met with me about it to everyone across this parliament who has advocated to reduce gambling harm. I also want to acknowledge Tim Costello, who has taken on some of the hardest issues in Australian politics and always does, whether it's human rights, poverty or gambling. I want to thank him as well. I want to thank everyone who is contributing to this really important national conversation that we have to have, as well as the Canberrans who have really got behind the need to protect Australians from gambling harm. As I say, so many have written to me, have stopped me in the street, have come to my mobile offices, have made a time to meet with me to discuss this. It's important, and they want to see change.</para>
<para>I have been so proud to represent my community on this and to call for the strongest possible action on gambling harm in this place. And I have been heartened to stand beside so many of my Labor colleagues, who have that same dedication on this issue. We have worked together over a long time on this, and there have been many Labor members from all around the country who have stood up on this, not just those you have seen in the media.</para>
<para>Today we are debating legislation that will make a big difference—the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, along with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026. It is likely this legislation will be further strengthened; we have listened to the Australian community and we are open to strengthening it further. This is what Labor governments do. This is what I, as your Labor representative, have done. I have listened and I have raised your voices in our government and in this place. That's what we've been doing, and it has led to delivery, which is what we are seeing today.</para>
<para>My position on gambling harm is very simple and it's very personal to me. I will always advocate for the strongest possible action to minimise gambling harm, because nothing justifies it. I have said that in so many emails to my constituents, and I want to explain it. Like so many Australians, I have seen gambling harm firsthand. Honestly, I formed my views about what governments should do about gambling harm as a 19-year-old. I want to share a little bit about my personal experience not because it's extraordinary—quite the opposite—but because it is a common Australian experience, and it shouldn't be, and because I want my community to know that I mean it when I say I will always advocate for the strongest action on gambling harm.</para>
<para>When I was a young adult living in Sydney, someone close to me who I cared about very much had a problem with poker machine gambling. I was a uni student and he worked full-time. He routinely emptied his entire bank account into a poker machine, often on payday, meaning he had no money for food or rent or anything else. I was the only person there to support him through it, but for the most part I was the only person who even knew about it—and was probably not best equipped to help someone through something like that. His story is not mine to tell, but suffice to say he was dealing with some difficult and complex issues in his own life that he had no control over. What sticks with me so much is how his gambling was so deliberately self-destructive. He was vulnerable because of the other things he was dealing with, and I think the gambling was the way he dealt with the pain he was experiencing. It offered him a way to beat the system—and sometimes he would win, and it compounded that.</para>
<para>A low point was when his housemates left the rent for him to take to the real estate agent—for younger people listening, that used to be how you could pay your rent; you took cash to a real estate agent. But he walked past the pub and he lost it all. I gave him the money. At that time I had a friend who worked with people dealing with addiction, and I ended up confiding in her about what was going on. She told me in the kindest way that I shouldn't have done that, because you need to let people hit rock bottom so that they can help themselves—easier said than done. He decided it might help if he got an alert set up by the bank, where a text message is sent every time you withdraw from your account, and he wanted it to be sent to my phone. I said I didn't think that was helpful for either of us and I didn't want that role. But he set it up, so I got a text message every time he withdrew money. I remember us having an argument one night, and he went off and, through the night, withdrew his entire account, with me receiving a text for each withdrawal until the account was empty. I was unable to contact him because his phone was off.</para>
<para>I want to be clear that I don't share these examples to reflect on him. This is what happens when people are in the grips of an addiction that is destroying their life and they can't escape it. Problem gambling is very difficult stuff. I recently met with financial counsellors in my electorate, and they welcomed the additional funding we are giving financial counsellors, as part of these reforms, to deal with gambling. They said to me that the stigma and shame around gambling is something very different to everything else they deal with. In fact, they said they will never put one of their counsellors only on gambling matters because it is that distressing to that person, and that person will burn out and leave.</para>
<para>He wanted to stop. He self-excluded from local venues, but he found he could still walk in, and, anyway, there were always more pokies to find—at that time, 24 hours a day. In the end, he went to financial counselling and he got help managing his debts, which involved losing his car.</para>
<para>I don't mean to say that, in the scheme of gambling harm, my experience is extreme. We didn't share a home. We didn't have children to support. We didn't lose a business. The story doesn't include violence or suicide. But these are things that happen in Australian homes every day as a result of gambling, and it was enough to convince me that nothing justifies the harm that gambling causes—not the good that clubs do for our community, not the revenue that goes to broadcasting or sport, nothing. Anyone who has themselves tried, or seen a loved one try, to escape problem gambling knows that. When people are vulnerable, this predatory industry draws them in and hits them where it hurts the most—with their money, which in turn impacts their ability to live and participate and have dignity, and with huge impacts on their families and loved ones. This is not about stopping people from having a punt; it is about ensuring people are not bombarded by the persistent invitation to keep gambling to beat the system.</para>
<para>My experience is with poker machine gambling, a state and territory responsibility. I want to take this opportunity to commend the work of Dr Marisa Paterson, the ACT minister for gaming reform, and what she is leading in the ACT, including the compulsory reduction of poker machines, the introduction of mandatory cashless gaming, revolutionised self-exclusion that will no longer be venue based and working with clubs towards a more sustainable model. The reforms we are discussing today, though, relate to the approaches of the gambling industry that don't even require you to walk into a club. They are on your phone, on your television, in the stadium as you and your kids watch the sport that you love. As it stands, this legislation is going to make a big difference, and we don't want to lose that fact.</para>
<para>This legislation introduces important new restrictions, including restricting gambling advertising, strengthening BetStop, banning online keno and foreign match lotteries and closing the loophole that allowed fake trade promotion and reward club lotteries. Gambling advertising will be banned on TV during all live sport in set hours and limited outside of those hours. Celebrities, athletes and influencers will be banned from promoting gambling. Online advertising will only be permitted if online platforms implement restrictions, including an opt-out function, and, if they choose not to, then the rules are clear—they can't show ads at any time to anyone. It will tackle illegal offshore gambling providers to ensure that Australia's consumer protections apply for any gambling activity, and BetStop will be strengthened to ensure that anyone recovering from gambling addiction can easily and reliably opt out of gambling marketing and inducements.</para>
<para>BetStop is an essential service that is actively improving the lives of Australians every day. It was introduced by this Albanese Labor government. Since its launch in 2023, it has supported 61,000 Australians to exclude themselves from gambling, many of whom have spoken about the positive impact it had on their lives. But it can be stronger and more effective, and the changes in this bill will improve that.</para>
<para>I am very pleased that we have listened to the community on this. We are open to further strengthening this bill, and those negotiations are continuing. We are focused on strengthening the bill to provide stronger protections for children and vulnerable people from exposure to advertising or predatory industry tactics. We know that inducements are harmful, and this was rightfully recognised by our Labor rank and file at our recent national conference. I thank our Labor membership for their advocacy in that space.</para>
<para>The inquiry in recent weeks has also shone a light on this. Another local story for Canberrans is that of Luke Bateman, a former Raider. That showed the most disgraceful and illegal inducements that were offered, and we all want to see something more done about that. Consistent with that, we are focused on ensuring that this bill strengthens measures around limiting the harm of inducements. We will continue negotiating, and I want to say to everyone in this House that I do want to see the strongest possible action that we can take on this and implore all of us to think about the people that this legislation is protecting and to think about what sport means in Australia. I also think of my eight-year-old son, who is absolutely sports mad at the moment. He knows what Sportsbet is. He knows what odds are. He's eight. I have already had to have a talk with him about gambling, and I don't think any parent should have to do that. I know that parents that I speak to are disgusted by all the advertising that they constantly see when their children are interested in sport.</para>
<para>I am really pleased that we are acting in this space, and I commend the minister for the role that she has had in this. This is not easy. This is difficult stuff. This is a big step that we are taking, and there is always more to do. That may take time or happen as part of this debate. I mean it when I say I will always advocate for the strongest action on this because nothing justifies it. I know that my friend and my 19-year-old self deserve better, and so does every Australian.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a line-in-the-sand moment, a day on which the Australian government can decide to act with integrity in the best interest of all Australians or continue to serve the best interests of its donors, lobbying groups, sporting codes and media organisations. Unfortunately, the signs at this point are that the Albanese government is going to cave yet again to its friends in the NRL and AFL—the same vested interests that gifted members in this place about $245,000 of free tickets to sporting events in the last two years alone.</para>
<para>Three years ago, every member of the Murphy inquiry agreed on 31 steps to protect Australians from gambling harm. In the thousand days since the Murphy report was delivered, the Albanese government has blown an opportunity for legacy reform. Today is possibly its last chance to redeem itself on what has become a defining issue for this government—1,000 days of inaction, 1,000 days of harm, $104 billion in gambling losses, countless lives lost to suicide.</para>
<para>Australians have the sad distinction of being the biggest per capita gambling losers in the world—$32 billion a year. About 40 per cent of that comes from people who are experiencing significant gambling harm. One in seven Australians experiences some gambling related harm every year. That's more than three million Australians annually. Almost 70 per cent of high-risk gamblers suffer behavioural or mental health issues. One in six experiences suicidal thoughts. Young Australians aged 18 to 24 are nearly twice as likely to experience that harm. We have created a generation for whom a 'multi' is as normal as a pie and chips at the footy. Close to 200,000 Australian children are exposed to moderate or serious levels of parental gambling harm every year.</para>
<para>Australians are being preyed on by an industry which is actively seeking to do them harm, whose model depends on normalising gambling behaviour from as young an age as possible, and that industry is being aided and abetted by a complicit government, which has furiously resisted attempts to make it act on this emerging crisis.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I introduced a private member's bill to have gambling harms addressed through a public health framework, because gambling harm deserves to be treated with the same rigour and resourcing as the harm that results from tobacco and alcohol. But the government wouldn't debate that bill. The legislation now before the House is a sad and sorry reflection of what happens when good policy, developed with experts and with those with personal experience, gets systemically subverted by donors, by lobbyists and by vested interests. We have a bill which fails to ban advertising on streaming services—in fact, it could increase. It includes a pathetic—sorry, 'partial'—ban on broadcast media.</para>
<para>We have a bill which completely ignores the issue of inducements, advertising and direct messaging, which can involve offers of free cash, same game multi bets, bonus bets, sign-up offers and rewards programs. Gambling companies use inducements to go after individuals who they know are at risk. They do everything in their power to get them back. Witnesses told the Murphy inquiry that, even after they'd self-excluded from one operator, they still received inducements from other operators or from affiliates, who receive a trailing commission on those referrals.</para>
<para>In Victoria, we have a coronial inquest currently investigating the suicide of a young man who was offered 500 inducements over four years. Further, last week's Senate inquiry heard of people who were offered free accommodation, $50,000 in bonus bets, free flights to sporting events, escorts, drugs—whatever they want. Inducement marketing, like cashback offers, creates a perception among young people that gambling doesn't carry any risk. They're influenced by celebrity endorsements from former sports stars, people who they admire, who are offering same game multis and bonus bets. They find themselves going down a rabbit hole. Inducements are a cynical tactic. They are used by predatory gambling companies against the most vulnerable. They are disproportionately targeting and disproportionately affecting problem gamblers.</para>
<para>The communications minister has tried to argue that the self-exclusion register, BetStop, offers a way for people to avoid inducements, utterly unconvincingly. I have heard from constituents who are registered with BetStop that those affiliates keep contacting them even though they've signalled that they want to stop gambling. Many companies have breached BetStop. Entain breached it more than 500 times and was not penalised for doing so. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has repeatedly documented breaches of the code and the harm that has resulted from them. We've banned tobacco companies from using promotions to recruit new smokers. We restrict the way that alcohol is marketed. But this government allows gambling companies to entice Australians with incentives specifically designed to increase gambling losses and harm, and inducements are only one example of how this bill falls short.</para>
<para>The transition arrangements of the bill allow uniform and venue contracts entered into before the bill's introduction to continue until 31 December 2031. So those entities which have entered new gambling related sponsorship and branding arrangements—codes like the NRL, with its recent $5.3 billion deal—will benefit from a grandfathering period of more than five years. That is a very generous gift to the NRL from the Australian Labor Party, a party which also recently gave the NRL $600 million for an expansion team in PNG. The close friendship between this government and the NRL reflects a level of generous support which is sadly lacking from the government's attitude to problem gamblers in this country. It is a travesty. The transition period should protect genuine existing agreements, not provide a pathway for generous agreements entered into while the Albanese government has dithered and delayed its response to the Murphy report.</para>
<para>Let's talk about what else is missing from this bill. If the government were serious about gambling reform, it wouldn't allow our biggest sporting codes—professional organisations that partner with the predatory gambling advertising industry in various ways with varying degrees of transparency—to continue to receive taxpayer subsidies and pay no tax on tens of millions of dollars in gambling revenue. It's estimated that the AFL receives as much as $40 million every year from betting agencies. Five AFL clubs are still sponsored by gambling companies. The NRL receives an estimated $50 million from gambling companies. All NRL clubs are sponsored by gambling companies. Between them, Australia's two largest sporting codes receive approximately $90 million every year directly from the gambling industry. Cricket Australia and the Victoria Racing Club are in the same camp.</para>
<para>None of them pay any income tax on the profits of their gambling income, but the VRC reportedly uses some of that tax-free income and donates it back to the political parties. It is a very cosy arrangement, and it is possible because, under section 50-45 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, sporting organisations are not-for-profit entities exempt from assessable income tax. This concession recognises that sporting organisations exist to promote participation in sport. We grant them an income tax exemption because they are assumed to exist for the public benefit. But many of these same organisations derive tens of millions of dollars from their commercial arrangements with a predatory industry whose business model relies on harm, loss and addiction.</para>
<para>The AFL's turnover last year was over $1.2 billion. The NRL's was $845 million. The Victoria Racing Club's was $225 million. That income is derived from profitable commercial relationships with betting companies, which means that in a cost-of-living crisis, with three million Australians harmed every year from gambling, the Australian government is happy for taxpayers to subsidise professional sporting organisations as they profit from commercial relationships with an industry that harms those taxpayers and hurts the sporting codes' supporters.</para>
<para>We don't even know the scale of this relationship. While some direct sponsorship arrangements are disclosed, there's no comprehensive public reporting of gambling related income, so Australians don't know how much revenue the AFL, the NRL, Victoria Racing Club, Racing Australia and other codes receive from clipping the ticket on every bet placed by supporters—from betting sponsorships, wagering partnerships, integrity agreements, gambling advertising, product and data fees, electronic gambling machines and other commercial and broadcasting arrangements. Although we've given these codes tax-free status, we have no insight into their sources of income.</para>
<para>I will be moving amendments to this bill to deliver reporting obligations on professional sporting organisations with a turnover in excess of $50 million. It's not on the local cricket or netball club but on those billion-dollar sporting codes. Those organisations will be required, under the Interactive Gambling Act, to report, every financial year, on their tax-free revenue from gambling sources. It's not their broader income base but their income from gambling. That is the money that is coming straight out of the pockets of their supporters and which they are receiving tax free. To enforce compliance with this reporting obligation, I'm proposing a 1,000-penalty-unit fine for failure to disclose gambling revenue. If this government were actually open, as was recommended by the Murphy report, to creating an independent national gambling regulator, then that should be the entity to enforce this reporting. The amendments will not remove the tax concession of professional sporting codes. They would simply ensure that Australia's largest tax-exempt sporting organisations are subjected to a semblance of public accountability and reporting standards for the millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that they receive.</para>
<para>Looking forward, we need the government to tax gambling related income from those codes. The sporting codes should no longer be subsidised by the taxpayer on the income that they get from gambling companies. If the sporting organisation chooses to profit from gambling, a predatory industry, then those profits should be taxed like any other income. Earlier this year, the government introduced a bill to remove the tax incentive for the research and development of gambling. It recognised then that taxpayer money shouldn't subsidise the gambling industry. The member for Griffith said, 'Public resources should not be subsidising gambling related activities.' The member for Maribyrnong said, 'Taxpayers should not be subsidising activities that entrench addiction.' The Assistant Treasurer said that the legislation was about 'not subsidising activities relating to gambling'.</para>
<para>I agree with that principle, but we shouldn't stop at subsidies provided as research and development tax incentives. We shouldn't say that taxpayers shouldn't subsidise gambling on one hand while allowing Australia's wealthiest sporting organisations to receive tens of millions of dollars in tax-free gambling income on the other. All of these issues point to political parties which are beholden to the interests of the gambling industry over the interests of the community. The Labor Party received more than $4 million in gambling donations over the last five years, including $1.5 million at the last election. The Liberal Party was about the same. In the lead-up to the Voice referendum campaign, Shaquille O'Neal visited Australia. His visit to Australia was part of an advertising campaign for the Australian online gambling company PointsBet, but he had an opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister privately, ostensibly to talk about the Voice referendum. Is it a coincidence that one of PointsBet's significant shareholders is an individual who made significant individual donations of $315,000 to the Victorian Labor Party in both the 2022 and 2025 elections? Did Shaq get that private chat with the PM because he's a long-term supporter of the Voice? Did he get it because he's a banging basketball player, or did he get it because his sponsors from the gambling industry were major donors to the Labor Party?</para>
<para>We need to reform the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ban political donations from predatory industries so that Labor's next election isn't funded off the back of everyday punters and Australians with a gambling addiction. We need better, robust political donation laws. We need to ensure that prediction markets around the electoral system are snuffed out, and we need a national lobbying act so that the major parties' relationships with lobbyists can finally be regulated. When this bill is passed, Australians will be told that this government did enough. Let me tell you now: it's not enough, and this is not the end of the line for this issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a lot of respect for the member for Kooyong, from her time before she came into this place and during her time in parliament, but it was pretty disappointing to hear her questioning the motives of what our government is trying to do here. I can say that all members of the Labor government, when we come to this place, are committed to serving our communities. They are the people who drive us and they are the people we are squarely focused on.</para>
<para>You have heard from previous members who have spoken up on this bill how passionately they feel about making sure that we are protecting those who have gambling as an addiction and that we are protecting children from making that connection between gambling and sports. You've heard from people who've sat down with their constituents and listened to really harrowing stories of the impact this has had on their lives. So I'm disappointed to hear that some people are questioning the motives of people on this side of the House, on what we are trying to do.</para>
<para>There are no easy solutions. This is a really difficult and challenging policy area, and we are trying to get the best outcomes for Australians here. We, as a country, must decide what sporting culture we want to pass on to our children. For many Australian families, watching sport today is very different from what it once was. A child turns on the television to watch a game with their parents and, before the first whistle, they see betting odds. At half-time, they see gambling advertisements. They open their phone, and the same advertisements appear again. By the end of the match, gambling has become part of the experience, and that's the problem.</para>
<para>Sport should be about the game. It should be about teamwork, belonging and pride. It should be about kicking a footy around the park, cheering from the sidelines and volunteering at the local club. It should not be a vehicle for gambling companies to reach the next generation of customers. Yet, for many years gambling advertising has become woven into the fabric of Australian sport—not because families asked for it and not because communities wanted it but because it became profitable. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 is about drawing a line in the sand and restoring balance. It's about protecting children from growing up believing that gambling is simply part of being a sports fan. It's about supporting people who are experiencing gambling harm. And it's about ensuring that Australians can enjoy the sport they love without being relentlessly encouraged to place a bet.</para>
<para>At the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling last week, we heard powerful evidence from people whose lives have been turned upside down by gambling harm; people who lost savings, relationships and homes; and people who described gambling not as entertainment but as something that consumed their lives. The inquiry made clear that gambling harm is not simply an individual issue; it affects families, workplaces and communities.</para>
<para>Increasingly, it affects people through products and platforms that are available every hour of every day. That is one of the defining features of online gambling. It follows people wherever they go. A poker machine stays in a venue, but a betting app sits in your pocket, on your phone, available all day, every day. For people experiencing harm, the challenge is not finding gambling; the challenge is escaping it. That reality should concern every member of this parliament, because gambling advertising does more than sell a service. It shapes expectations, it influences behaviour and, over time, it changes culture. When children see gambling ads before, during and after sport, they receive a message, whether we intend it or not. That message is that gambling is a normal part of being a fan—but it shouldn't be this way. That is why our government is acting.</para>
<para>We have already taken important steps to reduce gambling harm. We established BetStop: Australia's national self-exclusion registry. It means that registrants won't be able to access phone or online gambling and they won't receive direct marketing from gambling companies. More than 65,000 Australians have used BetStop to take control and seek help. Behind every registration is a person making a difficult but courageous decision. An independent review into BetStop found that it's working: 96 per cent of registrants had stopped or decreased betting online, and 78 per cent had recorded an overall improvement in their quality of life after registering. Those outcomes matter because good policy is not measured by announcements; it's measured by the difference it makes in people's lives.</para>
<para>There are further ways we can utilise and strengthen the great work of BetStop, and that's what this bill aims to do. We know that this measure is helping people take control of their lives. This bill builds on the work that we have done with BetStop. It introduces some of the most significant gambling reforms Australia has seen in years. It restricts gambling ads across television, radio and online platforms. It removes wagering ads from live sport during key viewing periods. It prevents gambling ads on radio during school drop-off and pick-up times. It prohibits celebrities, athletes and influencers from promoting gambling products, and it removes gambling branding from jerseys and sporting venues. Taken together, these reforms are designed to achieve a simple objective: to ensure that Australians, especially children, aren't exposed to the amount of gambling promotion that we are currently seeing in our daily lives.</para>
<para>We are also focused on strengthening the measures in this bill that protect children from pervasive gambling ads. That must remain at the heart of this reform, because children should not have to navigate a sporting culture saturated with betting companies before they are old enough to understand what gambling is. The ban on celebrity and athlete endorsements is particularly important, because young people look up to sporting heroes. They admire them. When professional athletes promote a product, the message can feel more like a recommendation than an ad. That influence is powerful, and it should not be used to encourage gambling.</para>
<para>The bill also recognises that modern ad battles are fought online. For many Australians, gambling ads do not simply appear occasionally; they follow them across social media, streaming platforms and websites. This bill recognises that harsh reality. Australians should have greater control over what enters their lives, rather than having gambling promotions constantly forced on them. We also know that inducements can cause real harm. Offers designed to encourage people to open an account, place another bet or keep gambling can be particularly dangerous for people already at risk, and the need to address those harms was rightly recognised by the Labor rank and file in our Labor platform at our national conference this year.</para>
<para>I want to thank our Labor members, especially those from my electorate, for their advocacy in this space. Labor members across the country have listened to their communities and to people with lived experience and have continued to push for stronger protection. Consistent with that, we are focused on ensuring that this bill strengthens measures around limiting the harm caused by gambling inducements.</para>
<para>The reforms go beyond ads. The bill also targets illegal offshore gambling operators who seek Australian customers without meeting Australian standards. If a business wants access to Australian consumers, it should comply with Australian consumer protections. The legislation strengthens enforcement powers and helps disrupt operators who attempt to avoid our laws. The bill also addresses harmful gambling products, including online keno—often described as pocket pokies. It closes loopholes that have been exploited through fake trade promotion lotteries and strengthens protections for consumers across the sector. These are practical, targeted reforms and they are reforms designed to reduce harm. And some will say that the measures don't go far enough, but I would suggest the opposite. What has gone too far is the saturation of gambling ads in Australian life. What has gone too far is the assumption that every sporting moment can be turned into a betting opportunity. What has gone too far is children learning betting terminology before they understand the rules of the game.</para>
<para>This bill is about restoring balance. Australians love sport because it brings people together, and I see that every week in my electorate at local football grounds, basketball and netball courts, cricket pitches, community clubs. People from different backgrounds, different generations coming together through sport; volunteers giving up their weekends; parents driving their kids to training; young people building confidence and lifelong friendships: that is the real value of sport. That is what deserves promotion and protection. This bill reflects the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry; it reflects the evidence; it reflects the voices of people who have experienced gambling harm firsthand; and it reflects the concerns raised by parents, educators, health experts and communities across Australia.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge the late Peta Murphy, the former member for Dunkley, whose leadership helped bring this issue to national attention. She challenged all of us in this parliament to listen to those affected by gambling harm and to have the courage to act. This legislation continues that work by putting children ahead of gambling profits, by putting people's lives ahead of unchecked ads and by recognising that reducing harm is not optional. It is our responsibility. This bill won't eliminate gambling harm overnight, but it will make a difference to the people who need it the most.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset, I want to refer to a book entitled <inline font-style="italic">The History of Gambling in England</inline>. It's from my library at home. It's from not last century, but the one before—in fact, 1898—and it's written by John Ashton. The introductory remarks at the start of this publication probably don't sit well with my contribution to this debate, but it's interesting, nonetheless. The book says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Gaming is derived from the Saxon word <inline font-style="italic">Gamen</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">meaning joy, pleasure, sports</inline>, or <inline font-style="italic">gaming</inline>—and is so interpreted by Bailey, in his Dictionary of 1736; whilst Johnson gives Gamble—<inline font-style="italic">to play extravagantly for money</inline>, and this distinction is to be borne in mind in the perusal of this book; although the older term was in use until the invention of the later—as we see in Cotton's <inline font-style="italic">Compleat Gamester</inline> (1674), in which he gives the following excellent definition of the word:—"<inline font-style="italic">Gaming</inline> is an enchanting <inline font-style="italic">witchery</inline>, gotten between <inline font-style="italic">Idleness</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Avarice</inline>: an itching disease, that makes some scratch the head, whilst others, as if they were bitten by a <inline font-style="italic">Tarantula</inline>, are laughing themselves to death; or, lastly, it is a paralytical distemper, which, seizing the arm, the man cannot chuse but shake his elbow. It hath this ill property above all other Vices, that it renders a man incapable of prosecuting any serious action, and makes him always unsatisfied with his own condition; he is either lifted up to the top of mad joy with success, or plung'd to the bottom of despair by misfortune, always in extreams, always in a storm; this minute the Gamester's countenance is so serene and calm, that one would think nothing could disturb it, and the next minute, so stormy and tempestuous that it threatens destruction to itself and others; and, as he is transported with joy when he wins, so, losing, is he tost upon the billows of a high swelling passion, till he hath lost sight, both of sense and reason."</para></quote>
<para>Now it's not a convincing argument to have a bet. The thing is, the more you bet probably the more you lose. We know that, but what I would hate to see in this debate would be for us, as the parliament—as those responsible lawmakers of the Commonwealth—to put in place regulations and laws that prohibit people from taking personal responsibility. That is what, perhaps, is before us. We live in a liberal—small 'l'—democracy, and people have choices. Some make good choices and some do not. If you gamble, chances are you are going to lose. You should never gamble more than you are prepared to lose, and you should always gamble responsibly.</para>
<para>I noted—with caution, as I stand here now, some hours after the event—when the question was asked from the crossbench of the Prime Minister in question time today. The member for Grayndler said, to paraphrase him, 'There's nothing wrong with having a bet'—he mentioned 'at the club or the pub'—and the looks of disdain from those crossbenchers when he uttered those words, or similar words, had to be seen to be believed. I do intend to come back in the next life as someone as perfect and pontificating and pious as the teals and the other crossbenchers, because everything they say is just dripping with sanctimony, dripping with virtue signalling.</para>
<para>There's nothing wrong with having a bet. I appreciate that, for some, they go too far, and that causes significant hardship in their lives and the lives of those who rely on them—their families, partners, children. It has health consequences; it does financial harm—and all the rest. I've spoken to many, many people who've been in that boat, but we cannot penalise all for the sake of a few.</para>
<para>I'm glad that horseracing has been exempted—we haven't heard all the amendments; we don't know all about the deals that might be struck elsewhere in this place that will come before this chamber and in this debate—but we need to just be cautious, particularly with whatever regulations we bring, because they'll never be enough for the crossbench. They will never be. The member for Kooyong talks about people who are affected by certain race meetings they might be given tickets to or lobbying or advocacy that they might have done to them to change their view or their vote on this particular legislation. I would think that members are above all that. They really should be, and they really are.</para>
<para>I also note that the horseracing industry, or the racing industry per se—thoroughbreds, harness racing and greyhounds—provide many, many thousands of jobs, mostly in regional Australia. Thoroughbred racing, indeed, in itself is more than 70,000 jobs, and, as I say, most of those are in regional communities. The regional race clubs provide so much charity and so much good and so much sport and so many social aspects for our country areas that I would hate to see what would happen should they close should some of the gambling aspects around horseracing be taken away. It's important that they're not, as part of this legislation, because any reduction in horseracing revenue means a reduction in horseracing clubs and the prize money that they can offer to hardworking trainers and jockeys and others in the racing industry. Horseracing should be, as it is, exempt in the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. That's the first point.</para>
<para>The other point that hasn't really been raised—I had a chat with Senator Bridget McKenzie in relation to this, and it probably is covered by this bill—is the Stawell Gift, run each Easter in Victoria. The Stawell Gift has been run for many, many decades. It's not just about a footrace between very good athletes; it's also an avenue for gambling—and it has been ever since it started. And there's nothing wrong with that. If we're going to clamp down on gambling, I would hate to think what would become of a nostalgic event such as the Stawell Gift if we all get too caught up in the regulation.</para>
<para>The late Peta Murphy, who was educated at Wagga Wagga—Kooringal High School, in fact—was a very good member of parliament. I, like most others, cried the day we heard she died. She was a wonderful Australian. She headed up a committee alongside the member for Cowper, who I also have the greatest respect for. I know that the member for Cowper, before coming to this place, was a serving officer with the New South Wales police, worked in the court system and is a strident advocate for his community. He has seen the worst of what gambling does to families and to communities—and Peta Murphy was no different. They brought out a report with more than 30 recommendations. The government has stalled on that report. The government has sat on its hands in relation to the recommendations and what that report presented to the parliament—and that is on Labor. Given the fact it was their late, great former member who headed up that inquiry, we would have expected better from Labor.</para>
<para>I would say as well that we have seen, particularly in the cigarette and vaping industry—and it is an industry, let's face it—what overregulation can do. Illegal smokes and illegal vapes is an industry in itself. Four out of five cigarettes smoked in this country are said to be illegal. They're coming in from overseas—chop-chop and the like—and that is the method of choice by those people who are conducting illegal activities. That is bikie gangs' and other nefarious groups' method of choice as to how they do business. There have been more than 100 firebombings in Victoria alone, in just one state, dealing with the illegal smoke and vaping trade. Much of that has been caused by overregulation, because people simply can't afford to buy a packet of cigarettes and pay the legal price for it—so they go underground. They go to these shops where the cigarettes are sold under the counter. Businesses that are next door to these premises which are either selling smokes illegally or, indeed, legally now cannot get insurance because of the risk of firebombing. In Australia in 2026, that is of great concern.</para>
<para>I note that this bill, the main bill, has elements in it which would see proposed bans on foreign matched lotteries and online Keno. I've spoken on a number of occasions to Ben Kearney from the Lottery and Newsagents Association. I appreciate what he has told me in relation to small businesses like those newsagents, many of which are now facing the prospect of fewer print editions of newspapers—that is, the lotteries that are on sale, the scratchies et cetera that are of Australian derivation, are in many instances their biggest form of turnover. We don't want to see anything that's going to jeopardise newsagents' future, noting, also, that with Western Australia—and you've got to give it to Roger Cook, the Labor premier there—they have very much tried to shut down the competition over the border from the Northern Territory. We read that it's all about the foreign matched lotteries, which do account for a tiny percentage of the lottery market in Australia but they're very much promoted and sold through the Northern Territory, where there are different rules and regulations. Premier Cooke would very much like to see that out because it then would lead to more activity and more money to be made for his state of Western Australia—short of actually stealing the National Rugby League grand final next year, which he has also attempted to do when the Pope visits. Good luck to him, but I digress.</para>
<para>With this particular legislation, we don't know everything that is being talked about behind the scenes and the amendments that might well come forward at the 11th hour. I know we're having a late sitting for this and I appreciate that everybody comes to this debate, apart from perhaps some of the ideas put forward by the crossbench, in a good spirit.</para>
<para>I get that there are different views amongst the government as well as different views amongst the coalition on this. But I am very much somebody who does believe in people's, certainly adult's, right to choose. At the same time, I very much applauded when then opposition leader, the former member for Dickson, stood during his budget-in-reply speech and said that there should be and there would be a ban on advertising on television during the football under a future coalition government, and that was to be applauded. I know there are ads at different times beforehand.</para>
<para>Certainly, with horse racing, once upon a time, once they jumped, you couldn't bet. I don't think that would be such a bad thing for football either during the game. I get all these exotics, I get all these different forms of gambling, but what we need to make sure is that we reach a sensible balance, and surely that is what we need in this debate. We can't be naysayers. We can't be nanny state all the time about everything. It's proven to be something that has caused so much hardship and heartache with those who smoke. Certainly, those who like to have a bet should be allowed to do that in a liberal democracy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today in support of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill and the National Self-Exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill. As the Prime Minister said this week, this package of reform is about getting the balance right. It is about allowing people who want to place a bet in their free time to do so safely, while also making sure that we are dealing with problem gambling and protecting future generations of Australians from the harm that it can cause. I want to be absolutely clear: this reform package is the strongest action against gambling that Australia has ever seen. I am sure there will continue to be debates between those who think it has gone too far and those who think it hasn't gone far enough. As I've said before, this is the hard work of government. It's not letting perfect get in the way of progress, and it's making sure we consider a raft of unintended consequences that can flow on from the decisions that we make in this place.</para>
<para>I was proud to be one of 400 delegates from around the country at the Australian Labor Party's National Conference in Adelaide a few weeks ago. Our great party's highest decision-making forum came together to recognise the significant work that our government has done to reform this industry. Our national platform recognised that children and young people were especially at risk of gambling harm and we committed to strengthening measures around inducements. The allegations we have heard in last week's Senate inquiry around abhorrent alleged inducement practices showed why this is the right path forward, and I was proud to be part of that delegation that saw those amendments pass.</para>
<para>It is my very firm view that our government always has and always will be a government that collaborates, consults and listens when different opinions are shared and that is being demonstrated in real time as our Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications work collaboratively across the parliament right now in the spirit that I think all Australians rightfully expect to ensure that we get these reforms right. The Prime Minister has said that there will be further strengthened reforms coming, and he has said clearly that we will be seeing further government amendments to this bill. It is my view that those amendments will really strengthen these reforms and make a difference in reducing the real harm that problem gambling is causing across our communities, and I look forward to seeing those amendments brought forward shortly.</para>
<para>This package is not about an arbitrary set of rules about when you can and can't see something on television, and it's not an attack on the many Australians who can and do gamble responsibly every day. This is about helping and protecting those who are losing their livelihoods, and more, because of a system that was set up to exploit them.</para>
<para>I've heard so many heartbreaking stories from people in my electorate, throughout this debate, about what problem gambling has done to them or to someone that they love. People have told me about family members gambling away homes; marriages breaking down; serious mental health impacts; and, devastatingly, lives lost to suicide. I've had people compare it to tobacco advertising and to the American gun debate. Gambling and gambling advertising has been described to me as 'insidious', 'toxic' and 'a public health crisis'. I've had parents tell me how frightened they are for their kids, particularly their young boys. One parent said that their 11- and 13-year-old children could recite the names and catchphrases of six different online betting companies. And, as one local person put it—and we've heard it in here—'The house always wins.' Our government takes all of those concerns seriously, and we have committed to real change to crack down on the harms that gambling causes across Australia.</para>
<para>We know that sport has become far too linked with gambling. Everyone should be able to enjoy sport without gambling being treated as an inevitable part of it. Aggressive marketing strategies have been designed to lure in vulnerable people who are struggling, designed to keep people addicted and designed to keep company profits propped up on the suffering of everyday Australians. That is why we are taking this strong and decisive action today. We hear the concerns of parents who want to protect their children from seeing gambling ads every time they watch the footy. Our changes seek to break that link between sport and betting and to minimise the exposure that children have to the harms of gambling advertising.</para>
<para>These reforms will reduce the overall saturation of gambling ads on television, radio and the internet. We want Australians to be in control of what gambling ads they see and where and how they see them, so that those who want to can have a responsible bet and those who don't can avoid the bombardment. So what does this mean, practically? From 1 January 2027, this bill will ban the ads on TV during all live sport between specific hours, and establish frequency caps outside of specific hours; ban gambling promotion by celebrities, athletes and influencers, who are being used to target kids and younger Australians, especially young men; ban stadium and jersey advertising; ban ads on radio at school drop-off and pick-up times; and ban online advertising, except where users have an account with an opt-out functionality to allow users to opt out of gambling advertising and apply a family-friendly account setting. Importantly, if the online platforms choose not to implement these restrictions, they will not be able to show ads to anyone, anytime.</para>
<para>These are important changes. These are changes that will make a difference. And they are the biggest changes that we have seen on gambling advertising.</para>
<para>I would like to point out that today's package of reforms is not the first step we have taken to reduce harm from gambling. It is only the latest in what I have already said is the strongest action against gambling that we have ever seen in this country.</para>
<para>Three years ago, our National Self-Exclusion Register, BetStop, was launched. Since then, it has supported around 61,000 Australians to exclude themselves from gambling, helping those struggling with it to reclaim their lives. Nearly 40 per cent of those registered on BetStop have also opted for a lifetime ban, showing the power that this platform can have in supporting vulnerable people to recover from gambling harm. Once someone is registered on BetStop, wagering companies cannot take bets from them. They can't open betting accounts for them. And, importantly, they can't directly market to them, such as through emails and SMS. As part of those reforms, wagering companies were also required to promote BetStop.</para>
<para>While the BetStop review found the system is working, we don't think enough people know that it exists. The review found that only one in four people were aware of BetStop. Of those who had placed a bet in the last 12 months, only one in three knew about this important protection measure. This legislation seeks to strengthen BetStop, to make sure that more people know about the difference it could be making to their lives by funding a standalone advertising campaign along with strengthened education campaigns to boost community awareness of BetStop. At the same time, these changes improve data matching between BetStop and industry systems and increase monitoring and compliance activities with online wagering providers.</para>
<para>This bill will also ban online keno, the rapid-draw pocket pokies. These platforms are seeing people lose up to $1,000 every three minutes, which is just not acceptable, so we'll put a stop to it. In addition, this bill is also protecting small businesses, local newsagencies and charities from harmful and emerging lottery products. These products operate through loopholes that allow them to act as a middleman, buying a ticket in the offshore lottery on someone's behalf on the claim they will deliver the winnings to them if they do win. The law doesn't allow Australians to buy tickets in offshore lotteries, and these nefarious actors have found ways to get around that, so we're putting a stop to it.</para>
<para>We're also closing regulatory gaps that allow some operators to offer lottery-style products under the guise of trade promotions and rewards clubs, because they are not always subject to consumer protections, and they can undermine legitimate charity fundraising and genuine business loyalty programs. Charity lotteries estimate these fake lotteries diverted more than $60 million from the charity sector in 2024. Closing this loophole will protect genuine Australian lotteries, including charities.</para>
<para>We're making match-fixing criminal offences consistent across Australia, improving the integrity of Australian sport and lessening its appeal as a target for criminal infiltration. On top of this, our government has also previously legislated a ban on the use of credit cards for online wagering so that you can't place bets with money you don't have. Our national consumer protection framework also includes mandatory identity verification, deposit limit tools, restrictions on inducements and direct marketing, clearer activity statements and stronger responsible gambling safeguards.</para>
<para>I do want to acknowledge the incredible work of Peta Murphy, who was a tireless advocate for strong reform on gambling. Peta's work as chair of the House of Representatives inquiry into online gambling and the <inline font-style="italic">You win some, you lose more </inline>report are what has put us on this path today. We remain grateful for all that she worked so hard for.</para>
<para>As I said at the start of this speech, I know there will continue to be strong debates on both sides of the fence about whether these reforms go too far or don't go far enough. I welcome open and transparent debates on these difficult topics, as I do around all of the tough conversations that we need to have in our community. We can only get things right when we talk about them and when we debate them, factually and transparently. Part of our job as the government is to make sure the balance is right. To achieve that, we also have to think about unintended consequences, particularly for our regions.</para>
<para>We need to be working with free-to-air television, because that industry is under enormous pressure already, particularly in regional areas like the Illawarra. We must see sport continue to be shown live and free in our communities. Local sporting clubs in the regions are also under pressure. I hear from my local clubs all the time that they are struggling to get the financial backing that they need. We don't want to see adverse outcomes in that area either. That is also on my mind, and that is why it's so important to consult, to collaborate and to work with all stakeholders on these changes. We will continue to work with the streaming platforms, with free-to-air networks and with sporting clubs to ensure that we get that balance right and to ensure that Australians can continue to watch and play the sport that they love.</para>
<para>What I would like to say in conclusion is that I truly hope everyone across our parliament can take that collaborative spirit forward as we discuss these reforms. These are reforms that Australians feel incredibly passionate about. They are reforms that Australia needs, and our communities rightly expect that these discussions are undertaken in good faith.</para>
<para>Australians want to see these laws passed. They want to see strong action taken, and I would really call on all members of this place to work constructively with the government to see that happen. This doesn't have to be the end of the road. These are big changes. These are important changes. They steer us in the right directions, and they put protections in place that have been needed for decades, just like in changes with tobacco and just like in changes with alcohol. None of these changes happened with one piece of legislation, with one change in one moment of time. We started down a road, and we made adjustments that were appropriate over time.</para>
<para>I'll say it again, because it is so important: these are the biggest changes that Australia has ever seen when it comes to gambling advertising. No government has ever had the guts to make this sort of change. Only the Albanese Labor government has taken this on because we are not afraid of hard work, of having hard conversations with our community and with industry. Only the Albanese Labor government has tackled this systemic problem that has been growing for generations, and we'll keep working to protect local communities now and into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 wastes a generational opportunity to improve our gambling laws. The Greens just can't vote for the bill in its current form. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"declining to give the bill a second reading, the House also notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) every day, vulnerable Australians are bombarded with gambling ads designed to keep them betting, even when they are trying to stop;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Australians should have the right to enjoy sport, and to go about their lives, free from predatory gambling advertising; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) passing this bill would be a massive favour to the rich gambling corporations that are ripping off Australians, robbing people of their livelihoods and taking money from struggling families".</para></quote>
<para>The government is responsible for safeguarding the Australian public from harm, including the serious harms caused by gambling. That is ultimately, fundamentally what we are discussing and debating in this place today—this government's responsibility to everyday people, to all Australians. But how can the government seriously consider reform to the gambling industry when they refuse to acknowledge, let alone address, the influence of gambling lobby?</para>
<para>Meaningful action on gambling reform cannot occur without addressing the pervasive, insidious influence that corporate donations and corporate access have on politics and policy. The harmful impacts of gambling on physical and mental health are absolutely beyond doubt. For years, Australians have been the biggest gamblers in the world per capita. We know this problem is getting worse, with Australians losing $36 billion to gambling last year. Genuine gambling reform must take aim at the industry's most harmful practices, including their predatory online advertising and inducements.</para>
<para>This bill takes no action on inducements. It fails to create a national regulator and actively weakens advertising restrictions on online streaming. This bill ignores most of the Murphy report's recommendations. It includes carve-outs and special deals for big gambling companies. This bill is absolutely riddled with loopholes and must be amended if it is to make the positive difference we all so urgently need.</para>
<para>Prime Minister, is the gambling lobby in the room with you right now? Have they been shaping the government's gambling reform laws? Three in four Australians support a total ban on gambling ads. Four in five Australians support banning gambling ads on social media, online, in stadiums and on players' uniforms. Nearly four in five Australians agree that government policies should aim to reduce the time people spend on gambling, and nearly nine in 10 Australians—nearly 90 per cent of Australians—support banning gambling ads during prime-time TV hours for families and children. And yet, when looking at the government's proposed gambling reform laws, it's clear that the wishes and best interests of the Australian people were not their primary concern.</para>
<para>Perhaps, if you can believe it, there might have been another set of interests influencing their decision-making, the interests, possibly, of the gambling lobby—putting their finger on the scales, directing the government and ensuring that the gambling industry avoids proper regulation, scrutiny and consequences. Could it have something to do with the Labor government accepting $4 million in donations from the gambling industry in the last several years? Could it, possibly? When it comes to gambling reform in Australia, it seems the House always wins. You vote. Corporations don't. So why is it that corporations—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Ryan, I'll just remind you to direct your comments to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>keep having more say than all of us? Why is it that this Labor government that promised change and promised integrity is giving us more of the same? It's the latest in a decades-long series of governments who—let's face it—sell out everyday Australians. You're the voter—thank you, Chair! Australians are the voters, but it's gambling corporation executives who sit at long, fancy dinners with government ministers. So it's gambling execs who get to make sure Labor's advertising laws are weak and ineffectual. Australians are the voters.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're sounding desperate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it is a desperate situation we're talking about here. People are dying. They're losing their livelihoods and their lives. I think it's serious, but it's gas corporations who funnel millions in donations to the election campaigns of the major parties. So these corporations get our gas for free and don't pay any tax. Australians are the voters, ordinary people, but it's the AI companies who have multimillion-dollar sophisticated lobbying operations. So it's AI companies that get their destructive data centres fast-tracked with little to no regulation or public control. Australians vote. Corporations don't.</para>
<para>Here's the thing. We can actually change this, and it starts by electing people who don't take money from big corporations, who don't do dinners with corporate execs and lobbyists, and who will stand on the side of everyday people. Say what you will about us in the Greens, but we know whose side we're on.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure you will, but we know whose side we are on, and we are on the side of ordinary Australians.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wilkie</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Too often in Bennelong I meet families devastated by a business model treating gambling addiction as a source of profit. Before I was first elected, throughout my first term and since the last federal election, gambling reform has been an important ask of locals in Bennelong, rightly so. Like many in the Labor caucus, I've been working diligently since the day I was first elected to bring our government to this point. Legislation before this House to bring the strongest gambling reform since Federation is being debated, and I have every hope that it will pass this parliament stronger than it is right now. As I said before the election, I was sick of seeing sport and gambling go hand in hand. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 seeks to break that link. As I said after the election, gambling reform was unfinished business for this reforming Labor government. With this bill we seek to get progress that our communities have been crying out for, for some time.</para>
<para>Beyond the statistics of gambling harm, the stories are gut wrenching. Gambling harm is insidious and must be addressed. The bill we're debating today, late into tonight, is the strongest gambling reform brought to this parliament since Federation. It builds on the last set of gambling reform delivered by this very Labor government in our first term. Despite the noise you might be hearing from our political opponents, this bill is another significant step being taken by this Labor government to protect Australians from gambling harm. It will protect children from gambling ads, it will break the link that currently exists between gambling and sports, and it will do much more, because it has to. Australians lost approximately $32.2 billion on legal gambling in the year 2023-24. That's the highest per capita loss globally, at $1,521 per person. These losses have grown 26 per cent since 2018-19. That trajectory is heading the wrong way.</para>
<para>Pervasive wagering ads make it hard for people to distinguish between watching sports and betting on them—from kick-off odds to updates during breaks to social media and influencer promotions, all while children and vulnerable adults are watching. We should no longer accept that a 10-year-old cheering for their team should be marketed to by gambling companies. This bill will end that.</para>
<para>What surprised me over the discourse is that some antigambling advocates have claimed that this bill is equal to or worse than the status quo. I say to them that that is an absurd proposition. Before us now is the option for Australian families who stream to remove gambling ads from their homes forever. That in itself is not worse than the status quo. That is reform and that is progress. We on this side of the House know that progressive reform is always hard to achieve but is always worth fighting for.</para>
<para>To those who claim that this reform is meaningless, I'll now take the House through the detail of this bill, because the detail matters. Schedule 1 introduces a legislative ban on wagering advertising during live coverage of sporting events across every platform, not just broadcast free-to-air television. It bans gambling advertising on radio during school drop-off and pick-up times, when parents and kids are travelling together. Outside those windows, on broadcast television it caps the frequency of gambling ads to no more than three times in any 60-minute block, it bans wagering advertising on sporting uniforms and inside sporting venues and it bans athletes, celebrities and influencers from being used to promote wagering products. We know influencers are being used to deliberately target kids and young men. That stops should this legislation pass this parliament.</para>
<para>Critically, this bill extends the advertising regime online to social media, to news websites, to streaming platforms, to podcasts, to search, to Spotify. If an online platform wants to keep showing wagering ads to Australians, the obligation is on that platform to keep those ads away from under-18s and from people who have opted out. If a platform cannot do that, the rule is simple: no ads at no time to anyone. That is the level of seriousness that this gambling problem demands, and that is the level of seriousness that this government has brought to this issue.</para>
<para>Then, of course, there's BetStop, the national self-exclusion register, which deserves particular attention in this debate. Since it launched in August 2023, BetStop has supported more than 63,000 Australians to exclude themselves from gambling. As of this year, more than 39,000 of those registrations remain active, meaning tens of thousands of Aussies are right now protected from the marketing and inducement tactics of an industry that would otherwise be chasing them daily.</para>
<para>But the statutory review of BetStop found something confronting: only one in four Australians knows that BetStop exists. Even amongst people who placed a bet in the last 12 months, awareness sits at only one in three. A self-exclusion register that two-thirds of active bettors have never heard of is not doing its job. We want to see the community know that there are protections available for them and those who are vulnerable to addiction. This bill seeks to address that deficiency. It strengthens BetStop's legislative framework. It improves clarity and the user experience and implements recommendations of that statutory review. And this government will back that up with a national awareness campaign, because a protection nobody knows about is a protection that cannot help anyone.</para>
<para>In some aspects of the bill, it goes further than the Murphy review. One of those is by banning online keno. These are basically pocket pokies—high-intensity gambling that stays with you 24/7 in your pocket on your person. We're outlawing foreign matched lotteries that just siphon money out of Australia with zero benefit to our community. This bill also closes the loophole around fake trade promotion lotteries, where some operators dress up a straightforward lottery as a rewards club or trade promotion to dodge the consumer protections that genuine lottery providers in Australia are subject to. Australian charities estimate that these fake lotteries diverted more than $60 million away from the charity sector in 2024 alone. That's $60 million that should have gone to causes Australians thought they were supporting. This bill closes that gap.</para>
<para>I want to address something directly, because it goes to the heart of why this debate matters. We have never pretended that this bill is the final word on gambling reform in this country. We have said from the outset that we would work with all members and senators in good faith to get gambling reforms legislated and to keep strengthening them as we go. We have listened throughout an extensive consultation process, and we've heard the community loud and clear on the issue of inducements.</para>
<para>Last week's Senate inquiry showed this parliament allegations of some of the most toxic versions of inducement conduct in this industry, and the government condemns those alleged actions in the strongest possible terms. Throughout this debate and these negotiations, none of us can walk away from that. We are working with the parliament right now to strengthen this bill further and to provide stronger protections for children and vulnerable Australians while striking the right balance. We are focused on ensuring that this bill goes further on limiting the harm of inducements and on utilising and strengthening the great work that BetStop already does.</para>
<para>I also want to take the time to acknowledge the Labor Party rank and file here too, because this issue has been a hot topic in branches right across the country and, of course, in Bennelong. It was their advocacy that saw the ALP platform recognise for the first time the heightened risk of gambling harm facing children and young people, and their advocacy committed our party to strengthening protections around inducements and much more. This is what a broad party membership engaging with this issue looks like—a platform commitment borne out of years of advocacy from our own membership right across the country. I'm hopeful that the bill that leaves this parliament supported by both houses addresses much of what is in the Labor platform.</para>
<para>That brings me to the point I want to leave this House with today. This government is the only political force in this building that has actually done the work to get real change on gambling reform into legislation. We are the ones who announced this suite of reforms. We are the ones that ran the consultation and who sat down with the state and territory governments, with banking and payments providers with broadcasters, with digital platforms, with sporting codes, with racing organisations and with antigambling advocates to get these settings right. We are the ones who have been in this chamber and in the Senate negotiating clause by clause in good faith to get this bill passed rather than talking about it. Every other voice in this debate has had the option to engage constructively, and I welcome every one of them who has. But it is this government, the Albanese Labor government, that has runs on the board in this space.</para>
<para>We have legislated the ban on credit cards for online wagering. We launch BetStop and will strengthen it. We legislated the restriction stopping gambling companies from accessing research-and-development tax concessions, and we have now brought forward the most significant suite of gambling advertising reforms that any Australian government has ever attempted to legislate. There's too much at stake for this bill to fail, and we have made decisive action to ensure that children and those who are suffering from gambling harm are protected. We want to break the link between the sports we that love to watch and the pressure to bet on them. We want a future where we celebrate skill, teamwork and the joy of watching our friends compete at their best and not become obsessed with the odds on the corner of the screen.</para>
<para>This government has done the hard work. We have consulted and negotiated in good faith at every step, and this government will keep going, with further reforms still to come, because getting the balance right on gambling harm is not a once-off exercise. It's an ongoing responsibility. The time for reform is long overdue. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Regrettably, this bill is diametrically opposed to the Murphy report. The Murphy report was the work of a unanimous cross-party parliamentary committee. It made 31 recommendations. It is, without doubt, the finest blueprint for reform this parliament—in fact, this country—has ever seen. It had flagship recommendations, like a phase-out of gambling advertising over several years. It had a flagship recommendation of a complete ban on inducement, and a flagship recommendation that there be a genuinely independent national regulator.</para>
<para>What have we got instead? We've got this half-baked bill from the government that's going to be supported by the opposition and that almost entirely ineffective—no ban on gambling advertising, no ban on inducements and no independent regulator. In fact, I think the saying is 'putting lipstick on a pig'. To sit in my office and sometimes sit in this chamber today and to hear speaker after speaker after speaker celebrating this as the best thing that's ever been done in this country for gambling—it's downright misleading. If this bill is the best thing this country's ever seen, then, heavens, this country hasn't seen much! This bill is going to do very little to make gambling safer in this country. I agree with the Prime Minister. People should be allowed to have a punt. But where I disagree with the Prime Minister is that it should be safe. We should be focusing on effective harm-minimisation measures.</para>
<para>So how do we explain this? How do we explain the fact that we had this fabulous blueprint, yet this bill is diametrically opposed to it? You might have heard me speculate before in this place about why it is so. Why are governments of either colour so reluctant to implement effective gambling reform? I've offered views on how governments are scared stiff of the gambling industry, scared stiff of the major media outlets and scared stiff of the power of the major sporting codes, and I think that's still in the mix. I've also speculated that some in the government are, in fact, fellow travellers and best mates with the leadership of gambling companies and media companies and major sporting codes. More recently, I've pondered that there's an element of a lack of humanity among some members in this place and that people don't care enough about the shocking, shocking human toll of gambling addiction.</para>
<para>Sadly—through you, Deputy Speaker, to the opposition—the opposition haven't gone nearly far enough and haven't put enough pressure on the government. I know there are a lot of good people in the opposition who want more effective reform, and I think the leadership of the opposition should have listened to them. Listen to former prime minister John Howard, who, to his credit, has been a leading advocate for reform in this country. I was delighted to meet with former prime minister John Howard in his office several months ago to discuss gambling reform, and it was clear that the old leadership of the party was right on board to have effective reform.</para>
<para>I'm going to add to those reasons for a lack of effective reform something that I raised in question time today, and that is the corruption of good governance by the vested interests in the gambling industry, the media companies and the major sporting codes. It may not be a criminal corruption, but it's a corruption of proper process. It's a corruption of the imperative on all of us here to listen to public opinion and to formulate evidence based policies in the public interest.</para>
<para>Let me just dwell on this for a moment. Let's talk about money; let's follow the money. There was a very good article in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> on 22 July. The journalists, Natassia Chrysanthos and Paul Sakkal—I hope I've pronounced those correctly—actually went to the trouble of doing the homework. They tallied up the figures. They've calculated that, in the four years between 2020-21 and 2024-25, according to donor records, the Labor Party received about $5 million in donations from gambling companies. I would add the coalition received about $4.5 million in donations from the gambling companies. You can't tell me that any organisation—or individual, for that matter—is going to invest that sort of money and not expect a return on that investment. If you donate a modest amount of money, you're supporting a candidate or a party. If you donate what adds up to $9.5 million in just four years, you're not supporting a party; you're buying a party. It saddens me to say that. It is an argument for much more effective reform in this space.</para>
<para>To those thumping big sums of money, you then add all of the lobbying, the hospitality, the tickets to events and so on. It influences people, but not in the simple way that we accept parties and candidates can be lobbied, can accept donations and can make their own decisions about policies. That's accepted. I'm not disputing that. But surely there's a line in the sand. Surely there's a point at which those sorts of sums of money are just so big that we would agree they are unacceptable.</para>
<para>Today, as a result of my concerns—and I flagged this in my question to the Prime Minister in question time today—I referred this matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I'll read the letter into the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record. It's only very short. It will only take me a couple of minutes. I sent this to the NACC today. I wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I write to the Commission to express my concern that individuals in the Federal Government, when formulating gambling reform policy, have been improperly influenced by individuals in the private sector, most obviously but not exclusively through donations, gifts, hospitality and personal relationships. This has resulted in policy so clearly at odds with research, public opinion and the public interest, that the implementation of such policy could be characterised, in my opinion, as serious corruption in the Commonwealth public sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">What finally prompts me to raise this matter with the Commission is an article in … <inline font-style="italic">The Sydney Morning Herald</inline> … and <inline font-style="italic">The Age</inline>—</para></quote>
<para>which I've already referenced—</para>
<quote><para class="block">on 22 July 2026. If this article is accurate, then one or more individuals in the private sector stand accused of affecting the impartial exercise of powers or performance of official duties by one or more public officials, and one or more public officials stand accused of a breach of public trust and an abuse of office.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I acknowledge that the Commission is not empowered to investigate governments, and also that governments have the right to accept donations, be lobbied and make their own policy decisions. Nor do I make any allegation against any specific individual and trust the Commission to investigate the matter thoroughly. However, in my opinion, individuals in the Government are acting so egregiously in response to individuals in the private sector that all reasonable limits on government behaviour have been exceeded. If this doesn't "cross the line", then I dread to think what would.</para></quote>
<para>Senator David Pocock, in effectively summarising this matter last week, described the situation with the lack of effective gambling reform in the face of the tragic human toll of gambling addiction in this country. He used the word 'tragic'. I think that's a good word, but I'll add another word to what Senator Pocock had to say. That's the word 'betrayed'. The government, with this bill, is betraying all of the people in this country with gambling addiction. With this bill, the government is betraying all of the people in this country who are judged to be at high risk of developing gambling addiction. With this bill, the government is betraying all of the loved ones of those people. With this bill the government is betraying the thousands of people who have suicided from gambling addiction and the untold number of people who love those people who suicided. With this bill the government is betraying the people who have had money stolen by gambling addicts. We know from research several years ago that in Victoria gambling addiction is the second-most prevalent cause of crime in that state after drug addiction. There are so many layers to this, and the government, supported by the opposition, is betraying all of those people.</para>
<para>Let's remember, this is an intensely human story. The speeches today—and I'm guilty of this myself—have had lots of facts and figures and dates and numbers and dollars but let's not forget this is an intensely human story. The human tragedy of this is difficult to do justice to. I'm sure that many of my colleagues have met with the sorts of people I'm describing—the people who are battling addiction, the people who have come out the other side, the families whose loved ones have an addiction; the families, the mums and dads, the brothers, the sister whose son or daughter or brother or sister has suicided.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>People committed suicide over live export bans—didn't see you over that one.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd make the point that I have a right to be heard, and this constant heckling is not adding to the quality of this debate.</para>
<para>We've all met with these people. Surely, we all understand we have to do whatever we can to put an end to this, or to at least reduce it and we were given that blueprint in the Murphy report. Surely, we should have said, 'Hurrah, this is great. This is the blueprint. This is what we'll implement. The government and the opposition and the crossbench, we will all stare down the gambling companies. We will stare down the media companies. We'll stare down the major sporting codes who profit from gambling.' This was the opportunity for this parliament, all of us, to show real integrity. But at the last minute we've baulked and that's really, really sad.</para>
<para>Probably because I'm quite outspoken about gambling reform, I've become quite a lightning rod for people to tell me their stories, like the family where mum had been gambling, losing all of the housekeeping money and keeping it secret from dad. She was keeping secret even the fact that time and time again she was put on repayment plans by Aurora Energy for the power bill, and eventually Aurora had to cut the power off. There was a family—mum, dad and a couple of really young kids—living in a house in Hobart with no electricity, no lights, no heating, no hot water. I don't know what became of that family but that's not an unusual story. That's the human side of this. Gavin Fineff, a former financial adviser, is in prison in New South Wales for stealing millions of dollars from his clients. Now, I don't in any way justify that theft. That was a serious crime. Gavin, to his credit, acknowledges it's a serious crime and he has to do his time. But think of the effect on Gavin. He had an addiction. He couldn't help himself. Think of the effect on all of his clients who lost millions of dollars. I mean, again, this is the human face of this.</para>
<para>I will not support this bill. Now, I know there's a line of thinking that some reform is better than no reform, and, to a degree, that's right. To a degree, I would agree that sometimes you just have to suck it up, accept that that's the best you're going to get and not support it. I notice a number of government speakers said 'this is just the start'. I don't believe them. I think what's going to happen now is the government's going to say 'the job's done', the opposition's going to say 'the job's done' and this will be the end of any sort of meaningful reform—or any reform—for years and years and years, because they will keep saying 'the job's done', and that's going to mean that all of the main parts of the job will not be addressed. We won't get this ban on these pesky ads. We won't get this national regulator to do a much better job than this nonsense regulator in the Northern Territory that we've got at the moment. We're still going to have inducements. I'll be delighted if I'm proven wrong. I'll be thrilled if I'm proven wrong and in the rest of this parliament or maybe the next parliament there is strong and effective reform. But I just don't think it's going to happen.</para>
<para>I'm not going to support these bills, and I'm going to keep agitating as loudly as I can. The government and the opposition are yet to get the job done; that's the fact of the matter. I just hope that, over the coming years, the leadership of both sides understand the human imperative of this and the financial imperative. And, heavens, the political benefit to them—this was a chance for the government or the opposition to stare down these powerful interests and show real character. They would have benefited at the next election, I reckon—but not now. The only reason both sides will get away with it is they're in cahoots. They're in lockstep, and they agree that very limited reform is all that the community is going to get.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Clark for his contribution—a passionate point of view.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MONCRIEFF</name>
    <name.id>316540</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Problem gambling is one of the most urgent public health challenges facing Australia today. In our digital age, the pull of poker machines is not limited to the four walls of a local club or pub. The rise of smartphones, online betting apps and aggressive advertising means gambling is no longer something people need to seek out; it can follow Australians into their homes, their workplaces and their pockets, available 24 hours a day. The siren song of online gambling rings from the phones in our pockets, erupts on our TV screens while watching footy with our families and flashes on our feeds, beckoning us to try our odds. Aggressive online advertising follows us home on our smartphones and makes it harder for those at risk to escape their influence.</para>
<para>The corrosive impact of gambling advertisements is not restricted to those of us who are old enough to enter a licensed venue; it is ever present on television programs and screens watched by adults and children alike. Odds displayed before matches, bookies during breaks, betting promotions seamlessly integrated into the sporting experience—these accompaniments to the sport programs we watch are completely normalised, like chloroform for the mind. The coupling of gambling ads with sport sends a strong signal to viewers that the evening cricket or footy is best enjoyed with a bet.</para>
<para>For years, Australians have been exposed to betting advertisements throughout sporting broadcasts. Odds are displayed before matches, bookmakers advertise during breaks and betting promotions are increasingly integrated into the sporting experience. Gambling is presented alongside the game itself, creating the impression that placing a bet is simply another way of participating in sport. The linking of online gambling with sports is a pernicious bait-and-switch for young people.</para>
<para>Gambling ads are prevalent. A comprehensive report from the Australian Gambling Research Centre estimated that 78 per cent of Australian adults reported seeing or hearing a gambling advertisement at least once a week, with 41 per cent being exposed four or more times per week. If the link between gambling inducements and behaviour was weak, there might be limited reason for concern. But a growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. That same report highlighted that exposure to gambling ads had the greatest impact on young people aged 18 to 34 and people at risk of gambling harm. One in five young women and one in seven young men reported that they started betting for the first time after seeing an advertisement. Among those who were at risk of serious harm, two in five reported trying a new form of betting and another two in five bet on impulse as a result of seeing or hearing these advertisements.</para>
<para>Similarly, an international meta-analysis suggested a positive association between exposure to gambling advertising and gambling related attitudes, intentions and behaviours. Yet another study on gambling behaviours in Australian secondary school students found an association between online gambling ad exposure and gambling behaviours, and warned that young people are increasingly exposed to media promotion and advertising of gambling.</para>
<para>The empirical evidence is increasingly clear that gambling inducements do produce their desired effect, inciting susceptible gamblers to test their odds online. We know that the human cost of gambling can be severe. Its impact does not stop with problem gambling. On average, for every person suffering gambling harm, around six others—family and friends, colleagues and kids—experience the second-hand effects through financial pressures, stress and strained relationships.</para>
<para>The scale of problem gambling in Australia is immense. Australians collectively lose upwards of $30 billion through poker machines and online gambling every year. While many who gamble do not develop serious problems and might enjoy the occasional slap or punt, the personal consequences for those at risk of addiction can be shattering: savings eroded, pay cheques fed to poker machines, homes liquidated and families destroyed. I wish this were hyperbole, but it just isn't. There are countless stories attesting to this reality. This morning I met with representatives from the Salvation Army, Anglicare and UnitingCare, who described some of the profound personal tragedies they witness every day in their work, especially as financial counsellors.</para>
<para>It's not only financial counsellors, though, that struggle to cope with the fallout. Gambling harm bleeds across all social services. It's not enough to have a disclaimer, telling viewers to gamble responsibly, at the end of advertisements. Those struggling with gambling addiction are highly susceptible to these slickly produced ads and are not making a detached purchasing decision. The whole point of gambling ads is to induce a behaviour, and they are enormously effective at that goal.</para>
<para>It is clear that Australians are fed up with aggressive online gambling ads. They know that it's not just a matter of individual choice. Gambling ads prey on those struggling with addiction and those at risk, and the remit of their impacts extends well beyond the affected person. Australians recognise gambling harm for the public health issue it is and want Australian governments to take meaningful action to reduce the harms associated with problem gambling.</para>
<para>The bill that is before us today represents the strongest gambling reforms introduced in this parliament's history. It's a wide-ranging package that is evidence based, painstakingly consulted upon and informed by the lived experience of those who have suffered from gambling harm. The Albanese Labor government is serious about protecting young Australians and vulnerable people from online gambling. This bill spans restrictions on wagering advertisements and increased enforcement action against illegal gambling services. It strengthens BetStop and addresses harms from online lottery products. It means fewer gambling ads, a stronger and more accessible BetStop and a crackdown on dodgy video game lotteries. It will minimise our kids' exposure to wagering advertising and end the obscene saturation of advertising across the internet, over the airwaves and in our living rooms. The legislation involves the Australian Communications and Media Authority, governments across all states and territories, broadcasters, digital platforms and streaming services, sporting codes, wagering service providers, lottery providers, rewards club providers and banks, who will all be required to take action to implement the measures.</para>
<para>We want Australians to be in control of their exposure to gambling ads and to be able to sit down with their families without incessant inducements intruding on their night. This bill is a move to sever the link between sport and problem gambling, letting kids grow up enjoying sport and not conflating the games they love with online gambling. Under these laws, gambling ads will be banned during all live sport between 6 am and 8.30 pm, with a cap of three ads per hour outside of sport between these hours. Gone will be promotions and endorsements by celebrities, athletes and influencers targeting kids and younger Australians. Jerseys and stadia are getting a makeover, with the removal of all gambling insignia.</para>
<para>Morning drop-offs and afternoon pick-ups will be free from inducements over the radio, and a ban on online advertising will apply to all sites and platforms, including social media, news websites, Spotify, podcasts, streaming services, YouTube and search engines. The onus is on online platforms to implement these restrictions. If they choose not to, our message is clear: it's all or nothing. If they insist on running wagering advertisements, they will be banned from showing ads entirely—at any time, to anyone.</para>
<para>This bill goes beyond gambling advertising. It confronts illegal offshore gambling providers and ensures that anyone participating in online gambling in Australia does so with the safety of our national consumer protections. The bill strengthens BetStop, the national self-exclusion register, so that Australians grappling with gambling addiction can easily and reliably opt out of inducements. BetStop is a critical support service for many Australians. Since launching in 2023 it has helped more than 61,000 Australians exclude themselves from gambling advertisements, and many have attested to the beneficial impact it has had in their lives.</para>
<para>But BetStop can be even better. The statutory review of BetStop found that only one in four people are aware it exists. Even among those who placed a bet in the last 12 months, only one in three were aware of its existence. Every Australian should know where to turn for help and how to exclude themselves from online gambling inducements. That's why this bill will incorporate a national campaign to raise awareness of BetStop. Online Keno and Pocket Pokies, with rapid-draw format, high frequency of play and substantial spending allowances, are another prominent issue. These platforms can cause significant harm, with Australians able to lose up to $1,000 every three minutes. They will be banned under this proposed legislation.</para>
<para>We are also cracking down on foreign matched lotteries that allow Australians to buy tickets in offshore lotteries. They operate through legal loopholes that allow them to pose as a middleman, buying tickets on someone else's behalf while claiming that they will deliver the winnings if they are successful. It's as shady as it sounds. There are no guarantees that the offshore lottery would honour the ticket. I've been informed by social workers of cases where clients have purchased such tickets and experienced severe distress when their winnings were not paid out as advertised.</para>
<para>Other kinds of fake lotteries can be just as damaging. Australian charities have estimated that fake lotteries simulating charity fundraising and genuine business loyalty programs diverted more than $60 million from the charity sector in 2024. Closing these regulatory gaps will allow genuine Australian lotteries and charities to receive this revenue.</para>
<para>This bill is substantial in both its legislative breadth and the positive impacts it will have in reducing gambling harms by cracking down on online inducements. We acknowledge that many in the community and in this place have strong views and passionate proposals of their own. Of course, we will continue to listen to and consult with those affected for as long as gambling harm remains an issue in our society. The consultation for this bill has included more than 80 organisations spanning 10 sectors, including state and territory governments, harm reduction advocates, broadcasters, sporting organisations and gambling organisations. Fifty-nine written submissions were received, and feedback has been incorporated into the final bill. Stakeholders were invited to attend round tables on each of the four pillars in this bill.</para>
<para>This is a long road that governments of all levels, organisations and civil societies must traverse to meaningfully combat gambling harm. But the time for delays, for inquiries and for setbacks is over. Those who would prefer to wait to push back the passage of this bill in an endless procession of debate, to continue kicking the can down the road for the next generation, must recognise that lassitude has its cost. These reforms must commence from 1 January 2027. Debate, discussion and democratic contest is welcome, but action must be taken. The timely passage of this bill is of the utmost importance to ensure that families, victims of gambling harm and children can have the confidence to navigate the online world free of endless gambling inducements, without delay. That's why I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As some of the members opposite like to taunt, on such important subject matter, indeed it is an opportunity to talk about this legislation and the consistency around making sure that we protect children—something that's core to the Liberal mission—while also supporting people's freedom to choose, to be informed and to make conscious and responsible decisions for themselves. So I always welcome the taunting of Labor members, who don't understand liberalism and don't understand the foundations of a free society because, at every point, their objective, sadly, seems to be to directly assault it and violate it.</para>
<para>It's a common story on a Saturday night for a parent—let's say, a mum—to be sitting on the couch with their son or daughter. Of course, they're often watching sport—and, hopefully, it's the Demons flogging Collingwood, or, at least, how they flogged Freo last Sunday afternoon! The suspense builds. It's the third quarter, with maybe five or six points in the game, and mum is watching the game, but she's also watching her son, because she wants to know what he is watching. Is he someone focused on the sport, and believing in physical prowess and human achievement and what can be done, or is the son watching the odds and his phone, to be kept abreast of whether the betting odds are in his favour? Now, mum isn't a wowser—in my electorate, and, frankly, most of the electorates around the country. She is not asking this parliament to run her household. She just wants one thing: a fair chance to raise her son, before someone else starts doing it for her.</para>
<para>Now let's be very clear about who the villain in this story is. It's not a bloke putting 20 bucks on at the track. I can tell you, that's me; I like a flutter, and I suspect a lot of other members do, too. It's a good industry. People enjoy it, and they should be free to choose it. In fact, the Goldstein electorate has one of the largest shares, I understand, of VRC and MRC members in Melbourne, and we're very proud of that. Nor is gambling the enemy. The villain is a machine that tries to take advantage of children and the vulnerable—a sophisticated, billion-dollar marketing operation, with a commercial interest in reaching the children of Australia, or in going after those who are addicts and leaving their lives as human wreckage.</para>
<para>Let's also be clear about this. Not all gambling companies—or gaming companies, or however we want to talk about them—behave that way, necessarily, and it may not even sometimes be, I acknowledge, their intent. But it does not change the fact that there is predatory behaviour, and there's a point at which we have to make sure not just that we empower citizens to make responsible decisions for their own lives, but also where there is room for legal protection. Getting that balance right matters enormously, because the problem is not that adults bet; the problem is that gambling has stopped being incidental to sport and started to become the architecture through which young Australians understand sport. That is the problem in our community.</para>
<para>And here, of course, is the problem that parents feel. They feel outgunned—because they are. No family on any street in Goldstein, or anywhere else, can compete with the marketing budget or the sophistication of commercial operators, to influence the behaviour of their children and, sometimes, of parents themselves. That, by the way, isn't just limited to gambling.</para>
<para>My starting position is not to think the answer is always to censor or to silence. People being able to express their view is something I hold very dearly. But it doesn't change the fact that sometimes it can be wrong. Believing in freedom, and believing in adults' freedom to choose and make responsible decisions, I think, is central to not just a free society but the type of country we should want to be. If people cannot be free to make decisions for themselves and take responsibility, there is no learning or growth. But freedom depends on people having a genuine sense of agency and control, and the same rules that apply to adults simply do not apply to children.</para>
<para>Children should not be treated or approached as prospective customers. Parents should not have to compete with a machine that seeks to normalise gambling as part of sport because their sons or their daughters are not old enough to understand it. I hear this in our community all the time, particularly from parents, who can see the convergence that takes place between sports, phones, social media, influencers and gambling all occupying the same cultural space of our nation. They're concerned about it, and they ask simple questions, like, 'Why is it so hard for a child to simply watch sport without being sold a bet?' Frankly, for a lot of us, I suspect the answer is, 'Why can't any of us do that?'</para>
<para>One constituent, Dale Hardy, has written to me previously about his concerns—legitimate ones, I think—around gambling advertising on public broadcaster SBS. The parliamentary library says the evidence shows gambling advertising contributes to individual and social harm—but we all know that, because we know the human consequences—and, of course, there has been an inquiry that has established exactly those points. But I don't start where that inquiry landed; I start here. Adults should be free. Children should not be cultivated, and adults who do not want this stuff can ultimately choose to avoid it.</para>
<para>These three things can fundamentally coexist because we know the costs and the harm of what happens when they aren't honoured. The cost is human: decline in people's households, addiction, kitchen tables filled with people for dinner but no meals. But my support for this bill is conditional—as it is, I know, for many people. We step into this space with trepidation. We want to both get the balance right but also, frankly, call on the Prime Minister to work with the opposition to get a mutually agreeable outcome. I say that from a very low position of trust.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has consistently demonstrated he will put politics above substance or outcomes for the Australian people. The Prime Minister has become an untrustworthy partner in advancing our national interest. So, at any point, we'll reserve the right to vote against components of this legislation, or the legislation itself in different stages, if we don't get to some sort of agreement where the Prime Minister puts the national interest first. Our focus must be on getting the law right, because a good liberal proposition is not built around maximising regulation, and it's certainly not about empowering the state needlessly. It's about putting responsibility in the right place.</para>
<para>The gambler's responsibility is to make informed choices. The wagering companies' responsibility is to obey the law and not exploit the vulnerable. The broadcasters' and the platforms' responsibility is to respect the protections that this parliament legislates. The parents' responsibility is to guide and develop their children. The government's responsibility is not to replace any one of those actors but to set fair rules where individual freedom cannot do the job alone.</para>
<para>Failure with this bill is not it being defeated; failure is a press conference declaring the problem solved but leaving behind a trail of human wreckage. Failure is obligations no-one can practically comply with, where we see illegal offshore operators strengthened by their own handiwork and they become the new predators. We should be very conscious of this, because we have watched the absolute failure under this government and successive governments in their attempts to stamp out the illegal tobacco trade. In fact the government, through its bad legislation, bad policy, arrogance and hubris has not just fed it; it's cultivated it and been complicit in the destruction of small businesses and the tax base from cigarettes, and it has led to the most ridiculous outcome, where the government through its own arrogance and pride, will not even acknowledge Australia has a problem while they have handed the law and the supply chain networks of an addictive product to organised crime.</para>
<para>The automatic position that the more you do automatically ends with a better outcome has absolutely been tested by this government. They've pushed past the Laffer curve, and now they're actively complicit in the firebombing of small business. Failure is seeing a replication of those standards once again.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you resume your seat, please, Member for Goldstein. The minister on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Thistlethwaite</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The assertion that members of the government are actively complicit in the firebombing of businesses is way over the top, and the member should consider withdrawing that comment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Would the member for Goldstein assist by withdrawing that comment?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have considered the comment, and I'll proceed, because, at the end of the day, we have a government that does not understand the consequences of their legislation or their legislative agenda. I have to say to the Prime Minister—as I said, he sees every piece of legislation through the lens of politics—can he please not do that for once? It will go against every fibre of his being and his character. I'm waiting to see the amendments, and, if he returns to his old games, we will of course exercise our rights too.</para>
<para>Success looks very different. Success is in the final quarter where there's six points in it. Hopefully the Dees are flogging Collingwood, and hopefully it's the flag this year! But the children of our nation are thinking about the tackle not the odds, not because the government is wrapping people in cotton wool, but because a child is free to love sport for the contest on the field, and I support that proposition. My hope is that we get the balance right. Australians expect us to get it right, and that is reform worth getting right.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELYEA</name>
    <name.id>309484</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I first want to acknowledge and thank the many people across my community who have advocated so very strongly for gambling reform. Your determination and persistence has inspired me to keep pushing for meaningful action. I acknowledge the very real impact gambling harm has on individuals, families and communities across Dunkley and Australia, as well as the responsibility of government to respond.</para>
<para>Success in gambling reform should ultimately be measured by its impact on people's lives, not by headlines, not by political victories and not by who receives credit for a particular reform. It should be measured by fewer Australians experiencing gambling harm and fewer families enduring financial stress and relationship breakdown, where gambling is less prominent and less normalised. Gambling is a public health issue underpinned by addiction, and it should be debated as one. This debate is about Australians whose lives have been affected by gambling addiction and the individuals and families who carry the consequences alongside them. Throughout my time in parliament and during more than 30 years in the community sector before entering this place, I have learned that every statistic represents a human story. Behind the figures are real people trying to navigate difficult circumstances and often rebuild their lives. I met partners in Dunkley who discovered debts they never knew existed, people who spent years trying to repair relationships damaged by addiction and secrecy, those impacted by the shame and social isolation that accompanies gambling addiction, and, at its worse, I heard stories of the loss of life. Those conversations stay with me. They reinforce a simple truth: policy decisions have real consequences for people's lives. Good policy can reduce harm, strengthen protections and create opportunities for people to recover and move forward. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, along with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, delivers a package of reforms designed to reduce gambling harm and strengthen protections for Australians. It also recognises the need to protect our precious children and young people from an environment in which gambling advertising has become normalised.</para>
<para>Over the past decade, gambling promotions have become deeply embedded in many aspects of sport and entertainment. Advertisements appear across television broadcasts, radio, social media platforms, streaming services, websites and podcasts. For many young Australians, gambling advertising has become a routine part of watching sport. That level of exposure matters. Sport occupies a special place in Australian life. It brings communities together. It teaches teamwork, resilience and participation. It creates connection across generations and communities. Young people and children should be able to engage with sport and not be constantly exposed to messages encouraging them to place a wager and know the odds.</para>
<para>Before entering parliament, I spent three decades working alongside people experiencing disadvantage, trauma and addiction. One lesson remained constant throughout that work: prevention is always preferable to crisis intervention. The earlier we act the greater our opportunity to prevent serious harm from occurring. That principle underpins effective public health policy. It is why education matters and is why sensible regulation matters. On its own, no single measure will eliminate gambling harm. It's an issue that involves organisations, government and people—people and organisations and government who have the power of choice and the freedom to make decisions about what they choose to do with their time and money and power. However, that shouldn't be an excuse for inaction. Meaningful reform often incurs incrementally. Progress is rarely achieved through one decision alone. Instead, it is built through a series of reforms that collectively delivers better outcomes over time.</para>
<para>This legislation and further amendments are an important step on the reform journey. This bill reduces the volume of gambling advertising and restricts when and where those advertisements can appear. It limits gambling advertising during live sport broadcasts and at specified times and it places new restrictions on the use of celebrities, athletes, influencers in wagering promotions. It reduces advertising during key periods when children are likely to be listening to radio broadcasts on the way to and from school. This legislation also removes gambling advertising from stadiums and sporting uniforms and provides Australians with greater control over their exposure to gambling advertising online.</para>
<para>There is more we can do, and I'm hopeful the harms associated with inducements will also be addressed. This will help more families and reduce overall harm in the community. Consistent with addressing inducements, we will continue to work on strengthening measures that protect children from pervasive gambling advertising. This bill, as it stands, extends beyond advertising reform. BetStop was introduced in 2023 and is Australia's national self-exclusion register. BetStop has already provided thousands of Australians with a practical mechanism to exclude themselves from online wagering services. This bill will further strengthen this very important initiative.</para>
<para>It will also strengthen action against illegal offshore gambling operators. These operators function outside Australia's regulatory framework and often operate beyond the consumer protections Australians rightfully expect. The legislation further addresses emerging gambling products, such as online keno products. The bill also addresses foreign matched lottery products and sham promotional lottery arrangements, closing loopholes and strengthening consumer protections where regulation has not always kept pace with technology.</para>
<para>Throughout this process, I have appreciated the constructive engagement of many people and organisations from Dunkley and further afield—researchers, service providers, advocates, community organisations, parliamentarians and people with lived experience. They have all contributed to this very important discussion. Many Australians have shared deeply personal stories about the impact of gambling harm on their lives and on the lives of their loved ones. That takes courage. I want to particularly acknowledge Caroline and Stephen, who were prepared to share their experiences directly with me.</para>
<para>As a government backbencher, I have worked alongside colleagues who share a commitment to reducing gambling harm and improving protections for the communities we represent. I want to particularly acknowledge the members for Boothby, Macarthur, Bennelong, Macnamara, Macquarie, Reid and Spence for their advocacy and commitment throughout this process. The legislation before us and the amendments that are currently being negotiated are stronger because my community advocates and my colleagues have listened to evidence, engaged constructively and advocated for better reforms.</para>
<para>Recommendation 24 in the Murphy report outlined a phased approach to reform, and that process is already underway. In 2023, BetStop was established, and it was a significant reform in its own right. At the close of 2024, seven additional measures were introduced to address gambling harm. In April this year, the Prime Minister announced a suite of 11 additional measures—measures we are debating tonight—and there is hopefully more to come.</para>
<para>For those who have worked, like me, in government, community and the public health sector, we know that public health policy evolves over time due to advocacy and negotiation, and that is where we are right now in this process. As with any public health reform, these measures will be implemented, monitored and evaluated. Outcomes will be reviewed and further improvements considered. That is how effective policy operates. It adapts, learns and continuously improves over time. Today, however, is a day to recognise progress. It is a day to acknowledge those who advocated for change and the contribution of people with lived experiences. This hasn't been an easy debate for me and my community. This issue is not simply steeped in the tangible challenges gambling harm presents but in grief.</para>
<para>Throughout this debate, I have often reflected on my predecessor and friend, the late Peta Murphy. Peta was a passionate and determined advocate for Australians experiencing gambling harm. She understood both the scale of the problem and the very real human impact that sits behind it, but, first and foremost, Peta was a passionate and determined advocate for her beloved community of Dunkley. Before becoming the member for Dunkley, I came to Peta for advice on a career change. She was a friend and someone I could count on to be frank and honest with me. One of the things Peta told me was to back myself. I have used that advice since my election in 2024, creating opportunities and initiatives that engage and support my community of Dunkley in whatever way that they needed, and raising the concerns of our community consistently and persistently, including in caucus this week.</para>
<para>I have had discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications about the need for stronger protections on gambling on a number of occasions, advocating for further restrictions on inducements and tighter rules on gambling advertising. As Peta's friend and successor, I have been engaged in this issue deeply, often asking her what she would do right now and hoping for some divine intervention or message on what she would do next. Throughout this debate, I have also spoken to Rod, her husband. In April this year, Rod wrote and shared on social media, 'Let's not let the pursuit of perfection stand in the way of reforms that will deliver real protection now.' I believe Peta would have recognised these reforms for what they are: an important next step—not the end of the conversation but a significant and meaningful step forward that will make a difference in people's lives and the community. That is worth supporting. Peta's legacy has been widely cited across the media and in this chamber by people who have worked with her on a number of issues.</para>
<para>As a friend of Peta, I cannot be in this chamber and let her legacy be defined by just one issue. She was more than that. She was a fierce advocate for breast cancer patients. She helped establish a national metastatic breast cancer register. She stood up for women fleeing domestic and family violence, helping stop a coalition proposal forcing women escaping violence to draw on their superannuation. She co-founded the Parliamentary Friends of Women's Health, helping lay the foundations for many of the women's health advancements we have seen made by this government, not to mention that she was a lifelong champion of squash. That is the legacy I want this parliament to remember of Peta. When I was elected as a member of Dunkley, I made a commitment to represent the views of this community in parliament, and, on gambling reform, I have.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has taken seriously its responsibility to protect children and young people in particular from gambling harm. These reforms will create stronger safeguards for future generations, and they will reduce gambling harm. But I have another important message: we need to keep listening. We need to keep evaluating.</para>
<para>There is a lesson the gambling industry needs to take from this. It is that they need to grow a conscience. Their standards and values have been shown to be more than questionable. Luke Bateman's story highlighted the lack of ethics and integrity that is the foundation of the gambling industry. To the leaders of these organisations, I invite you to wake up and check your values, because Australians are watching. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. I want to start by making my position clear: I am not anti gambling. I'm not arguing that gambling should be banned. That would make me something of a hypocrite. I buy lotto tickets and sometimes play the pokies. I worked in a casino for a couple of years. Part of my job was supplying drinks and coffee to keep people at betting tables. I participate in a footy tipping competition, and, when I'm trying to work out who to back in around, I sometimes look at the betting odds to see what the market thinks. This isn't about stopping adults from having a bet. Adults should be allowed to make their own choices, and this parliament should steer clear of nanny state politics. This is about something different.</para>
<para>It's about whether gambling companies should be allowed to relentlessly push people to gamble, whether our kids should grow up believing betting is simply part of watching sport and whether people already struggling with gambling should be pursued with inducements designed to keep them betting. There's a difference between giving someone the opportunity to gamble and actively encouraging them to do so. The evidence tells us gambling advertising isn't simply providing information; it's designed to influence behaviour. The Parliamentary Library points to research showing the relationship between exposure to gambling advertising, increased gambling activity and gambling related harm.</para>
<para>The landmark Murphy inquiry report, <inline font-style="italic">You win some, you lose </inline><inline font-style="italic">m</inline><inline font-style="italic">ore</inline>, also heard extensive evidence about the normalisation of gambling through sport.</para>
<para>The late Peta Murphy and her bipartisan committee concluded Australians were being subjected to a torrent of gambling advertising and recommended a phased approach, ultimately leading to a comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising. Importantly, its first phase targeted inducements and inducement advertising, and inducements are one of my biggest concerns.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>111</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>111</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Speaker, I present a revised report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members business on Monday 17 August 2026. Copies of that report are now placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT No. 13 - Revised</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee and delegation business and private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 August 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair Hon M Dick Speaker</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms J Ryan MP (Chief Government Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr C Caldwell MP (Chief Opposition Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms M Aldred MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms A Byrnes MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms K Chaney</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms L Chesters MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms M Landry MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Z Mascarenhas MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms T Roberts MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms R Sharkie MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms S Sitou MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr B Small MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms A Urquhart MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms S Claydon MP, Deputy Speaker</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Wednesday, 12 August 2026.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. In accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House, the Committee decided to amend report No. 13 to omit the items allotted for the Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm) and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 17 August 2026, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR L O'BRIEN: To present a Bill for an Act to protect children born alive (including as a result of terminations), and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2026</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 25 June 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> pursuant to standing order 41. </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS CAMPBELL: To move—That this House acknowledges that the Government is supporting Australians to earn more, keep more of what they earn, and retire with more, with a range of policies that came into effect on 1 July 2026, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) payday superannuation reforms, benefiting the retirement incomes of millions of Australians through more frequent and earlier superannuation contributions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) a 4.75 per cent increase to the minimum wage, marking the first time the national minimum wage is above $1,000 a week;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) expanding government paid parental leave to 130 days, with parents to be paid superannuation contributions on Commonwealth funded paid parental leave for the first time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) delivering:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a new $1,000 instant tax deduction without proof of receipts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) another tax cut of up to $268 for over 14 million Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 55 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Campbell </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 11 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR JOYCE: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) condemns the Government for its continued roll out of renewable energy precincts in regional communities, including the New England Renewable Energy Zone and Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone, without due regard for the impact on agriculture, landowners, community, infrastructure and the productive landscape;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) regional Australians are being asked to carry the burden of a policy that is driving up the cost of living, increasing pressure on electricity prices, and undermining reliable and affordable power for households, small businesses and industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the rollout of large-scale wind, solar, battery and transmission projects is desecrating rural landscapes, creating uninsurable properties, dividing communities, and imposing industrial-scale infrastructure across farms, towns and natural environments that have sustained regional Australia for generations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's approach amounts to the socialisation of private assets, where public money, public guarantees and publicly backed schemes are used to underwrite private renewable energy developments and transmission projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) intermittent power does not provide the affordable or reliable base load electricity needed to run a modern economy, and that the failure of intermittent generation is being masked by secretive capacity investment schemes and opaque market interventions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes, with concern, the severe impact on small regional communities from the construction of renewable energy precincts, including the arrival of hundreds of temporary workers, demand for already limited housing, pressure on local roads, health services, schools, water, policing and emergency services, and disruption to community life;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to immediately pause the rollout of renewable energy precincts where local communities have not been properly consulted and where the full economic, social, environmental and infrastructure costs have not been independently assessed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) supports the establishment of a Royal Commission into the rollout of renewable energy precincts across regional Australia, including their effect on cost of living, energy reliability, private property rights, public expenditure, local infrastructure, community cohesion and the long-term future of regional landscapes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 15 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Joyce </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR VIOLI: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the My Aged Care system is broken, causing widespread hardship and distress for ageing Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing recently confirmed that the current wait time for an older person of standard priority for a Support at Home package is between 300 to 330 days;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a recent report by KPMG found that 96,709 people are still waiting in the National Priority System for a Home Care Package at their approved level; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) residents in rural and regional parts of Australia are finding that once they finally get services approved, there are no available service providers to deliver the required supports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) requires the Minister for Health and Ageing to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately explain and address the ongoing and increasing delays with the My Aged Care and Support at Home programs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) outline what specific measures the Government will take to address provider scarcity and workforce issues in outer-metropolitan and regional electorates, where approved funding is currently failing to translate into actual bedside care and support at home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 May 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Violi </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 DR HAINES: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) regional Australia is playing a vital role in hosting the infrastructure needed to facilitate the energy transition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is a patchwork of community engagement and benefit obligations across and within states that makes it difficult for regional communities to know what to expect when dealing with renewable energy proponents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) regional communities have varying experiences engaging with renewable energy proponents, with some proponents undertaking best practice community engagement and others, poor or absent engagement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) poor community engagement and benefit processes are bad for communities, and undermine the energy transition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the surge in artificial intelligence (AI) data centres has increased national awareness of the importance of community benefit for communities impacted by new largescale infrastructure developments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) regional communities have been calling for a fair share of community benefits commensurate to their role in hosting Australia's energy transition, long before this conversation started about AI data centres; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establish a permanent, nationally consistent community benefit framework that sets out minimum mandatory community benefit contributions to be paid by renewable energy proponents to community benefit funds that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) deliver intergenerational community benefit to regional communities who host their infrastructure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) support local governments to navigate their increasing responsibilities in facilitating the energy transition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) assign the implementation and oversight responsibility for this framework to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Haines </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS FERNANDO: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) commends the Government for investing a further $158.4 million to expand the Commonwealth Prac Payment (CPP) to students training in ten additional frontline health professions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that, from 1 July 2027, this expansion will build on paid prac already available to eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students, with around 95,000 students expected to receive support each year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) practical placements are a significant part of health degrees, making up more than a year of study in some courses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) travel, accommodation and relocation costs can discourage students from undertaking placements in regional and remote Australia, where health workforce shortages are often most acute;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes that eligible students currently receive $338.60 a week, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate and indexed annually, providing real cost-of-living relief while they undertake mandatory placements; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further acknowledges that expanding CPP will help more students complete their qualifications, growing the health workforce Australians rely on and strengthening Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Fernando </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CHESTER: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the significant contribution Australia's livestock producers make to regional economies, employment and the nation's food security;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that wild dogs are a serious and growing threat to livestock, costing an estimated $302 million in production losses each year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the burden carried by property owners to deal with the wild dog predation on stock;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has cut important pest and invasive species management programs, despite the significant and growing economic impact of invasive species on Australian agriculture;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) federal funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator is due to expire at the end of September 2026, with funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan expiring a month later;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the coordinator and the plan provide a nationally agreed, evidence-based framework that enables coordinated control across state and territory borders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) industry bodies have committed to co-funding the national wild dog program, yet the Government has chosen to ignore its responsibility to support coordinated wild dog control; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urges the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) guarantee ongoing funding to maintain the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator role;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) renew funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan to continue the second half of the ten year management program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) recognise that a nationally coordinated approach to pests management is essential to protecting livestock, agricultural productivity and the prosperity of regional Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) commit to ongoing investment in the coordinated management and control of wild dogs and other invasive species that threaten Australian agriculture, regional communities and the environment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chester </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR FRENCH: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the Government's Key Apprenticeship Program, which provides $10,000 incentive payments to new tradies, has already attracted 30,000 apprentices in the first 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) carpentry, plumbing and electrical trades are the most popular occupations for apprentices under the program; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the program is calibrated to offer incentive payments at milestones across the course of an apprenticeship, ensuring that apprentices are supported to reach the finish line of their apprenticeship, with data showing stronger retention rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that the program forms a key part of the Government's work to deliver targeted support for apprenticeships in industries where we need them most, particularly housing construction;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) affirms the Government's ongoing support for the program, with the budget locking in incentive settings for both apprentices and employers until 2029; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) expresses concern that despite multiple opportunities to clarify their position, neither the Opposition nor the One Nation party have made clear their support for the program, with the Shadow Minister for Skills and Training calling the program 'wrong' and 'throwing good money, after bad money'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 30 June 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr French </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 ENERGY COSTS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 9 February 2026</inline>) on the motion of Mr Tehan—That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Government's energy policies have seen a record number of Australians having an energy debt and facing a 24 per cent increase in their electricity bills in the next six months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Australians were promised a $275 cut to their power bills by last Christmas and $378 lower by 2030;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Australians, instead, are paying up to $1,300 more;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) electricity costs rose by 21.5 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) instead of lower energy costs, as promised by the Government, Australians are now paying more due to the policies of the Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS ALDRED: To move—That this House notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) $41.9 billion collapse in revenue from tobacco excise in this year's budget, and that downgraded forecasts now reveal the Government expects to collect just $2.1 billion, the lowest tobacco excise collection this century, despite a 282 per cent increase in the excise rate since 2013;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Government's failure to arrest smoking rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) continued and rapid escalation of violent crime from the illegal tobacco trade, including over 200 firebombings of supermarkets and tobacconists since 2023 under this Government as well as the proceeds funding terrorist activities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls by the New South Wales State Premier Chris Minns and former Deputy Australian Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth for a complete overhaul of tobacco excise and law enforcement resourcing to combat illegal tobacco.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 2 June 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 30<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Aldred </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS K COOK: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that Mental Health Month is observed throughout October each year to raise awareness of mental health, reduce stigma and encourage all Australians to seek support when they need it;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the importance of mental health to the wellbeing of individuals, families and communities, and acknowledges the role played by families, carers, lived experience advocates, peer workers, community organisations and health professionals in supporting Australians experiencing mental health challenges;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the Government's continued investment in strengthening Australia's mental health system, including through:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the rollout of Medicare Mental Health Centres, with more than 56 of the planned 92 centres now open nationwide, providing free, walk-in mental health support with no referral or diagnosis required;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the establishment of Medicare Mental Health Kids Hubs, providing free support for children aged 0 to 12 and their families, with 17 Kids Hubs being rolled out across the country;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expanding the network of headspace services and upgrading 30 centres to a new and enhanced headspace Plus model, providing young Australians with accessible mental health care, early intervention and holistic support;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the new national early intervention service, Medicare Mental Health Check In, providing free guided digital support and low intensity therapy to help Australians build practical skills; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) strengthening access to mental health care through Medicare and community-based services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges that early intervention, community connection and reducing stigma are critical to improving mental health outcomes and preventing suicide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) encourages all Australians during Mental Health Month to check in with family members, friends, neighbours and colleagues, seek support when they need it, and help build communities where every person feels connected, supported and able to access quality mental health care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic"> Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms K Cook </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">AGED CARE: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Violi—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the My Aged Care system is broken, causing widespread hardship and distress for ageing Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing recently confirmed that the current wait time for an older person of standard priority for a Support at Home package is between 300 to 330 days;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a recent report by KPMG found that 96,709 people are still waiting in the National Priority System for a Home Care Package at their approved level; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) residents in rural and regional parts of Australia are finding that once they finally get services approved, there are no available service providers to deliver the required supports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) requires the Minister for Health and Ageing to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately explain and address the ongoing and increasing delays with the My Aged Care and Support at Home programs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) outline what specific measures the Government will take to address provider scarcity and workforce issues in outer-metropolitan and regional electorates, where approved funding is currently failing to translate into actual bedside care and support at home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 50 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS FERNANDO: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the Prime Minister's announcement that the Government will establish a new Fair Work Court;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the aims of the Fair Work Court are to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provide simpler, fairer and faster access to justice for working Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ensure that workers are not placed in a position where the cost of pursuing a claim exceeds the value of the claim; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Fair Work Court would be staffed by specialist judges with expertise in workplace relations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Government will consult with workers, employers and legal experts on the operation of the Fair Work Court, including how it can improve access to justice and better support workers and employers in navigating workplace disputes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 11 August 2026.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Fernando </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members </inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> 5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 August 2026</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>117</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Indigenous Australians</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Less than two weeks ago, ministers and parliamentarians from this place joined Indigenous leaders and leaders from all across Australia at the Garma Festival. Organised by the Yothu Yindi Foundation, Garma has become the leading forum to celebrate and focus national attention on the importance of our Indigenous Australians. There are many things to celebrate but there is no denying that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are hurting. I want to talk about how we can best achieve the outcomes which are needed and are identified in the Closing the Gap statement, and also about the increasing rise of racism directed at our First Nations community.</para>
<para>The government had put a whole lot into the Voice to Parliament referendum nearly three years ago. Its failure was devastating and was a huge setback for our Indigenous brothers and sisters and for many in my own community. But this setback cannot be the end of our efforts or the responsibilities we all share. But our government must lead, and, since the referendum defeat, it seems that the government hasn't been able to. I know it's difficult to lead after such a loss, but we need a strong, ambitious agenda on Indigenous policy to get the outcomes that the community deserves.</para>
<para>I admit there has been good action. I don't want to deny that. But it has been a patchwork, not a dedicated plan that can make a real difference. There has been good work like investment in housing and contributions to things like domestic and family violence support. Those things have been important. I don't give this speech to undermine the important work of Indigenous agencies or the minister, but we need to be up front that the policies are not achieving the goals that we have all committed to in this country, and something needs to shift.</para>
<para>Back in 2024, the Productivity Commission did a review of the Closing the Gap work and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… progress in implementing the Agreement's Priority Reforms has, for the most part, been weak and reflects tweaks to, or actions overlayed onto, business-as-usual approaches. The disparate actions and ad hoc changes have not led to improvements that are noticeable and meaningful for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. … What is needed is a paradigm shift.</para></quote>
<para>I'm afraid it is clear that not much has changed since then. The 2026 Productivity Commission found that only three of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track, with adult imprisonment, childhood development, out-of-home care and suicide all going backwards. Nowhere is this crisis clearer than in youth detention. First Nations children make up just 6.6 per cent of young Australians aged 10 to 17 but they comprise 60 per cent of all young people in detention. A First Nations child is 21 times more likely to be locked up than a non-Indigenous child. The number has increased from 17 times since just over four years ago. For children aged 10 to 13, the gap is even starker. They are detained at nearly 20 times the rate of their non-Indigenous peers.</para>
<para>As a mother of a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old and a 13-year old, it astounds me that we still have not increased the age of criminal responsibility, that we are locking children up in prisons rather than taking an evidence based approach, and none are being more affected than Indigenous children. We should be angry about this. We should all be talking about this. We need clearer accountability on the reasons why our Closing the Gap targets are not going forwards. We all need to be responsible for representing our First Nations community. This is our responsibility as parliamentarians. These issues that we are talking about in terms of the Closing the Gap statement are also a backdrop to rising racism and threats against Indigenous Australians. The federal inquiry into racism, hate and violence directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has heard shocking evidence about rising racist rhetoric used against Indigenous Australians. We know Welcome to Country speeches were booed at Anzac Day events this year, but the inquiry heard that attacks on community events are happening frequently without criticism or commentary. Journalist Brooke Boney told the inquiry she had left the industry after being doxed and receiving menacing threats. On 26 January this year, a terrorist attack at the Invasion Day march in Boorloo, or Perth, was only averted because the homemade bomb thrown into the midst of the crowd failed to explode.</para>
<para>We owe this country more than good intentions, and that extends to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities especially. We owe them a parliament that leads rather than drifts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care, Aged Care Employee Day</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLUTTERHAM</name>
    <name.id>316101</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my role, I meet with lots of people from all walks of life doing many different things for the community and for others. Last Friday was Aged Care Employee Day, and I had the opportunity to meet—happily, not for the first time—with two incredible women who are doing things for others. Firstly, at Bupa Campbelltown, I met with Megan McNaughton, the general manager. Secondly, at Amber Aged Care, at Paradise, I met with Dominique Evele, the chief executive officer. Aided by fantastic cupcakes, slices and other sweet and savoury treats, both women were celebrating the contribution that their colleagues make. Day in and day out, they turn up to work to not only functionally care for the residents of their respective aged-care facilities and their families but provide support, compassion, empathy, security, company and love.</para>
<para>Strikingly, at both facilities I visited, the aged-care employees I met were almost exclusively made up of migrants—mainly women, but a good strong cohort of migrant men as well. Megan and Dominique don't realise how amazing they are—that they always have a smile on their faces, the way they connect with their teams, how they empower their teams and how they treat their team members with dignity and as partners in the never-ending journey to provide love and care to the residents. I saw this firsthand. Not only do Megan and Dominique respect and care for their team members; their team members respect and care for them. The teams at Amber Aged Care at Paradise and Bupa at Campbelltown are two of the most tight-knit and caring teams I have had the privilege to meet.</para>
<para>Aged-care work is hard. Firstly, it's physically demanding. Lifting and transferring patients; assisting with daily activities, including intimate personal care tasks; being on your feet all shift; and operating medical equipment is hard work. It's also repetitive: being told the same story repeatedly; the same daily routines; the same sadness; the same feeling of being understaffed, run off your feet and completely overwhelmed; the same sentiment of never quite being able to do enough; the same emotional challenges, grief and loss that aged-care workers experience, having established close relationships with those they care for; the same emotional challenges and exhaustion that arise from talking to and supporting families who are often frustrated, angry and sad; the challenge that comes with watching the physical and emotional suffering of families and of residents with chronic illness, with dementia or who are in the final stages of life; and those same feelings of sadness and helplessness.</para>
<para>Aged-care work is hard. Yet, despite this, some sections of society continue to undervalue aged-care workers. They are dismissed as being part of the care economy, which in turn is dismissed as something unproductive—something worth less than a contribution from a lawyer, a business owner or an investment banker because it doesn't produce a monetary return. These people always ignore the fact, of course, that there are only so many efficiencies you can make before you start to compromise on the quality and dignity of care that you can provide. This dismissal and this attitude towards the care economy and aged care workers are unacceptable.</para>
<para>Imagine your elderly loved one alone in a room, unable to eat or to move, communicate, go to the bathroom or even scratch an itch that is driving them crazy. Then, in contrast, imagine your elderly loved one not alone in a room but sitting with the support of their aged-care worker, who is helping to handfeed them, gently stretching their limbs, holding their hand, covering them with a blanket, talking to them and giving them a hug. Imagine that and then tell me that the care economy is not worth investing in. If the care economy has exploded, it has done so in parallel with this government's appreciation of those who work tirelessly within it in service to others.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Senior Australians</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ALDRED</name>
    <name.id>11788</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always a pleasure to follow my friend the member for Sturt, especially after such a beautifully thoughtful contribution on behalf of her community.</para>
<para>Last week, I dropped a new Australian flag in to the Lyrebird Village aged-care facility in Drouin, and I had the immense privilege of sitting down for a cup of tea with a group of women who live there. They had grown up in Iona, Jindivick and Drouin, mostly around the Gippsland region, and they shared with me their stories of riding to school and meeting farmers and postmasters whom they married and raised families with. They talked to me about farming in good times and tough. It was a real privilege for me to listen to the stories and experiences of a group of women who have lived full, accomplished lives, and that deserves respect.</para>
<para>I want to share with you an email that I received last week from Rhonda, who lives in my electorate. It's the first time she's ever written to a member of parliament. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you're a baby boomer, you're made to feel like you're stealing food from the mouths of the younger generation.</para></quote>
<para>Rhonda's husband has been a brickie and a landscaper his whole working career. Decades of physical labour have taken their toll. They've worn his body down, and he's had to cut back on work. Like many tradies, he will need medical support in the years ahead. Rhonda and her husband did all of the right things: they worked hard, they saved hard, and they've tried to put a bit of extra money away into private health care so they wouldn't be a burden on the public system. Now the Albanese government's cuts to the private health insurance rebate for over-65s mean that they will barely be able to afford to keep their private health care, right at the point in their lives when they will need it the most. Many older Australians have had enough of the boomer bashing. They're not responsible for this government's housing crisis. They deserve support to participate in society, access services and not be disadvantaged because of a digital divide.</para>
<para>Disadvantaging older Australians isn't an isolated story under this federal government; it is this prime minister's operating manual. Take housing. The focus should be on home affordability and ownership for younger Australians and first-time homeowners, yet, under this government's housing policy failures, many seniors are watching their home equity, often their only real safety net, crash in value. Older women are the fastest-growing group of homeless Australians—up to almost 40 per cent in a decade. Divorce or widowhood, combined with a lifetime of lower super, is enough to lock them out of re-entering the housing market. Who is standing up for them?</para>
<para>Then there's superannuation. Thousands of grieving families are waiting years for death benefits owed to them. AustralianSuper is being sued by the regulator over these delays, and Cbus was fined a huge amount recently for the same failure. After 18 months of promising a legislative fix, the government still hasn't done anything.</para>
<para>Many older Australians rely on bricks-and-mortar banking. A landmark Senate inquiry in 2024 found that 596 country towns have lost every bank branch they once had. Two years on, the government has just released a half-hearted response to the report, with no strategy. Older Australians deserve face-to-face support behind a branch counter, not just a phone app.</para>
<para>Rhonda, her husband and the ladies I mentioned earlier have all done the right thing by this country. They've contributed to their community. They deserve better. Their government is failing them. Around 21,600 seniors in Monash are potentially affected by changes to the private health insurance rebate. Thousands of people responded to a survey that I put out recently asking them for their opinion. Ninety-seven per cent of people in my electorate that I surveyed on changes to the private health insurance rebate for over-65s said that they opposed the proposed change. More than 80 per cent of respondents said that they would or likely would have to cancel their private health insurance if that change went ahead.</para>
<para>Older Australians are not asking for something special; they are just asking for a fair go from this government. They are asking for some respect from a country they have spent their lives investing in and contributing to, and they deserve far better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ABDO</name>
    <name.id>316915</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have spoken before about how the Liberals broke the social contract with working families by daring Australian manufacturers to move offshore. It was more than neglect; it was economic vandalism, and our country is still reeling from it. The flow-on effects don't just happen overnight. They ripple through the economy and through sectors until that decline bears its weight on communities. Imagine if, instead of attacking Australian industry, the Liberals had shown some foresight—if they had looked beyond the next political cycle. Their complacency came at a cost. During the pandemic, we didn't have all that we needed. When prices spiked during global conflict, we felt it. When supply chains seized up, businesses wore the costs. We learnt that countries are stronger when they can make more things themselves. Sovereign capability matters.</para>
<para>Australia has the workers, resources, energy and ideas to build new industries here, and we have a plan that is delivering. We are backing the factories, processing plants, TAFEs and local businesses that create good jobs in our outer suburbs and our regions. That is what Future Made in Australia is about. It is about making Australia stronger, more resilient and more secure by backing industry here at home. It is about doing more with what we have right here in Australia, generating more value at home, creating more jobs and making our country less reliant on overseas supply chains. It is about backing Australian ideas, Australian energy, Australian resources and Australian workers. And it is about drawing on the skills and talents in our outer suburbs and regions to build a stronger and secure country for all Australians.</para>
<para>This is not about making everything; it is about making the things that matter. It is about supporting existing industries through the clean energy transition and building the industries that will matter to Australia's future: clean energy manufacturing, green metals, critical minerals processing, defence and advanced technologies, medical technology and quantum and AI research and innovation. It is about turning Australian innovation into Australian manufacturing and making sure the benefits of that investment reach the people and places that make it possible.</para>
<para>If public investment is helping to unlock private capital, and if governments are helping to build new industries, then those industries must deliver tangible benefits for workers, businesses and communities. It's about recognising that communities should not be passive bystanders in industrial change; they should share in the opportunities. They should see local jobs. They should see apprenticeships. They should see local suppliers getting a fair shot. They should see TAFEs, universities and businesses working together, so people can train for the jobs that are coming. That is what a future made in Australia should mean in practice. It means upgrading TAFEs in the outer suburbs and regions, so people can train for the jobs that are coming, with real pathways for women into trades and technical careers. It means backing blue-collar workers, tradies, engineers, researchers and scientists—the people who are building the industries that make Australia stronger. And it means making sure workers and communities are not left behind as industries change and grow.</para>
<para>We are already seeing what this looks like. Through targeted investment, we are taking hold of the renewable energy opportunity and unlocking private capital, giving businesses the confidence they need to grow. The National Reconstruction Fund is backing businesses in priority industries that lift manufacturing value-add and enhance local capability. Across the country, Future Made in Australia is helping secure industrial jobs, strengthen supply chains and create new opportunities in the industries that will shape our future. In Victoria, Future Made in Australia is helping turn Australian innovation into local manufacturing and good jobs across the state. National Reconstruction Fund investment in companies like PolyActiva and Synchron is backing Australian medical technology developed here at home. Investments in companies like Applied Electric Vehicles are growing advanced vehicle manufacturing and helping build new high-skilled industries for the future. This is what it means to rebuild and strengthen Australia's industrial base.</para>
<para>It's hard work. Establishing new industries is not a linear process, but this government unashamedly backs Australian ingenuity and industrial effort. We back the people who design, make, maintain, repair and improve the things our country needs. We back the factories, processing plants, TAFEs and local businesses that create good jobs in our outer suburbs and regions. And we back the communities that have backed Australian industry for generations. Future Made in Australia is about turning those strengths into jobs, investment and industry here at home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians have now endured 16 crushing interest rate increases under this Labor government. Why? It's because this government has spent too much, taxed too much and put far too much upward pressure on all prices. Leading economists across the nation have issued clear, unequivocal warnings: this government is actively making the Reserve Bank's job harder. Dr Shane Oliver hit the nail on the head when he said the government should be cutting spending rather than going down the endless rabbit hole of tax fiddling. Labor cannot keep hiding behind the Reserve Bank, shifting the blame for high interest rates, while Canberra continues to pour fiscal fuel on the inflation fire. Whether rates go up or stay on hold, the underlying reality for struggling families does not change. Inflation remains too high, interest rates remain too high and this government has completely lost control of the budget and the economy.</para>
<para>Nowhere is this economic failure more glaring than in the housing market. Labor has delivered what can only be described as the trifecta of failure: fewer homes, higher rents and a total collapse in market confidence. We've seen reports that Westpac mortgage applications plunged by 20 per cent following Labor's budget. That is a massive red flag. It is a clear warning that buyers, builders and investors are losing faith in the future of Australian housing. That matters because a weaker housing market doesn't just impact balance sheets or investors. It hits hardworking Australian families who did everything right to buy their very first home. Many of these young Australians purchased properties with thin deposits, and they are now staring down the very real, very frightening prospect of negative equity as property values retreat from their March peak. For families who took advantage of the government's five per cent deposit scheme, that exposure is severe. When you start with just five per cent equity, it doesn't take a massive fall in property value to wipe out your life savings and leave you completely underwater.</para>
<para>Yet, remarkably, the government's own assistant minister demonstrated an alarming lack of basic economic understanding on national television while trying to defend this very scheme. Appearing on News24, the assistant minister claimed that, because 99 per cent of participants were making their repayments on time, 'they can't be in negative equity'. Now, this is completely wrong. Negative equity is not about whether you can make your mortgage repayments on time. Negative equity occurs when the total amount owing on your mortgage exceeds the market value of your property. A family can meet every single payment without fail and still find themselves buried under negative equity if home values fall. This isn't an entry-level oversight. The assistant minister holds a Bachelor of Economics and spent years in Labor's economic team covering Treasury and financial services.</para>
<para>Labor actively encouraged young Australians to take on highly leveraged mortgages, and now they try and spin the falling property values as a positive for affordability outcomes. The minister responsible ought to understand the immense financial risk his government has created for these young families. These families followed the rules. They saved their deposit, entered the market and bought a home to raise their children. Yet now they are left financially exposed by a government that treats falling home equity as a policy success. Australians do not celebrate watching the value of their family home crumble. Yet Labor persists with policies that destroy housing investment at the exact moment when we desperately need to build them. Labor's own budget forecasts reveal their tax changes will lead to 35,000 fewer homes being built. Economists warn that suppressing mortgage demand leads directly to fewer transactions, less construction and a tighter, more painful housing supply crisis.</para>
<para>You cannot solve a housing shortage by taxing investment, smashing market confidence and making it harder to build. Australian families deserve a government that focuses on the fundamentals—building more homes, bringing inflation down, taking the pressure off interest rates and restoring confidence in our economic future. They need a government that supports and backs Australian aspiration, not punishes it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Global Security, Taxation</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since coming to office four years ago, the Albanese government has delivered a range of policies to ease cost-of-living pressures, including: tax cuts for all taxpayers; cheaper medicines; increased GP rebates, which have seen bulk-billing rates rise to 84 per cent; opening 137 bulk-billing Medicare urgent care clinics; providing free TAFE to over 800,000 people; supporting wage rises for aged-care and childcare workers; bringing in paid track for eligible health professionals, teaching and social work students; temporarily reducing the fuel excise; cutting student debt by 20 per cent; and backing an increase to the minimum wage. All of these measures are welcome and make a real difference to living costs.</para>
<para>Yet I acknowledge that too many Australians are still struggling to make ends meet. It's a similar story in most other parts of the world, with people in so many places living from day to day. We live in a troubled world filled with unrest. Global conflicts both within nations and between nations, extreme weather events or natural disasters such as the devastating earthquakes in South America, climate change, rising populations, dwindling resources and widespread disease are all contributing to a world in turmoil. For too many, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.</para>
<para>In the midst of all these adverse conditions, the gap between rich and poor widens. Inequality worsens as the super rich profit from the struggles and misery of the masses. According to one report here in Australia over the past decade, Australia's 200 richest people increased their wealth by well over 300 per cent from $197 billion to $707 billion. Only today the Commonwealth Bank of Australia announced an all-time record profit of $10.9 billion for the 2025-26 financial year, a period when most Australians were under cost-of-living pressures. I await with interest to see the profits of the other three major banks. In another recent example, in the second quarter of this year, whilst the world struggled through higher fuel costs arising from the US strike on Iran, eight oil multinationals reportedly made a $93 billion profit. Major defence companies and Wall Street banks have also been huge beneficiaries of the Iranian conflict.</para>
<para>Across the world, including in Australia, inequality is rising and the calls for the super rich to pay their fair share of tax and to stop using transnational tax evasion schemes are growing louder. Today, one in seven Australians are living below the poverty line, and welfare agencies and charitable institutions are seeing record numbers of people turning up for food and basic needs. It's unacceptable that in Australia, a relatively rich country, around 3.7 million Australians struggle through life living below the poverty line.</para>
<para>Globally, inequality has always existed. But it is not only getting worse. It is also becoming the cause of so much human conflict and disillusionment in governments everywhere. It is not reasonable that, across the world, the richest 10 per cent own around 74 per cent of all global wealth and the richest one per cent own about 50 per cent of all global wealth. Just a slight adjustment of those statistics alone could be life-changing for so many people.</para>
<para>I note with interest that this week the UN is hosting the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, where a proposal to tax entities at the source country of their revenue, instead of the country where their domiciled headquarters are located, is being negotiated. Yet, regrettably, I also note that a number of Western countries are resisting that proposal. The practice of global entities avoiding legitimate tax obligations in Australia by declaring their profits in low tax countries must end. But that will only happen when like-minded countries come together and apply uniform tax laws on multinational entities.</para>
<para>As I speak to people across the community, two grievances are regularly raised with me. Firstly, how is it that so many large corporations that turn over billions of dollars and make massive profits pay so little tax? Secondly, why is it that, unlike other countries, Australia raises so little tax revenue from Australian mineral and gas resources? We have made some good progress on these two issues, but there is much more to do if we are to provide more help to people in need and create a much more equal society.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The House</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> of Representatives</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> transcript was published up to </inline> <inline font-style="italic">20:01</inline> <inline font-style="italic">. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.</inline></para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 09:30.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 12 August 2026</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Lawrence</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>123</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Census</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In recent weeks, I have received a wave of messages from constituents regarding the census. They are very upset and angry that they being required to fill the census out. People are asking: 'Why does the government need all this information about me and my family? I'm disappointed that you are encouraging our data to be unsafely collected by the government.' I want to acknowledge those concerns honestly because they are real and are widespread. The census, at its core, is important. If we want fair funding for Western Sydney, and if we want accurate numbers for aged care, the NDIS, transport and local infrastructure, we need good data. Without it, our communities miss out.</para>
<para>But people are not imagining their distrust. Over many years, governments of all stripes have made decisions about data and privacy that have chipped away at public confidence. We have seen systems fail, data breaches, shifting explanations about how information will be linked or shared, and constant changes to what is collected and why. Each time that happens, it sends a message to the public: your information is not really in your control. For many migrants, refugees, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and communities who are already feeling they're overpoliced or under-served, this fear is even sharper. When government knocks on their door asking for more details, it doesn't feel like planning and services. It can feel like surveillance. When people don't see benefits flowing back into their neighbourhoods but they do see more forms, more questions and more targeted compliance, they naturally ask, 'Why should I trust you with my data?' The tragedy is that, by mishandling people's trust, governments have now made even essential tools like the census a target of anger and suspicion. Instead of arguing about how to use the data to fix overcrowded classrooms or long hospital waiting lists, we are arguing about whether to fill out the form at all. When trust collapses, good policy instruments become collateral damage.</para>
<para>So we have to hold two truths at the same time. First, the census is important. It is one of the few ways communities like mine can prove we exist in the numbers—we know we do, so we can demand our fair share. Second, trust is not automatic. It is earned by how government behaves through being transparent about what is collected, limiting it to what is necessary, clearly explaining how it will be used and putting real safeguards and penalties around misuse. My message to the government is this: if you want people to participate in the census, stop treating trust as a box-ticking exercise. Invest in genuine community engagement, in language appropriate communication, in independent oversight of data use and in strong privacy protections that are explained in plain English. Show people, don't just tell them, that the information will not be used against them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tyler, Ms Lorraine, National Lung Cancer Screening Program</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Lung cancer remains one of Australia's greatest health challenges and its impact reaches into every community across our nation. The statistics alone are confronting. It's estimated that one in 17 Australians will be diagnosed with lung cancer during their lifetime. To put that into perspective, if we look around the House of Representatives today, that would equate to approximately nine of us receiving a lung cancer diagnosis during our lives, and around 13 parliamentarians across both houses of parliament. But, behind every statistic, is obviously a human being and a person—a husband, a wife, a parent, a brother, a sister, a grandparent, a friend—and that is why the fight against lung cancer matters.</para>
<para>Today I want to acknowledge a remarkable South Australian and one of my former constituents from Adelaide, Lorraine Tyler. I met Lorraine when I was doorknocking in the 2016 campaign, and she was very passionate about cancer detection and prognosis and better treatment for lung diseases. Lorraine was a passionate advocate with Lung Foundation Australia and a powerful voice for people living with lung cancer. She chaired Lung Foundation Australia's lung cancer patient advisory group and spoke tirelessly about the need for specialist lung cancer nurses and better support for patients and families, and about the importance of introducing a national lung cancer screening program.</para>
<para>Lorraine understood that early detection saves lives. She was determined to ensure future Australians would have access to the care and support that they needed. Sadly, Lorraine did not live to benefit from the National Lung Cancer Screening Program herself, but her legacy lives on in the thousands of Australians who now will, because advocacy matters and makes a difference. The voices of patients matter, and people like Lorraine helped turn what was once an ambition into a reality. On 1 July 2025, the National Lung Cancer Screening Program officially commenced. We know that early detection can be the difference between life and death. It can mean earlier treatment, better outcomes and more time with loved ones.</para>
<para>As we recognise this important milestone, we should also recognise the people who made it possible, and that's people like my constituent Lorraine Tyler—people who transform their personal experiences into advocacy and into action and get changes made. The National Lung Cancer Screening Program is more than a health initiative. It is proof that, when patients, advocates, clinicians and organisations work together, meaningful change can be achieved. Today, Australians will live longer and healthier lives because people like Lorraine chose to speak up and make a difference, to fight for that change and to leave a better system behind for others. That is a legacy worth recognition, gratitude and remembrance.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Australian Country Fire Service</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to recognise the extraordinary contribution of the South Australian Country Fire Service and its thousands of volunteers who protect our communities. Across South Australia, there are more than 13,000 CFS volunteers in over 420 brigades. They respond not only to bushfires but also to other emergencies in my electorate, such as, sadly, many car accidents. These volunteers aren't looking for recognition or reward. They serve because they care about their communities.</para>
<para>Over the last few weeks, I've had the privilege of attending three significant CFS events in my electorate that celebrate this great service. At Woodside, there was an official unveiling of a magnificent mural adorning the station's wall. It celebrates more than 85 years of service. The Woodside brigade was established in 1940, at the very beginning of World War II. The Woodside brigade was founded by many local men who came together knowing that so many of our community, particularly young men, were overseas serving our nation. It's extraordinary to think that, in that time of great difficulty, they came together to form a brigade. It's a remarkable story of our community stepping forward in a time of need. The mural is beautifully painted by local artist TaylrJay, and it reflects the brigade's history from its beginning through to its recent responses, such as in the Cudlee Creek fire. It's a lasting tribute to the many generations of volunteers.</para>
<para>I was also honoured to attend the Upper Sturt CFS for its 70th anniversary celebrations. That was a wonderful night. That brigade began in 1956 with seven determined local men and has grown to a dedicated brigade of firefighters and supporters. Over the past 70 years, they've responded to countless incidents, including many of South Australia's largest bushfires as well as interstate deployments.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to congratulate the Nairne CFS on reaching an 80-year milestone. The brigade formed following a fire at Dawesley in 1944, and volunteers have devoted decades of service, including Malcolm May, who has an incredible service record of more than 60 years. This brigade's response during the Cudlee Creek fire showed enormous courage and selflessness as they protected neighbouring communities while under threat themselves.</para>
<para>To every CFS volunteer, to their families, to their employers and to our community: we are so very grateful for what you do. Thank you for having the courage and the tenacity to run to danger to keep all of us protected and safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Open Pool Australian Lightwater Reactor: 20th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MONCRIEFF</name>
    <name.id>316540</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Next week is National Science Week, but today is a very special day for the Australian scientific community. The Open Pool Australian Lightwater Reactor, or OPAL, is Australia's only operating nuclear reactor and one of our most significant scientific assets. It underpins critical capabilities and provides the infrastructure for medical, scientific and industrial applications, and it's right in the middle of southern Sydney, in ANSTO's Lucas Heights facilities.</para>
<para>Today marks 20 years since the OPAL reactor first reached criticality on 12 August 2006. Approved in the late nineties, the federal government funded the construction of a new research reactor to replace HIFAR, the High Flux Australian Reactor, with construction for the new reactor commencing in 2002. Construction was managed in partnership between ANSTO and Argentine nuclear technology company INVAP, as well as Australian alliance partners. Its construction workforce peaked at 500 people, with a core team of over 100 specialists.</para>
<para>Just four years later, OPAL reached criticality—the achievement of a self-sustaining fission chain reaction. In the 5,220 operating days since, this 20-megawatt reactor has irradiated over 10 million nuclear medicine doses supplied to Australian hospitals used to combat cancer and heart disease. It has irradiated 900 tonnes of silicon across more than 36,000 batches. It has enabled over 8,000 neutron scattering experiments and the publication of over 2,500 articles in scientific journals.</para>
<para>But the real power behind OPAL's success is the talented team of researchers at ANSTO, whose achievements extend to COVID research, cancer diagnostics and therapies, advanced energy systems, electronics, quantum materials, agriculture improvements, the preservation of cultural heritage and much more. Unassumingly located in the quiet bush suburb of Lucas Heights in my electorate of Hughes, OPAL is the world's largest irradiator of NDT silicon, the unsung net zero hero that powers the semiconductors found in EVs, wind and solar.</para>
<para>I have the distinct privilege of visiting ANSTO facilities often, one that I share with more than 20,000 school and university students who have visited ANSTO across its lifetime. Every time I go, I learn something new about science and something new about the research and production that some of the most dynamic and gifted minds in Australia's scientific community are conducting right in southern Sydney. Thank you so much to the team at ANSTO for all that you add to our country's knowledge and capability and congratulations on this 20-year milestone for Australian excellence in nuclear science.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live Animal Exports, Midwest Community Living Association</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the <inline font-style="italic">Countryman</inline> newspaper last week, it was deeply concerning to read of a petition to stop all live animal export to be tabled by the member for Clark next month. Primary producers across regional Western Australia have already been targeted by the inner-city left, with the help of Labor, in the ending of live sheep export. Now, the same groups are targeting our cattle and goat producers. Our pastoralists across the Mid West, Gascoyne, Kimberley and the Pilbara are working every day to provide not only for us but also for our export partners with critical food sources working day in and day out for Australia as a whole.</para>
<para>I'm very proud to be part of a Liberal government that strengthened and sustained the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS, rather than winding back support for the live export industry. These changes were all made with the wellbeing and welfare of the animals in mind, creating world-leading animal welfare regulations. I will always support our primary producers across regional Western Australia, and I can guarantee them that, should this government act on this petition, I will absolutely be voting against it to protect such a vital part of Australia's way of life.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister should publicly state that his government does not intend to end live export. If Labor are truly for all Australians and support regional Australians, they will join the coalition in backing our agricultural sector.</para>
<para>I have long been a supporter of the Midwest Community Living Association, a not-for-profit organisation based in Geraldton that supports people with disability and their families. I regularly meet with chair Clara Harris and CEO Alison Adam to discuss disability services, NDIS challenges, red tape and ways to improve outcomes for people living with a disability across Durack.</para>
<para>For the past five years, MWCLA has been planning a new venture in the form of Our Cafe, a safe, welcoming place where people with disabilities can build skills, independence, competence and find real purpose in their daily lives. I'm proud that, through the Growing Regions Program, this particular project was able to become a reality. Having recently opened, I was fortunate to visit Our Cafe last week to see the purpose and vision for this space come to life, and to experience it for myself made the visit even more special.</para>
<para>NWCLA's aim is to enrich the lives of those they support by championing individual choices and creating opportunities to connect with and participate in this community. Well, you have absolutely nailed it with Our Cafe. Well done. I'd like to congratulate everyone who's been involved with Our Cafe—the volunteers but particularly the workers. It was an excellent experience, and I will be back. Thank you so much.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reid Electorate: Volunteers</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the things I love most about my electorate is our strong sense of community. What makes our area special is that so many people are willing to lend a hand to others. Every day, volunteers across my community quietly make a difference, not for recognition but simply because they care. Today I want to recognise some of those extraordinary people and the organisations they support, the Salvation Army and the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul.</para>
<para>At the Salvation Army Burwood Corps, more than 100 people access support each week under the leadership of Captain Rong Fu and Captain Dillon Wu, the corps provides emergency relief, food assistance, English classes, parenting programs, community meals and support for people experiencing hardship. Central to this work are dedicated volunteers, including Judy Ju, Vicky Hong, Mary Jin, Nandini Dogra, Hans Moningka, Jessica Li, Indra Yanti, Shuyuan Qiu, Yuanhua Fan, Lily Lin and Junming Xu. These volunteers help families put food on the table, support older residents, welcome newcomers and ensure people know that they are not alone. Through their generosity and compassion, they are building a stronger and more connected community.</para>
<para>I want to recognise the remarkable work of the Burwood Vinnies Support Centre, led by coordinator Ladan Ghavamizadeh. Under Ladan's leadership, the centre has become a trusted source of support for people facing difficult circumstances, providing food, essential items, financial counselling and assistance with energy bills and homelessness. This work is powered by an extraordinary volunteer team: Fely, who continues serving the community at 82 years of age, Louise, Linda, Christina, Win, Janina, Serena, Rochelle, Nabila, Shreya, Sneha and Nicholas Chu, who chose to remain as a volunteer after completing his placement there.</para>
<para>What strikes me most about our local community organisations is their commitment to dignity. They understand that helping someone is about more than meeting their immediate need; it is about restoring hope and reminding people that they matter. A wonderful example is Vinnies's annual Christmas initiative, which allows parents and grandparents experiencing hardship to choose a gift for their loved one, giving them dignity at that special time of year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gambling</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are plenty of fun ways to lose your money on the Mornington Peninsula. For example, you could buy a boat, you could take up golf—or you could put your money through one of our 765 poker machines. Last financial year, locals and visitors lost more than $90 million on poker machines on the Mornington Peninsula. That's around $250,000 every day. That's money not going to pay down the mortgage. It's not filling the tank. It's not feeding the family. It's not being invested in a new business nor being put away for retirement. And, importantly, these figures do not capture every bet placed by phone, by every online account or by every person being bombarded with offers to have 'just one more punt', which would amount to tens if not hundreds of millions of lost dollars—more.</para>
<para>Now, I'm all in favour of a flutter. There's nothing like the thrill of a bet with the bookies at the Balnarring races or the marvel of backing a winner in the Mornington Cup in autumn. It's part of the Australian culture, and it's part of our fun. But for many of my fellow residents in Flinders there is no fun when it comes to gambling. There is misery, there is fear, there is addiction, there are lies and obfuscation to the people we love, there is theft, there is elder abuse, there is family breakdown, there is domestic violence, and, for some, there is homelessness.</para>
<para>Today the incentive and the cultural pressure to gamble, particularly for boys and men, has reached epic proportions, largely pushed via the algorithmic firehose online. Betting advertising has become almost impossible to avoid. When I visited schools with Daniel Principe, an advocate for flourishing men and boys, he asked a large group of young men from year 7 to year 9, 'Who amongst you has seen gambling advertising in your social media feed in the last week?' And every single hand went up. We should not accept that a generation of Australian children will grow up thinking that gambling is simply part of sport, part of their adolescence or part of their journey into adulthood.</para>
<para>I recently joined former prime minister John Howard and my parliamentary colleagues in signing an open letter to the government to demand stronger action on gambling advertising. It pointed to research estimating that around 600,000 Australian children aged 12 to 17 are gambling already, spending approximately $18 million a year. Think about that. They're children—not adults making an informed decision to have a punt.</para>
<para>The late Peta Murphy, my first parliamentary neighbour on the Mornington Peninsula, did important bipartisan work on gambling harm. We owe it to her—to her force and determination in this place—as well as to the much missed intellect of the former members for Menzies and Hughes and to all Australian families to take this issue seriously and to act with impact.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Solomon Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  There's a lot happening out at East Arm, between Darwin and Palmerston in the great electorate of Solomon. I dropped in to Global Resource Recovery NT recently. Their team is recycling industrial oil waste and turning it into higher grade fuels, including diesel, unleaded and jet fuel. It's helping strengthen our fuel resilience while reducing costs for their customers, and it's exactly the kind of industry we want to see more of in Darwin,</para>
<para>East Arm is already a natural logistics and industrial hub where road, rail, port, marine and defence infrastructure all come together, and there's plenty of room there to grow. The Albanese Labor government is backing that growth with significant investment in better freight connections through the new Tiger Brennan Drive and Berrimah Road overpass, and investment in the Navy's regional maintenance centre RMC North. We're also building on the Multi-User Barge Ramp Facility alongside our $300 million NAIF investment in the Darwin ship lift. This is to support more industry and activity at East Arm.</para>
<para>As the special envoy for defence and for northern Australia, I recently convened meetings in Darwin, including with high-ranking members of the ADF, DefenceNT from the NT government and National Intermodal, who we have funded to assist with the rollout of our $440 million federal government contribution towards establishing logistics hubs across the NT. This coordination and collaboration is vital.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is focused on building the infrastructure that helps territory businesses to expand, unlock new economic opportunities, make us more competitive and create good, sustainable jobs for Territorians. We're also getting on with the job, delivering other infrastructure to build Darwin and Palmerston, which is the capital of the north: $10 million to upgrade maternity services at Royal Darwin Hospital; and new Darwin and Palmerston Medicare urgent care clinics, which are taking the load off Royal Darwin Hospital. Our government has delivered record hospital funding for the Territory of $3.5 billion over five years, which represents an additional $741 million. But there's much more—$60 million of federal funding for a new 120-plus bed residential aged-care facility in Palmerston along with what we've already delivered, which is funding for a 26-bed, purpose-built, dementia-friendly facility in Darwin. There are also more measures to help Territorians get into their first home, including final mile infrastructure for water, sewer, power and road connections to unlock more homes for Territorians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gympie Carcass Classic, Parliamentary Petitions</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I congratulate the Gympie Beef Group for hosting the 2026 Gympie Carcass Classic, which recently celebrated its 39th year of supporting beef producers and industry professionals across Wide Bay. The event brings together participants of all ages, from high-school students to experienced cattle producers, to highlight the important role Wide Bay plays in Queensland's world-class beef industry. Established in 1987, the Gympie Carcass Classic has become one of Queensland's premier educational cattle competitions. Through learning and collaboration, the event helps producers better understand market specifications, consumer expectations and emerging industry trends. This ensures our beef industry remains innovative and competitive.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the efforts of the organisers and sponsors, particularly Dan Sullivan and the Nolan family, and commend Hayden Pratt, Emma and Sheryl Franz, Amy Atkinson and the committee for their dedicated and hard work in delivering another outstanding classic. I presented the Highest MSA Index Score (Eating Quality) category award to Devils View Angus and congratulate them on also winning the High Scoring Angus x Charbray category award, which is a testament to their dedication to quality production and excellence in the beef industry. To everyone involved in this year's Gympie Carcass Classic, thank you for your contribution to one of Australia's most important industries.</para>
<para>I speak in support of petition EN10266, which was launched by Alecia Staines and the Maternity Consumer Network, with regard to professional indemnity insurance arrangements for endorsed midwives. Australian laws require two midwives to attend every home birth, and from 2027 the second attendant is also required to hold midwifery endorsement. This might seem to be a simple regulatory matter, but for many women it affects something absolutely fundamental: the right to choose where and how they give birth. Many people currently fulfilling this role are not endorsed midwives. They are experienced hospital midwives, nurses and ambulance officers. These second attendants average four home births each year.</para>
<para>For many, the time, cost and insurance requirements needed to obtain endorsement are a barrier. With only 1,742 endorsed midwives across Australia and almost half of all home births occurring in rural and regional areas, these changes risk making home births inaccessible. This petition calls for a transitional exemption until the end of 2027 and for meaningful consultation to assess the economic safety and psychological impacts. Women deserve birthing choice, regional Australians deserve access to the same maternity options that are available in cities, and this petition deserves strong support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deakin Community Awards</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GREGG</name>
    <name.id>315154</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to talk about a special event I had the privilege of hosting in my community: the 2026 Deakin Community Awards. This special night was about thanking and recognising the people and organisations that make our community tick. Deakin is full of good people and goodwill. It's full of people who decide to give their time, their energy and their expertise for the benefit of others. It's full of people who see a challenge, a need or an opportunity to bring people together and they roll up their sleeves and get on with it. Whether it's providing a warm meal or bed for someone who needs it, cleaning up our local environment, helping someone new to our area get involved or a small business sponsoring local clubs and societies, they're all important. They're positive impacts that make Deakin such a wonderful place to live.</para>
<para>We recognise dozens of nominees on the night. I couldn't afford enough trophies to give one to every organisation that deserves it, but I want to make special mention of the organisations that did win the award on the night: Eastern Emergency Relief Network won the Volunteer Impact award; Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network won the Youth Services award; Ian Barnes won the Heart of the Community award; Mackenzie Li won the Rising Star Youth Achievement award; the Australian Iranian Society of Victoria and the Aga Khan Muslim council for Australia and New Zealand won the Intercultural Deakin Award; Heather Dale Creek Parklands Advisory Committee won the Environmental Action and Sustainability award; Nicole Stagg won the Sporting Spirit Award; Popit Recycling won the Business Innovation and Impact award; DentaLife won the Local Maker award; Eastland was named the Community Champion Business; Croydon Men's Shed won the Inclusiveness award; and Gitta Clayton won the Evergreen Spirit Award.</para>
<para>These people make our community vibrant, diverse and welcoming and a place that so many Australians are proud to call home. I'd like to thank Whitefriars for hosting us that night and for facilitating such a wonderful award space.</para>
<para>At the beginning of the night, I saw community members of all ages and all backgrounds stand up side-by-side and proudly sing our national anthem. You have some moments in this job where you just think to yourself, 'we are going to be OK'. I have a strong community, a community of proud Australians who are willing to come together and make the place better for everyone in it. There is hope and I could even see those light bulb moments when groups would meet each other, see what they're doing and identify opportunities to collaborate, get together and make the place even better.</para>
<para>While we often have discussions in this place about all the challenges we face, Australians are fundamentally decent and good people. They want to be part of the solution. It was fantastic to see the best of what our community has to offer, and I'm just so grateful for all the volunteers and fantastic organisations in Deakin for the enormous contributions they make which make Deakin a wonderful place to live. Thank you very much.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hendrick, Mr Howard, DFC, OAM</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to pay tribute to one of the finest Australians I've had the privilege to know: Flying Officer Howard Hendrick DFC, OAM. Howard passed away recently at the age of 102. He was a decorated war hero, but to the people of Loxton he was so, so much more—a cherished member of the community, a true gentleman and a friend to all. He was universally respected, deeply loved and quite rightly revered.</para>
<para>Born and raised in South Australia's Riverland, Howard enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force on Anzac Day 1942 at the age of 18. After completing pilot training, he was posted to No. 460 Squadron and flew Lancaster bombers with the RAF Bomber Command over occupied Europe. The dangers Howard and his crew faced are almost impossible for us to comprehend. Of the 110,000 aircrew who served in Bomber Command, more than 55,000 lost their lives. Yet Howard completed 31 operational missions, including 30 as pilot in command with the same crew, most often flying the Lancaster bomber known as B for Baker.</para>
<para>His courage was matched by his extraordinary skill. When caught by fighters and searchlights over Frankfurt, Howard threw his Lancaster into a violent corkscrew dive from 22,000 feet to 6,000 feet, saving his crew. On another mission, flak set one engine alight and damaged a second. Flying on only two engines, Howard nursed the stricken aircraft home and landed it safely nine hours later.</para>
<para>For his service, Howard was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. His citation recognised the fortitude, courage and devotion to duty. In 2017 French authorities appointed him as a Knight of the Legion of Honour for his contribution to its liberation. But for all he achieved, Howard never regarded himself as a hero. He simply said that he'd done what he was told. That was Howard—remarkable deeds carried out with profound humility.</para>
<para>After the war and following a career as a commercial pilot, Howard returned to the Riverland and devoted himself to his family and his community. He shared his experiences with generations of students, supported veterans and their families, visited veterans in hospital and remained an active member of the Loxton RSL subbranch. In 2016, Howard was named Loxton Citizen of the Year. In 2019, he received the medal of the Order of Australia for services to Loxton in the community. In 2025, he was awarded life membership of the RSL subbranch.</para>
<para>To Howard's daughters, Margaret and Jane, and their families: I extend my deepest condolences. Howard Hendrick was a war hero, a community hero and a great Australian. We mourn his passing, but we give thanks for his extraordinary life and service. Vale, Howard. May you rest in peace united with your beloved Win. Lest we forget.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A remarkable man. Vale, Howard Hendrick.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I also thank and commend the previous speaker for sharing that story with the parliament and recording that tribute in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>We're back for a fortnight of parliament and on day two, the contrast couldn't be clearer. On one side, you've got the government focused on things that matter to Australians: tackling the cost of living; the global inflation pressures, particularly from the war in Iran; cutting tax for working Australians in five different ways; and boosting wages. The policy of those opposite when they were in government was for real wages to go backwards. That was their deliberate economic strategy as they said. There has been some really good news in the last week about Medicare bulk-billing. We inherited a bulk-billing rate in freefall, and we turned that around, with the largest investment in Medicare. Bulk-billing rates are now up to 84 per cent. That means that 84 per cent of visits by Australians to GPs across the country are now free—no out-of-pocket expenses; 3,800 GP practices now fully bulk-bill their patients, 100 per cent.</para>
<para>And fee-free TAFE: 800,000 enrolments. Having a great job changes lives, and Australians can now train without worrying about the cost of fees in critical skills-shortage areas. That means more nurses, more tradies and more early childhood workers. The $10,000 tradies cash bonus is making a real difference. Anyone who is interested in a construction trade should take up this offer. Then there is the extension of paid prac, which has already changed the lives of student nurses and teachers, to 10 other occupations—psychologists and so many more. And cheaper medicines—essential life-saving medicines—are saving hundreds of millions of dollars for Australians.</para>
<para>The coalition and One Nation oppose all of this. The contrast with the opposition rabble is astounding. This morning they've completely lost the plot. They had their senior members out there pulling political stunts, wasting police time with ridiculous referrals. I want the Australian Federal Police focused on serious crimes that make a difference to Australians, not engaging in pathetic political stunts. And the opposition are now ripping each other to pieces trying to out-One-Nation One Nation.</para>
<para>I saw John Howard, former Liberal prime minister, in the paper this morning reminding them of a few basic truths. John Howard and his generation of Liberal and Nationals leaders knew back then that you couldn't give an inch to One Nation, that there was no backward step. Yet this mob are playing footsie, wanting to import from overseas the chaos and division that we see on television. They've forgotten the lesson of the Howard era—that playing footsie with this kind of politics is dangerous for our economy, for our society and for our place in the region. I really encourage them to get their act together, to pull themselves together. But I saw on TV this morning that they've now got a plan, which they're waving around; it looks like they've discovered ChatGPT. There's nothing in the plan, but it's got a lovely cover!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Australia: Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to see that the ACCC recently made an announcement of a review into mandated roaming—some 10 years since they last looked at this. Mandated roaming means that if you've got a Telstra phone you can go underneath an Optus tower or a Vodafone tower and your phone will still work. It's not a novel concept. In fact, most of the rest of the world already has this. You can actually access it any time you go overseas. But you can't do this in Australia, because of this monopoly of Telstra. They are a virus that started in western Queensland and now goes into much of the peri-urban areas of Australia, where we are seeing our mobile telephony fall down in its ability to do its job. And it is not just Telstra. We're now seeing it with Optus, and we saw that, tragically, lives were lost because triple zero went down because Optus towers were not maintained. Well, if you live in Western Queensland, that's a daily occurrence, because many of these towers are not maintained to the standard they should be.</para>
<para>What we have, with the investment that the Australian taxpayer has made—and Australian taxpayers' money has built more than 1,500 new mobile phone towers for all these mobile companies—are isolated assets, where you'll go through four or five Telstra towers and then come to an Optus tower. It isn't worth the paper it's written on, because you don't have the ability to tap into it. In remote areas, that is life and death. It's not about the convenience of ringing your girlfriend about going to have a cup of coffee; it's about being able to get off a highway after you've broken down or had a car accident to ring triple zero. That's what we go through every day.</para>
<para>It has taken 10 years for the ACCC to come around to this—and they were hoodwinked by Telstra, who said that if there was mandated roaming there would be no further investment in regional telecommunications. They didn't put a cent into it. They never were going to, unless taxpayers were going to do it. We should never listen to Telstra, and the fact that we are now catching up is an embarrassment—that we do not have mandated roaming already in this country, after the investment we have made.</para>
<para>But we also need—and I urge the government to look at the legislation they have on the books at the moment—to extend the Universal Service Obligation beyond payphones and landlines to mobile phone towers as well. When the USO was put in place, mobile phones—lo and behold!—didn't exist. But Telstra gets $270 million a year to maintain payphones and landlines that no-one actually uses. They are getting a free hit. That $270 million should be extended to maintain those towers. We should have mandated roaming that will give every Australian the ability to have telecommunications as a universal right not just to do business but to keep ourselves safe. That is common sense. That's what I say to this government. Don't even wait for the ACCC. Fix the USO, and fix mandated roaming.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOLZBERGER</name>
    <name.id>88411</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to blow the cobwebs out a bit after the winter break, and it gives me a chance to reflect on where the Albanese Labor government sits not only in the history of Labor governments but in the history of Australia. I was reading the other day from when Paul Keating addressed the Press Club in 1995. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australian policy had been right through the eighties … different to the orthodox model of economic liberalisation the model adopted in a number of other countries and by our opponents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It took the view—</para></quote>
<para>our policies took the view—</para>
<quote><para class="block">that we could be competitive and still look after those on the margins. We could compete with the best in the region and the world, and yet maintain our egalitarian values and preserve our social cohesion.</para></quote>
<para>We are at a time in Australia where our egalitarian values are stressed and our social cohesion is stressed. They are stressed because we have had 30 years of economic liberalisation, privatisation, economic rationalism and unfettered free trade that has left the communities that we represent, working class communities, in many ways devastated and in a lot of pain.</para>
<para>When I look at what the contest in the next election is shaping up to be, I find a disconnect, particularly when looking at One Nation. What I find, when I talk to One Nation voters and then I actually look at One Nation policies, is that people who might espouse support for One Nation are generally sick of the fact that we haven't been building public housing, investing in public energy and protecting our local industries. But, actually, when you look at One Nation and the people who are supporting One Nation—and it shouldn't really come as a surprise—they are about economic liberalisation on steroids. The disconnect between the policies of One Nation and the people who are, I think, in many ways quite rightly disaffected with the economy, is really quite stark. I think it is going to be my job over the next year or so to really highlight those differences, because those differences are stark.</para>
<para>It is only Labor governments that back in wage rises. It is only Labor governments that protect Medicare. It is only Labor governments that are protecting our industries like our steel industry in Whyalla, our aluminium industry in Gladstone or our copper industry in Mount Isa. It is only Labor governments that actually are focused on changing the system for the people that we represent, for working class people, to give them an opportunity to get into the housing market, get into training and into a good job, and to have a good, decent retirement through superannuation and a supportive pension system. The community is calling out for change, but it is only the Albanese Labor government, as it is always in the context of Labor government, that is providing that real change.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SMALL</name>
    <name.id>291406</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Healthcare in this country, despite the political spin and the press releases, is under real pressure. In regional communities like mine that pressure continues to mount on families who simply can't afford it. We are seeing hospitals under strain and emergency departments stretched thin despite the best efforts of our nurses and doctors. Last year, I rose in this place to draw attention to the ambulance ramping crisis in Forrest, and since that time neither Labor government has taken any meaningful action to address it. Ambulance ramping is unacceptable anywhere, but in the regions it's simply worse because there isn't another hospital just down the road. The reality is that in regional communities like mine the consequences are sharper and felt more deeply in our community.</para>
<para>I was recently contacted by Kim, who shared his telling experience with our healthcare system. Kim doesn't often need to see a doctor, but on this occasion required a basic consultation over the phone. He was told that it would cost him $75—that is, $75 for a 10-minute call. How can we expect people in our regions who can't travel easily to manage their health when their first point of contact has become a financial burden? We all know that, at the same time, families are dealing with a lot right now. The cost of living is rising. Groceries, power bills, rent—you name it. It's all going up. For those managing an ongoing or chronic condition, those pressures don't just add up; they multiply. What that creates is a situation where people are forced into a choice: getting the care they need or keeping up with the bills they need to pay. That's simply not good enough. Despite the talking points from the government, people in the regions, people in communities like mine, don't see the progress that's claimed.</para>
<para>I turn to Margaret River, for example, where a growing, indeed surging, population for the last quarter of a century has placed huge demand on healthcare services locally. The community is crying out for upgrades to the Margaret River hospital because the current situation is unsustainable, and I stress that that is through no fault of the local staff, who are doing their darndest to make ends meet. Every time I go to Margaret River, locals bail me up in the street to tell me that this is a major problem for their community. So I encourage everyone to have their voice heard, to sign my petition and to send a message to the government that this needs to be upgraded. Together we've got to stand for better health care in our regions, because this government sure isn't.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cunningham Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Across Cunningham we have had so many reasons to celebrate lately, with cultural events, community gatherings and significant milestones reached right across the Illawarra.</para>
<para>Last week we celebrated India's 80th Independence Day with fantastic food, dancing, singing and entertainment for all ages. I say a very big thank you to Dr Sharad Tamhane, Usha Fernandez and the Indian Australian Cultural Association of Illawarra for organising such a vibrant day.</para>
<para>The Port Kembla Football Club has just turned 60. It was a privilege to celebrate the dedication of countless Zebras players, coaches, volunteers and supporters over the last 60 years with President Sean Till and his entire team.</para>
<para>The George Cross Falcons Community Centre recently celebrated its 75th anniversary. Joining the amazing Louis Parnis and 400 of our Australian Maltese friends was a great opportunity to recognise this incredible milestone and the generations who have helped to build its legacy.</para>
<para>In July, the Illawarra Women's Health Centre celebrated 40 years of supporting local women. Congratulations to CEO Jess Davidson and to all of her team on this fabulous achievement.</para>
<para>During this year's NAIDOC Week, we celebrated '50 Years of Deadly' at Bellambi Neighbourhood Centre's Family Fun Day alongside our amazing Cath Daly and her incredible team. It was wonderful to see such a strong turnout from local families, community members and service providers to show support and celebrate with our First Nations community.</para>
<para>UOW Motorsport celebrated 25 years of engineering, design and innovation leading to real-world success and a lasting impact on the program's graduates. A big congratulations to team principal Connor Harvey, his team and all of the alumni on this great accomplishment.</para>
<para>Another yearly staple on my calendar is the BlueScope WIN Wollongong Eisteddfod, now marking 132 years. This was another fantastic evening showcasing the talent and dedication of so many young performers. A big congratulations to Tony and the team as well as to all of the amazing performers, teachers, parents and volunteers on another outstanding showcase evening.</para>
<para>We love to celebrate milestones big and small in the Illawarra, and it was really wonderful to join the Berkeley Community Centre for its fourth Mini Service Expo last week. The expo brought together local organisations, services and community groups under one roof to support those doing it tough. I say a big thank you to Joel from Heartwork Mental Health and NDIS Services, Shaz and KP from Need a Feed and our amazing Maria from Berkeley Community Centre for bringing everyone together.</para>
<para>We are so fortunate to have so many passionate people making such a positive difference across our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Thriving Kids Program</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When it comes to the NDIS, the key requests from parents and caregivers in my electorate of Mackellar is that small local providers be able to continue supporting their children as they transition to the Thriving Kids program. Local private providers like Kids First, Beachie Speechie, Kids Plan-It and Occupational Therapy Helping Children provide a significant proportion of early intervention, school participation support and developmental services for children across the Northern Beaches. These services are embedded within our local community. They're embedded in the schools and in the families. They have built strong connections based on trust with the kids they support and have intimate knowledge of their clients' abilities and needs.</para>
<para>If experienced private providers are excluded from meaningful participation in Thriving Kids, with procurement structures only favouring large non-governmental organisations, then many smaller medium-sized paediatric practices will simply not survive. This risks children losing access to trusted therapists, families facing longer waitlists, schools losing established allied health partnerships and underserved areas losing already limited access to support.</para>
<para>For many neurodivergent children and kids with developmental delays, continuity of care and trusted relationships are critical to engagement and progress. I'm deeply concerned that the private practices that have supported Northern Beaches families for years have been advised by the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice that they were unsuccessful in progressing to the next stage of procurement without explanation. This has left these providers and the families they support devastated and distressed. Understandably, they're asking about how this decision was made despite the overwhelming feedback from parents, caregivers and disability advocates that local private practices must be retained under Thriving Kids.</para>
<para>Any decision to exclude smaller local providers is not grounded in the realities of service delivery. A sustainable system requires a mixed ecosystem of support, including government services, NGOs and experienced private allied health providers. I urge the New South Wales government to ensure procurement accessibility for private providers to maintain continuity of care, workforce sustainability, timely access to services and the preservation of existing therapeutic relationships.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brisbane Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>132</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JARRETT</name>
    <name.id>298574</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am passionate about empowering young people to reach their full potential and be the very best versions of themselves. They will write the next chapter of Australia's story, which is why it was a pleasure to visit two outstanding organisations in Brisbane last week that are helping young people thrive.</para>
<para>Firstly, I visited yourtown to learn more about its work, including the operation of the Kids Helpline. For more than 60 years, yourtown has supported young Australians across mental health, education, employment, homelessness, parenting, child protection and domestic and family violence. Their approach is not simply about responding when things go wrong; it's about providing young people with the opportunities, the skills, the safety and the support they need to build their futures. They do this through education and employment pathways. They support young parents. They provide family accommodation, mental health services and social enterprises that actually provide real workplace experiences. At the heart of their work is a simple but powerful principle: every young person deserves a place where they feel safe, respected, valued and free from judgement.</para>
<para>The Kids Helpline, powered by yourtown, is Australia's only free, confidential 24/7 counselling service, and it's dedicated to young people between the ages of five and 25. Since commencing in 1991, it has responded to nine million contacts. Importantly, young people don't need to be in a crisis to go there; they can speak with qualified counsellors about family, friendship, school, identity, stress—things that are challenging them at a particular point in time. Sometimes, as we all know, the most important step is not in solving a problem immediately but in ensuring somebody is there to listen. I thank the team at the Milton office for welcoming me and for the remarkable work that they do every day.</para>
<para>Another fantastic organisation making a difference is the Push, Australia's youth music charity. For around 40 years, the Push has helped young Australians find their place in music through all-ages events, workshops, mentoring, studio access and industry training. It recognises that music is more than entertainment; music can connect people who might otherwise have nothing in common. It can foster confidence, friendship, belonging and identity, providing that powerful feeling that 'these are my people'. Last week, I attended the Music Careers Expo at the Triffid, where I met many talented young Brisbane creators from our local schools, including aspiring songwriters, performers, producers and stage crew. They were learning from industry professionals as they considered their next steps to stardom. I'd like to thank Kate and the team at the Push for the invitation and for their commitment to creating opportunities for young people. Young people are our future, and, to use the words of Winnie-the-Pooh, programs like these will help them see they are braver than they believe, stronger than they seem and smarter than they think.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McPherson Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>132</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REBELLO</name>
    <name.id>316547</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to recognise some of the people and organisations I've had the privilege of spending time with across the McPherson electorate in recent weeks. In Tallebudgera Valley, I joined Valley Riding Develops Abilities to celebrate their 30th anniversary. I particularly acknowledge Beverley Humphries, who helped establish Valley RDA and has given three decades of service since. I also thank president Cliff Hitch, the executive committee and the volunteers, coaches, families and supporters who've helped make the organisation what it is today. For 30 years, Valley RDA has helped riders build confidence, independence and connection, and it was wonderful to celebrate that milestone with them.</para>
<para>I also joined the Flag Football Academy for the first ever Gold Coast Bowl at Greenheart Robina Parklands. It was fantastic to see players, coaches and families come together for a great weekend of competition and to see the growth of flag football there on the Gold Coast. I thank Carlos Hernandez and the team behind the tournament for creating opportunities for young people to get involved in a growing sport. Congratulations to all players, and I give a special shout out to Hillcrest Christian College for putting forward four exceptional teams.</para>
<para>At Bond University, I had the opportunity to speak with students in the Faculty of Law's Australian Government and Politics class about parliament, policymaking and public life. I thank subject coordinator, Melissa Hofmann, for the invitation and for giving students the opportunity to hear directly about the workings of our democracy.</para>
<para>Further south in McPherson, I visited Currumbin Rhythm Music School, where Kel and Don have built a thriving local music community that has grown to more than 150 students. They built the school with hard work and determination from the ground up, and the next generation of musicians are now the beneficiaries. It was terrific to see the energy in the school and the opportunities they're creating for young people to develop their confidence, their creativity and their love of music. I look forward to watching the school continue to grow.</para>
<para>Everyone on the Gold Coast knows Baby Give Back. I met with Tiffany and the team in their Varsity Lakes warehouse to learn more about the practical support they provide to families across our community. Their work is a reminder that some of the most important support in our community comes from organisations and volunteers who quietly step in when families need a helping hand. The scale of the Baby Give Back operation is impressive, and I'm glad to now offer my Varsity Lakes office as a collection point for items to be donated to them.</para>
<para>Leanne Cohens and the Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce committee arranged yet another exciting event, this time at Hard Fizz in Burleigh Waters. Events like these bring local businesspeople together, create new connections and give me the chance to hear directly about the challenges and opportunities facing businesses across the southern Gold Coast. What a great night!</para>
<para>It's been a fantastic non-sitting period in the southern Gold Coast community, and I'm looking forward to continuing to represent them here in Canberra.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gorton Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>133</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JORDAN-BAIRD</name>
    <name.id>316021</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Aintree Giants football and netball club is a club that embodies the very best of community spirit in Melbourne's growing western suburbs. When the sporting facilities at Aintree were developed, the Aintree Giants vision was simple but powerful: provide children and young people in our growing suburbs with a welcoming club where everyone can develop skills, build confidence and create lifelong friendships. Today, that vision is thriving. The club has grown to support more than 200 young players and, this year, proudly expanded, with the establishment of its junior netball program. Behind every training session, every game, every sausage sizzle and every milestone are the volunteers who make it all possible. Coaches, team managers, committee members, parents and supporters generously give their time week after week. Congratulations to all on another successful season, including the biggest ever home game and the achievements of players reaching their 50-game milestones. Go the mighty Giants!</para>
<para>On Sunday 26 July, I had the pleasure of joining We Love Aintree, a grassroots environmental organisation, and their volunteers for their National Tree Day community planting at the historic Rockbank Inn site. It was wonderful to see local Scout groups, the Aintree Reserve parkrun community and so many other local organisations, families and volunteers working side by side to care for the environment. Together, we planted more than 2,000 native tubestock seedlings that, when fully grown, will provide vital habitat for native wildlife. National Tree Day reminds us that protecting our environment starts in our own neighbourhoods. In fast-growing communities like those across Gorton, initiatives like these ensure growth is accompanied by thriving green spaces. I give a special thankyou to Jono Ingram, Carolyn—known locally as Tassie—and Hayden Pemberton, whose passion and leadership have helped grow We Love Aintree into a thriving community movement.</para>
<para>From its very conception, the new multipurpose court at St Mary's Syro-Malabar Catholic Church was a youth led initiative. Young people designed the court, led the fundraising efforts and, with the generous support of their families, the parish and the wider church community, rolled up their sleeves to help construct it. These hardworking and dedicated young leaders didn't simply ask for a place to gather. They created one for future generations of young people to connect, belong and flourish. It was my honour to be at the court's inauguration and serve one of the very first volleyballs over the net in a game with the young people that built it. This project is truly a powerful example of what can be achieved when young people are empowered to lead, supported by a community that believes in them. To every young person who dreamed of this project, to the volunteers who mentored them and to the families and the parish community, who backed them every step of the way, thank you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>133</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>133</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7522" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7513" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>133</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JARRETT</name>
    <name.id>298574</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I finished my contribution last night by saying that many rural communities still experience unreliable telecommunications. Just this week, it was reported that telecommunications across the western cape suffered another outage just hours after services were restored following a bushfire which brought services down over the weekend. Electronic payment terminals are only as reliable as the networks supporting them. Cash provides certainty. Labor understands that Australians living outside major cities deserve the same access to essential goods, regardless of technology limitations. Older Australians also benefit significantly. While many seniors happily embrace digital banking, many others remain comfortable using cash. That preference deserves respect. No Australian should feel excluded simply because they don't use the latest payment technology.</para>
<para>Labor believes inclusion means ensuring everyone can participate in the economy, not just those who are digitally connected. The reforms also help Australians experiencing financial hardship. Community organisations have long recognised that physical cash can be an effective budgeting tool. People leaving situations involving financial control or domestic violence, people recovering from gambling addiction, people rebuilding after a financial crisis—for these Australians, cash provides an essential means to buy food and pay for medicines and greater control over their personal finances. By protecting access to cash, our government is also protecting financial choice. Importantly, our reforms do strike a sensible balance. We have not required every business in Australia to accept cash. Instead, we focused on essential purchases, fuel and groceries, the items that Australians simply cannot live without. It recognises that businesses also face costs when handling cash—costs associated with security, banking, transport, insurance, staff time et cetera. Labor acknowledges these realities by exempting many small businesses with turnover below $10 million while requiring larger retailers selling essential goods to continue accepting cash.</para>
<para>We want to protect consumers. We want to support vulnerable Australians but also recognise the practical challenges faced by businesses. Our government also recognises that accepting cash means very little if cash cannot actually reach communities. As Australians increasingly use digital payments, transporting cash around the country has become more expensive. Fewer companies now provide these services. Without government action, there was a genuine risk Australia's cash distribution system could become unsustainable. That's why, with this bill, our government is establishing a national framework to protect Australia's cash distribution network. This legislation helps ensure ATMs remain stocked, retailers continue receiving cash deliveries and Australians maintain reliable access to notes and coins into the future.</para>
<para>Most of us have probably had the experience of going to an ATM when you need the cash, only to find it closed. All of a sudden we're stranded, and then we start thinking: 'Where is the closest ATM? I wonder if it's closed.' Our heads then go to: 'What if I can't get any cash? Who can I ask a favour of? Who can I borrow from?' It can go on and on, creating fear and anxiety. There is no excuse.</para>
<para>These reforms are about protecting critical infrastructure. When we think about infrastructure, we often think about roads and ports and railways, electricity and telecommunications. But cash distribution is also part of Australia's economic infrastructure. If people cannot access cash or use cash when they need it, consumer choice is reduced and economic resilience is weakened. That is why our government is ensuring cash remains available even as payment habits evolve.</para>
<para>I mention consumer choice as it really is another important aspect of these reforms. It is not about forcing Australians to use cash. If somebody prefers a digital wallet or to use their watch, that's perfectly fine. If another person prefers cash, though, that should also be respected, and we believe Australians should have both options. Freedom of choice is strengthened when governments preserve alternatives rather than allowing one system to eliminate another.</para>
<para>The reforms also recognise an important principle: technology should serve people. People should not become servants to technology. Innovation is valuable; we all know that. Digital payment has transformed commerce. It has also transformed how we shop, how we work and how we entertain ourselves. But governments do have a responsibility to ensure innovation remains inclusive, and that means protecting Australians who continue to rely on cash while embracing modern payment technologies.</para>
<para>Now, some critics have argued that these reforms are unnecessary because cash use is declining, but declining does not mean disappearing. The Reserve Bank data showed millions of Australians still use cash every week, particularly for budgeting, emergencies and smaller purchases. I don't know about you, but I love a good fete, and in fact we have lots of them across Brisbane. I can assure you I am often putting my hand in my pocket, pulling out a few dollars to pay for a game of hoops, a jar of bickies or maybe a pair of handmade earrings. These schools rely on these wonderful community activities to raise money for much-needed books or playground facilities. They rely on us having cash.</para>
<para>Labor recognises that even if cash becomes less common, it does remain critically important. Sometimes public policy isn't about serving the majority; it's about ensuring minorities aren't excluded. And that's exactly what these reforms achieve. Others have argued the reforms should have applied to every business. We instead chose to a targeted approach: essential purchases first, protect Australians where it matters most, and review the policies over time. That demonstrates responsible government, carefully balancing consumer protection with business practicality.</para>
<para>We have also committed to reviewing the cash acceptance mandate after three years to ensure it remains effective and fit for purpose. Good governments don't simply introduce reforms and walk away. They monitor, they listen to stakeholders, they listen to consumers, and they improve policies where necessary. Ultimately, this issue is about more than banknotes and coins; it's about inclusion and choice.</para>
<para>In closing, the Albanese Labor government believes Australians should never be denied access to essential goods simply because they choose to pay with legal Australian currency. That's why Labor has protected the right to use cash for essential purchases. That's why Labor is safeguarding Australia's cash distribution. And it's why Labor is ensuring, even in an increasingly digital economy, no Australian is left behind. Technology will continue to evolve, and payment methods will continue to change. Fairness, accessibility and consumer choice should always remain at the heart of public policy. Labor's cash reforms reflect those values. They modernise Australia's payment system while preserving an important choice for millions of Australians. They protect vulnerable people, they strengthen resilience during emergencies, they support regional communities, they recognise that people need choice, and they demonstrate that progress and inclusion can go hand in hand. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My late father, Lance, was a wise person, and I can remember when I left home at 22 to get married to my wife Catherine all those years ago—in 1986—he gave me $50 and said, 'Keep it in your wallet, and make sure you always have cash with you.' If I reach in here, into my coat, I've got $10.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are no moths coming out there, member for McEwen or member for Corangamite, but it's certainly important to always have a bit of cash on you because you never know when you're going to get caught short. You never know when the technology is going to fail or when the point-to-point Visa operators or electronic payments systems fail. Certainly, in regional Australia, this is very much the case. I've been interested to hear the contributions from those opposite. I had shadow ministerial table duty last night, and I spent a lot of time listening to Labor members talking about this particular bill—the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026.</para>
<para>I was pleased that so many of them talked about people in country areas. It's good to hear Labor members talking about the regions because, all too often, in any bill before this chamber or the House, we don't hear about how any bill is going to affect regional people. We know that regional people are the ones who keep the lights on. We know that regional people are the ones who grow the food and fibre. We know that regional people are the ones who support our resources, minerals and mining industries to ensure our exports and balances of payments are what they need to be. Indeed, we are the very backbone of Australia, and cash in regional areas—regional economies—is so very important.</para>
<para>I heard the member for Swan, and I like the member for Swan, but, in that contribution, I was interested to hear the reference to, last year, the Treasurer securing commitments from Australia's big banks to hold off regional bank closures until the middle of 2027. That's slightly cute because we can't give the Treasurer too much credit in that regard. I have to say, the big banks were certainly making sure that they did the right thing, as far as the regions are concerned, for once, finally, a bit earlier than that. Certainly, the Commonwealth Bank, on 7 July 2023, put out a media release, and the introductory paragraph read:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Commonwealth Bank is maintaining banking services and employment in regional Australia by keeping all CBA regional branches open until at least the end of 2026, a three year extension on its current commitment.</para></quote>
<para>That, obviously, is a rolling commitment by the CBA. They too, have finally been dragged kicking and screaming to the table to support and protect regional communities. A lot of those banks have big holdings from what's popularly termed in country areas as 'old money'. That old money might have come off the back of a sheep, it might have been traditional money from an area that has been very wealthy in the past, passed on down through the families and is still in those banks. Those banks have then all too often, through the late eighties and since then, started to desert regional communities. It's not right that those banks are happy to have the cash holdings of that old money, and even just average customers with average holdings in those banks, and then close the branch. I appreciate that we're in 2026. I appreciate that many people—most people—are now paying via electronic means, via their phone, with tap-and-go, with credit cards or the like. But cash is still important, and that's why this legislation is vitally important.</para>
<para>I know that the member for Page, in his responsibilities as assistant shadow Treasurer, has moved an amendment to this bill. That's important, too, and I will get to that. But I just want to make some comments in relation to the banking inquiry of 2023. It was at that time, when the CBA had its initial moratorium on bank closures, that Senator Mathew Canavan and former Liberal senator Gerard Rennick were going around the regions and holding these important fora to look into banking closures. Senator Canavan, now the federal leader of the Nationals, has never wavered in his view that banks are vital and cash is important.</para>
<para>It was the hearing for that inquiry at Junee that had a lot to do with the CBA's decision, with other banks following suit, on the importance of cash as king, in regional economies in particular. The thing about Junee is that it is 42 kilometres from Wagga Wagga. If the CBA had closed its branch there, that would have left age-old enterprises such as the Co-Op, a very successful business, and the Junee Licorice & Chocolate Factory, probably one of Riverina's best tourism destinations, without cash on the premises when they opened of a day or forced to make a daily commute to Wagga Wagga—as I said, the distance of a good marathon away—to get cash to have in their tills for those people for whom cash is the only means of paying for goods and services.</para>
<para>That is not right. It is not fair. The CBA came to its senses and put in place the moratorium—and good on them for doing that. I said at the time that Junee was going to have a great opportunity to speak up against bank closures in their community. I commend the then mayor, Neil Smith, who, with me, fought for the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport to hold a hearing for the inquiry into regional bank closures in what is a rail-and-jail town—but a very important town.</para>
<para>Junee is halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, on the main rail line. It's been a huge agricultural producer. Like many of those regional towns, it deserves and needs banking services. It's got a community of 6½ thousand people. Without a local bank, many people would have had to make the one-hour round trip to Wagga Wagga—and that would probably mean going a bit fast, to do it in within 60 minutes—just to access simple banking services. That was not good enough, and I'm pleased that Junee is still getting banking services. That's where I commend Regional bank and like-minded organisations for starting up premises throughout country areas, particularly in the Riverina, to offer an option, an alternative to the big banks, who have not been as forthcoming as perhaps they should have in providing services and the branches in regional areas.</para>
<para>When NAB, the National Australia Bank, pulled out of Temora, the spokesperson for that particular organisation phoned me and said that a limited number of customers were going through the bank each week or each fortnight and they were the same customers. I appreciate that. Some of those banks have huge premises and they cost a lot to run. But, still, our country communities, which keep this nation going, deserve to have banks, particularly when some of the holdings of those customers are quite substantial.</para>
<para>Without bank branches, businesses, farms and particularly the elderly suffer immense disadvantage when compared to their city counterparts. They do so because, if you don't have banking services and you therefore don't have cash availability, older people—our populations in regional Australia are ageing—aren't able to access those vital banking services and that cash as quickly and as easily as somebody would in a metropolitan area. I said at the time that I didn't want to see older people who've lived in those towns their entire lives being forced to perhaps move to larger population areas just to get the sort of access to services that they need and deserve. So that inquiry at Junee on 21 September 2023 was important to what we're discussing now and the actions of the bigger banks to stay open and remain in those country communities.</para>
<para>We are not going to oppose this bill, but I do commend the member for Page for the amendment that he has brought to this debate because it is important that that we refine the bill such that it is better than in its current form. In June 2023, going back to that year when we had the Senate inquiry going around the countryside, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission approved the merger of Australia's two largest cash-in-transit companies, Armaguard and Prosegur. That decision handed a single company control of up to 90 per cent of the market—a private monopoly over how cash physically moves around Australia. Now, I know the ACCC would have looked into all the whys and wherefores about that particular merger, but, still and all, we know also how mergers and monopolies, moreover, can cause such disadvantage particularly in regional Australia and especially in those country communities.</para>
<para>This particular bill recognises that cash distribution is a form of critical national infrastructure. I again say I'm interested to see how many Labor members are speaking on this particular bill. I've heard Labor member after Labor member talking about how, generally—and they're right, by the way—infrastructure refers to rail, roads, dams, ports and airports and those sorts of things. But cash is an important part of national infrastructure, and we are very fortunate in Australia that our cash reserves, the cash that each and every one of us has in our wallets and purses and handbags et cetera, are of the polymer type. It's world-leading technology introduced many, many years ago; it's not of the paper variety. It's another one of those Australian inventions that is world leading, which is a very good thing. I can see the member for McEwen nodding. He agrees with me. We should be very proud of what our technology has enabled us to do in the cause of protecting cash.</para>
<para>I know that our police are very vigilant on our highways and byways to make sure that one of the now biggest distributions of illegal trade—that is, vapes and illegal cigarettes and the cash that flows with them, alongside them and behind them—is very much part and parcel of their day-to-day investigative operations. Australia's cash-in-transit network is dominated by Linfox Armaguard. As I said before, it handles roughly 85 to 90 per cent of the market. I know the ACCC continues to monitor such things.</para>
<para>This particular legislation that is before the House is important. It's good that there is relative agreement across the chamber, but I do urge and encourage that the amendment brought forward by the member for Page is followed and adopted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The old saying says, 'Cash is king.' Cash is essential to our economy. Cash plays an important role in promoting economic inclusion. Payment systems resilience and the store of value, particularly in times of uncertainty. If you talk to the RBA, around seven per cent of the population still use cash for more than 80 per cent of their transactions. High-cash users are more likely to be older and, in many cases, have a lower household income. These are the groups more likely to feel financial pressure and value having a good handle of their funds.</para>
<para>For seniors, the appeal of cash extends beyond budgeting. Many prefer it for its simplicity, reliability, most of all, security. Cash transactions do not rely on internet access or digital literacy, which can be barriers for older Australians. There are also concerns about scams and privacy, with physical currency offering anonymity and reducing exposure to fraud. Similarly, regional Australians are more likely to use cash than those living in capital cities. Natural disasters and electrical blackouts are times when access to cash is particularly critical. Blackouts, which occur more frequently in rural and regional areas, necessitate the use of cash. If you're a local business and the connectivity drops, you've missed the sale. There's a reason why emergency service agencies recommend that households keep cash in their emergency kits.</para>
<para>Australians across all demographic groups continue to use cash as a way to make their everyday payments. But now cash distribution is under threat. Declining transactional cash use is placing pressure on the economics of storing, processing and transporting cash around the country. Industry consolidation, as the member for Riverina mentioned, and structural changes mean that it's time that regulations change as well. Our government is committed to giving a fair go to all Australians. Maintaining reasonable access to cash to withdraw and to deposit services for Australians who want or need to use cash is part of keeping that commitment. It's why we're acting to ensure Australians have access to cash. No matter what part of the country you live in, you should be able to go and get your groceries, your meat and veg, and just hand over a couple of pineapples. This is why I'm proud to support these bills.</para>
<para>In these bills we are establishing regulatory powers to enable the sector to shift back to a sustainable footing. Cash-in-transit companies service the needs of financial institutions, large retailers and hospitality venues. It's important that regulations target large-scale businesses without becoming a hurdle for smaller operations. We're also including safeguards to ensure the continuity of critical services for all Australians.</para>
<para>We are taking a specific and decisive approach that is tailored to the modern economy, and we are doing it in four main ways. Increased oversight abilities for the ACCC will support fair, transparent and reasonable pricing outcomes while helping maintain the long-term economic viability of the sector. Specifically, cash levels in rural and regional communities will be monitored to ensure stability. The bills create obligations for designated entities when negotiating cash distribution services and access agreements. Through this, the ACCC will have the power to approve standard terms of agreements. It also establishes processes of arbitration to resolve disputes and enables the ACCC to determine dispute resolution requirements for designated entities. The ACCC is also empowered to establish service level standards to support fair and reasonable access to cash across Australia. These standards may cover factors such as availability and timeliness, with the ACCC taking into account these bills' objectives and the public interest.</para>
<para>Similarly, we want the RBA to be able to act in a crisis. While transactional cash use has declined, many Australians would still face genuine hardship if cash became harder to access or use, which is why the Reserve Bank needs the appropriate powers to act quickly and decisively to sustain critical services in the event of a crisis. It also enables up to $400 million in funding support to ensure the continuity of critical cash distribution services. The funding support is intended as a last resort, limited to situations where an entity's resources are insufficient to address the losses or threats due to cash availability. The crisis and resolution powers are subject to clearly defined triggers for intervention and are distinct from the RBA's day-to-day monitoring and regulatory functions. They are consistent with crisis resolution frameworks that apply to other critical services in banking, insurance and settlement.</para>
<para>There are also the good-faith requirements for designated providers when they negotiate with customers. The consolidation of the industry means that customers have relatively low bargaining power. The government is stepping in to ensure their interests are fairly protected. The Reserve Bank will be able to designate entities that have a sufficient role in the cash system, or those that provide critical cash distribution services. Limiting regulation to critical entities will keep the framework tight. It means targeting areas of the greatest benefit, while avoiding unnecessary burden on smaller providers or new entrants that don't provide critical services. Of course, the temporary interim direction powers for the ACCC for the 24 months after the commencement of this legislation will encourage sustainable, commercially negotiated agreements. The government wants to make the transition process as seamless as possible.</para>
<para>As a whole, these are four clear changes designed to modernise cash distribution and support everyday Australians. As cash use declines, the sector has become more concentrated, which means it's more costly to operate. We're making sure the system continues to function in the public interest. The Australian Banking Association stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Cash Distribution Framework Bills are a critical step to provide security to the long-term availability of cash in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>The government has consulted widely, reflecting the importance of these bills. The framework has been informed by recommendations from the Council of Financial Regulators and the ACCC and consultation with industry and, in particular, community stakeholders. Throughout this process, other groups such as the Customer Owned Banking Association, Coles, Woolies, Wesfarmers and Australia Post have expressed their broad support for the objectives. The Treasury has engaged with key players in the goal of making compliance as simple as possible.</para>
<para>I think we all agree that we want to ensure that Australia's payment system is resilient and fair and works in the interests of everyday Australians. We do this by providing additional certainty that cash will be delivered and collected so businesses that have active tills or ATMs are stocked and consumers can use loose change at the check-out. Together, these powers create a coherent framework, complementing our cash acceptance mandate, which came into effect at the start of the year. To reflect on that mandate, we've delivered on our commitment to mandate cash acceptance for essential purchases that require food and grocery retailers to accept cash since January this year. We made it mandatory for businesses to accept cash when they sell those essential items. It ensures that everyone who depends on cash for fuel or groceries isn't getting left behind. In addition to the cash mandate for fuel and groceries, consumers already have options to pay their bills, including utilities, phone bills, council rates et cetera, in cash at their local Australia Post outlet through Post Billpay. You should be able to pay with cash when you need to, and that's what the laws are all about.</para>
<para>As payment methods change, the government is making sure the system works for everyone, not just those who can easily move away from cash. This is another practical policy from a practical government. Whether it's for elderly Australians, those in remote and regional areas or those in low-income communities, these bills before the House today will provide stability and ensure continuing availability of cash. With that, I commend these bills to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is important that I rise to speak on the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. This is an important discussion for all Australians and many in my community. To be very clear, the coalition is not opposed to this bill. This bill addresses a significant and genuine example of a monopoly that has been created for a multitude of reasons, but it's important that we get the balance right and make sure that the business involved can be viable and is able to deliver cash to our communities, in particular, our regional communities, where we know the costs just because of geography are more expensive. We need to make sure that that company is viable; equally, when any company has 90 per cent market share, we need to make sure that they are not looking to price gouge. It becomes even more important when we're talking about cash, which is so essential to how we operate.</para>
<para>In my community and across the nation, cash is king, as they like to say. Deputy Speaker Sharkie, I caught some of your contribution yesterday and I thought it was, as always, a good contribution. The example of your daughter being in Far North Queensland with cyclones and making sure that she had cash on hand was great advice from a mother. It's advice that many in my community live by as well. In June 2021, my community was caught in the storms that knocked out power for three months for some people. In my household, our driveway was blocked because of trees falling down and we didn't have power for three weeks, and we were lucky. You know it's a bad storm when three weeks makes you one of the lucky ones without power. Cash became so important to be able to operate in that system.</para>
<para>We need to remember and respect that there are a lot of Australians that don't like using credit cards, that don't like using digital payments and that rely on and use cash because it's what they've always used and it's what they want to continue to use. We should respect that, and we need to be really clear that any Australian that wants to use cash should always be able to use cash. I remember speaking to some members of the national seniors group in my electorate. We were talking about many issues, and they've got stickers to give to businesses that say, 'We'll take cash.' There was a lovely lady that was talking to me about how she uses her cash as her budgeting system, like so many people do. She takes that money out of the bank; she puts the cash aside for bill 1, bill 2 and bill 3; and then she knows that the cash that she has left is what she can spend. Once she runs out of that money, that is the end of her spending money for that week. That discipline has been instilled in so many people. We need to allow people like that to operate in a cash system.</para>
<para>I also stand here as the shadow minister for the digital economy and cybersecurity, so I spend a lot of time looking at technological opportunities, our digital infrastructure and our cyber-resilience, and there are huge productivity gains in a digital world. I was just meeting with the AmCham alliance and the digital companies that work for them. Digital essentially allows us to move payments across countries and across states to each other instantly, so there are a lot of advantages, particularly when we look at the economic advantages. I will always be a strong advocate for it, in particular, in my role as the shadow minister for the digital economy. But I want to be really clear, and the coalition's position is really clear: growing the digital economy should not be at the expense of the cash economy. It is not about having a choice between a digital payment and a cash payment; it is about making sure we give that choice to the consumers. Those that want to use digital payments should absolutely be able to use them, and we should make them as cost-effective as possible. But those that want to use cash should always have the ability to use cash.</para>
<para>One of the challenges of the digital economy is that, while it is a lot more efficient and it drives productivity in our economy, it does create some resilience challenges. If the infrastructure is down, whether it is power or the technology not working at that time, we can see the profound implications for the community, so we need to invest in that digital resilience and build that redundancy. One of the best resilience redundancy mechanisms we can build for the Australian people is cash and making sure that it's still available and viable, which is why this bill is important.</para>
<para>The reality is that part of that is also building communications resilience and making sure that those phone towers can be relied on. If the phone towers are working in communities, it means our phones are working to get help, but it does also mean that our payment systems can continue to operate. This cash mechanism is crucial, but investing in the resilience of communications, particularly in regional and rural communities, keeps people safe and allows people to use payments as well.</para>
<para>One of the challenges when it comes to resilience and the digital economy is that, while we might have cash at home, if our town has lost power and that supermarket does not have a back-up generator, we actually can't use it, because so many businesses are reliant on the digital asset of their register and their EFTPOS machine to make sure they can actually run the transactions. We learnt that in Victoria when there was an outage recently, the V/Line trains were not able to run, and many regional Victorians had to stay in the city because they had no way to get home. That investment in digital infrastructure is linked to this conversation as well.</para>
<para>It is important that this bill puts a regulator in charge of our cash distribution system to protect all Australians and to make sure that cash distribution is working for all Australians. This legislation has taken a while to come. It's legislation that we're supporting, but it would have been nice if it could have been quicker. The ACCC approved a merger between Australia's two largest cash-in-transit companies, Armaguard and Prosegur, in June 2023. The Albanese Labor government have now waited until August 2026 to act. This delay has caused significant challenges. The government should not have waited three years to build a proper, permanent framework.</para>
<para>In October 2023, Armaguard approached the government, the RBA and the major banks saying that if it didn't get an extra $190 million over three years, it would no longer be viable. By Easter of 2024, the risks were laid bare. Armaguard warned it couldn't keep operating without a large bailout. Coles paused cash deliveries and limited instore cash withdrawals. Shoppers faced the real prospect of not being able to get or use cash over the long weekend. It took an emergency meeting chaired by the Reserve Bank Governor and a $50 million rescue package from the banks and the major retailers to keep the cash trucks running. This bill is finally acting. But, again, these issues were there in 2023 and 2024. We are now in 2026.</para>
<para>Importantly, the bill creates an emergency regime so that if a carrier is at risk of collapsing, cash can keep moving across our economy. The regime will be managed by the RBA, with similar powers to what APRA have for the banks and insurance companies. We need to again make sure that we protect this, because cash is king, but we need to acknowledge that imbalance—that it is a lot more expensive to get cash to regional communities than to suburban and metropolitan communities. We do not want a situation where, because of economics, a business is delivering cash to city locations and not to regional communities. That is why it is a sensible move that we support.</para>
<para>However, this bill is focused just on making sure that the cash gets delivered—which is crucial, as I said. It doesn't do anything to guarantee you can actually spend it when you get to the store. Labor, as always, are very good at creating bills with impressive-sounding names that sound like they're going to fix a problem but that always fall short when you look at the detail. They've done that with their cash payments mandate. It commenced in January. Again, it sounds very impressive—a cash payment mandate. Most Australians would hear that and think: 'Fantastic, I can go into any store in my community and use cash. They'll be required to take my cash as a payment.' However, when we go to the detail and get under the headline, that is not true. Labor's so-called cash payment mandate only applies to supermarkets and to fuel and for a total of up to $500 between the hours of 7 am and 9 pm. So too bad if it's 9.05 pm and you've got cash to get some bread and milk from the supermarket. They can refuse to take that cash. What will happen outside of those hours? If that store so decides, Australians will be left with no options but to use electronic payments.</para>
<para>The government will talk about how the mandate is for essential services such as supermarkets and fuel, absolutely. But staggeringly—and I've had so many people in my community raise this concern with me—Labor's mandate does not allow any Australian, particularly elderly Australians, to pay cash for medicines at the pharmacy. It is staggering that this government sets a mandate, pretends that it covers everything, covers two narrow areas, leaves medicines off and talks about how it covers essentials. Tell any Australian that needs to go to the pharmacy that their medication is not essential. On top of this, cash only works if you can withdraw it and businesses can bank it. The closure of over 800 bank branches since 2022 has made this considerably more difficult for business owners and elderly Australians in my community and in many regional communities across Australia. It is deeply concerning that the moratorium on bank closures expires on 31 July 2027 and, as it stands today, the government has no plan for what happens after the moratorium ends.</para>
<para>Recently, I got a phone call from my mum, who is a constituent and likes to take advantage of the fact that she can call the member whenever she likes. She lives in Yarra Glen and is concerned about the Commonwealth Bank in Yarra Glen. She was talking to the teller there, who said they've already reduced hours and, if people don't use the bank, there is a risk that it will not be there in 2027. This is a concern, with the bank being the last bank available in my home town of Yarra Glen. I know many other Australians beyond my mum are concerned about it, but I'm sure she'll be happy to know, now that it's in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, that I do listen to her.</para>
<para>This is the reality of this complication complicated system when it comes to cash. It's about making sure that it's available to Australians. It's about making sure it can get where it needs to go in terms of banks and stores. We need to make sure that banks are available to those that want to use them, and we need to make sure that it is economical for everyone involved in the ecosystem. While this bill is a good step and we support it, it is an ongoing issue that I'll continue to monitor for my community. I will always be an advocate for the digital economy and the opportunities that it creates for our country, for our individuals and for our businesses. But, to finish where I started, it is not a question of embracing the digital economy at the expense of the cash economy. It is about making sure that a digital economy works for all Australians, a cash economy works for all Australians and they work together. Ultimately, it is the consumer that has the choice on the payment method that they want to use as they interact with businesses in their community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WITTY</name>
    <name.id>316660</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The other day I was out and about in the community talking to friends and neighbours. I had one question to ask: 'What's important to you?' It's something that I ask everybody when I meet them.</para>
<para>I was there early to prepare, and there was no-one else around. All of a sudden, out of the blue, someone flew over to me and wanted to have a chat. I asked, as I always do, 'What's important to you?' Their reply surprised me. They said that what is important to them is their job. And it wasn't about what they said; it was about how enthusiastic they were. I then thought, 'Well, actually I have the best job in the world,' so I had to know what their job was. I asked, 'What's your job?' They said they are the CEO of an exchange company that supports children and teaches them about money. Then they said they are a little famous. I was a bit curious because I didn't recognise them at first, and I said, 'Alright, what's your name?' They said their last name is Fairy and their first name is Tooth.</para>
<para>It was the tooth fairy! They were out and about having a chat, and they wanted to tell me about a friend—a little boy they had an eye on. His name is Leo. He is a twin, and he was very excited because his tooth had become wobbly. He came to his mum and let her know. His twin brother had received $2 the other day and was excited about what he was going to spend it on at the shop.</para>
<para>Later on in the day, Dad helped get that tooth removed and, at the end of the night, Leo was happy to go to bed nice and early. Mum asked him to take his brother with him. It was a really great night for Mum as she settled in for a kid-free night with Dad and a glass of wine. She was woken up really early the next day with a very excited Leo coming in because he'd received some money from the tooth fairy. Mum looked over, bleary-eyed, and asked, 'What have you got there, Leo?' Leo said, 'I got $20, Mum—$20 from the tooth fairy!' He ran up, excited to tell his brother about how much money he had received. Mum then looked over at Dad and asked, 'What is going on?' Dad went on to explain that the tooth fairy had looked everywhere to find some money but wasn't able to find anything, and all he had was $20 in his pocket.</para>
<para>I asked the tooth fairy if that had happened before, and the tooth fairy sighed and said: 'Yes, sometimes it's hard for the tooth fairy to find cash. It's not as easy as it used to be.' More often than not, this actually happens. Parents don't keep coins around the house like they used to. Many pay with the tap of a card. They order online. Their wages arrive electronically. It's a wonderful and convenient way of receiving money—right up until that little tooth falls out at bedtime. Suddenly the search begins. Drawers are opened, jacket pockets are checked and the car's cup holders become the last place of hope to find a gold coin. Every parent listening probably knows exactly what I'm talking about.</para>
<para>In 2025, the Reserve Bank found that around 15 per cent of payments were still made in cash. While around one in 10 Australians rely on cash for most of their purchases, for older Australians, families with young children, people on lower incomes and many regional communities, cash remains an essential part of everyday life. Cash is also there when the internet fails, when the power is out or when the EFTPOS systems break down. Cash is a way of making a moment feel real. Just as the tooth fairy said, a child can hold it, they can count it and they can begin to understand what it's worth. Cash makes money visible. It helps children learn.</para>
<para>When people think about cash, they rarely think about financial infrastructure. They think about pocket money, a $20 note from a grandparent, a gold coin for a fundraiser or the selling of something on Marketplace. Have you ever tried to sell something on Marketplace? Have you had something lying around the house which was too good to go into landfill but which you no longer used? If you had, you would know that the key thing you need is cash. I know most people use cards or phones for making purchases, but if you're standing at your neighbour's door buying that musical instrument that you'd always wanted to learn, you need cash. Cash is quick and an efficient part of the modern economy.</para>
<para>I support innovation. I support technology that makes life easier. But modernisation should expand choice. It should never shut people out. A fall in the use of cash does not mean the need has disappeared. It means people who still rely on cash could become easier to overlook. Well, Labor will not overlook them. The Albanese Labor government has committed to maintaining cash for as long as Australians want to use it. That commitment sits behind the cash acceptance mandate that began on 1 January 2026. Supermarkets and fuel retailers covered by that mandate must accept cash between 7 am and 9 pm for transactions of $500 or less.</para>
<para>A cash mandate at the check-out only works if cash can still move through the economy. Shops need change, ATMs need filling and communities need reliable access. This bill, the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, creates a national framework to protect that distribution system. It allows the Reserve Bank to safeguard critical cash providers and give the ACCC oversight of fair commercial arrangements so businesses and communities can continue to access cash when they need it. The first purpose of this bill is clear: protect choice, protect access and keep cash available for people who still need it.</para>
<para>It seems the tooth fairy's generosity can also have consequences elsewhere in a family budget, as was revealed later that day when I spoke to a lovely couple. They were out and about because it was Mum's birthday. Mum and Dad were chatting with me and her two boys, who happen to be twins, were playing nearby. Mum was out looking for a present because, apparently, the kids didn't get the present that she had asked for. Dad had pulled some money out and given it to the kids for them to go shopping for Mum's present, but, as it turned out, Dad was a little bit short due to one very expensive tooth. Mum rolled her eyes; of course, they were only joking—partly.</para>
<para>This family, like other families, understands that money involves choices. Small businesses like the tooth fairy's understand that too. For a business to keep accepting cash, it needs confidence in the system behind it. It needs to know what a service will cost, it needs fair terms and it needs somewhere to turn when negotiations break down. The tooth fairy knows that running a small business is harder than most people think. It needs suppliers, transport, somewhere to exchange notes for coins and confidence that cash will actually be available when it is asked for.</para>
<para>Every small business depends on infrastructure that most customers never see. When you buy a loaf of bread, you don't think about the truck that delivered it. When you withdraw cash, you probably don't think about the systems that move those notes safely across the country. Yet, if those systems stop working, everyone notices. That is exactly why this legislation matters</para>
<para>This bill gives the ACCC the power to approve standard terms for providers that supply cash. Those terms can cover services and pricing. They will create a baseline that a critical provider must make available. Chosen providers must also negotiate in good faith. Their terms must be fair, clear and equal. This is important in a market where customers may have few alternatives. A small supermarket cannot build its own cash network. A regional business may have only one realistic provider.</para>
<para>The framework also recognises that locations affect cost. Moving cash through inner Melbourne is different from moving it hundreds of kilometres across regional Australia. The bill allows for pricing to reflect those differences. It also requires pricing to be set fairly and transparently.</para>
<para>Businesses will have access to dispute resolution. A disagreement should not become a breakdown in service. The ACCC will also be able to set compulsory minimum standards. Those standards can cover quality, dependability and service ease of use.</para>
<para>The bill also creates reporting and record-keeping duties. Those responsible for oversight need to see where pressure is building. They need to act before a weak point becomes a breakdown. This is especially important for regional and remote Australia. Bank branch closures have already reduced local access. Reliable cash service cannot become another thing regional Australians are told to live without. The government has secured commitments from the major banks not to close further regional branches before 31 July 2027. The government has also secured strong investment in Bank@Post. For many communities, Bank@Post provides basic banking services including access to cash. A branch or post office cannot provide cash if cash cannot reach it. The second purpose of this bill is clear: turn the promise of cash access into systems businesses can rely on.</para>
<para>Cash also remains part of community life much closer to home. Across Melbourne, school fundraisers, markets, sporting club canteens and neighbourhood events bring people together every weekend. Volunteers run cake stands. They sell raffle tickets. They raise money for playgrounds, uniforms and junior teams. Sooner or later, someone places a jar of lollies on a table and asks us to donate for a guess and a chance to win the jar.</para>
<para>The next family I met told me about their school's fundraiser—guess how many jelly beans were in a jar. After being begged by her daughter, the mum dug into her purse and handed over a couple of coins so she could guess. It was a big decision for her daughter and she spent most of the day trying to get the number right. She was so determined she even asked her dad for a couple of extra coins to make some more guesses. Her hard work paid off, and, yes, she won. The whole family celebrated. Dad joked that the puzzle should probably come with a toothbrush. Mum immediately started negotiating how many jelly beans could actually be eaten in one day. The little girl, however, had already worked out a business plan. She was going to share some with her friends, save some for later and keep the rest hidden from her brother.</para>
<para>It struck me that all of those little decisions were really lessons about money—spending, saving, sharing. Those are lessons children often first learn with coins in their hands. The tooth fairy may not have been very happy with the haul of lollies, but I am certain they would not make the same mistake of overspending on one tooth, especially when she had eaten her share of 1,723 jelly beans. The mum was hopeful that the child didn't end up at the tooth fairy's enemy, the dentist.</para>
<para>Cash is about more than payments. It's about family life. You cannot promise Australians access to cash while leaving the system that moves it to chance. This bill gives the Reserve Bank crisis readiness and resolution powers. When the legislative triggers are met, the Reserve Bank will be able to give directions, appoint a statutory manager and use compulsory transfer powers. The bill also provides for free stays, temporary suspensions of termination rights and, where needed, temporary government funding. These are strong powers for serious circumstances.</para>
<para>Similar tools already exist in insurance, banking, clearing and settlement systems. Their purpose is simple: protect the public when a critical service is at risk. Critical providers will also need their own crisis plan. They must understand their risk. They must be ready to respond and government must be ready too. A crisis is not the moment to start deciding who has the authority. This bill puts the rules in place early. It gives the power to act quickly and it protects communities from a sudden and disorderly breakdown. The third purpose of this bill is clear: prepare before a crisis, act when action is needed and keep cash moving.</para>
<para>This legislation is practical Labor reform. Labor has always believed progress should improve people's lives. This legislation reflects a simple principle. As technology changes, Australians should not lose choice. A modern economy should work for everyone—older Australians, families, regional communities and small businesses alike. This bill comes from that same belief. Older Australians must be able to participate. People on lower incomes must be able to manage their money in a way that works for them. Regional communities must retain access to essential services. Small businesses must have fair terms and reliable systems behind them and the tooth fairy must be able to swap coins for teeth. Labor embraces new technology. We back innovation. We look after people. That is the difference between simply watching a market change and taking responsibility for where that change leads.</para>
<para>This bill protects choice. It keeps an essential service working in the public interest. From the tooth fairy to marketplace, from small businesses to school fundraisers, cash remains part of the moments that shape families and bring communities together. Behind those moments sit a national system. Labor is making that system fairer. Labor is making it stronger. Labor is making sure progress carries people with it. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VENNING</name>
    <name.id>315434</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. Let me be clear from the outset. The coalition will not oppose this bill, will help pass it and will help pass it quickly. Cash is critical national infrastructure, and it is right to protect it. But I want the House to understand what cash means in a place like my electorate of Grey and why the government's late arrival to this problem matters so much to the people I represent.</para>
<para>My electorate covers over 90 per cent of South Australia. In a capital city, cash is a choice; you tap a card or you tap a phone and, if the terminal goes down, there is an ATM in the foyer or a bank around the corner. In parts of my electorate, the nearest bank or ATM is not a dash up the road; it can be hundreds of kilometres away. So, when the cash system fails in the country or in the bush, it is not an inconvenience; it becomes a crisis.</para>
<para>The Reserve Bank published its latest work on this in April, drawing on the 2025 Consumer Payments Survey. The findings are worth putting on the record. About half of Australians use cash in a typical week. Around 15 per cent of all payments and about 19 per cent of in-person payments are still made in cash. After decades of decline, cash use has stabilised—as I say, cash is king. About 1½ million Australian adults rely mainly on cash for everyday payments. One in three Aussies says they would face hardship or major inconvenience if they could not withdraw cash. Among those who use cash the most, that figure is over 70 per cent, and the Reserve Bank is clear about who those Australians are: older Australians, households on lower incomes, people who find online banking difficult, people living in regional Australia and people in remote communities, including Indigenous communities where digital services are less reliable or simply don't exist at all. We must remember that, in a lot of these remote communities, there is no internet and there is no phone reception, so POS machines simply don't work. That is the description of my electorate.</para>
<para>The Reserve Bank makes one further point: cash is a backup. Our emergency services agencies tell Australians to keep cash in an emergency kit so they can still buy what they need when the power or the phone network is down—under this government, the power and the network are down a lot—and, in Grey, that is not a theory.</para>
<para>So how did the nation's cash system end up in this position? Well, in June 2023, the ACCC approved the merger of Australia's two largest cash-in-transit companies, Armaguard and Prosegur. That decision handed one company control of 85 per cent 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 on the merged business until September of 2026. That should have been the starting gun for this government to build a proper, permanent framework. It wasn't.</para>
<para>The merger was finalised in September. By October, just weeks later, Armaguard went to the government, the Reserve Bank and the major banks and said that, without an extra $190 million over the three years, it would no longer be viable. By Easter of 2024, the risks were laid bare. Armaguard warned that it could not keep operating without a large bailout. Coles paused cash deliveries and limited in-store withdrawals. Shoppers faced a real prospect of not being able to get cash or even use it over a long weekend. It took an emergency meeting chaired by the Governor of the Reserve Bank and a $50 million rescue from the banks and the major retailers to keep the trucks running. Further support was needed again in 2025.</para>
<para>With the ACCC's undertaking due to expire in a month's time, the government has, at the eleventh hour, finally turned up with a plan. They should have been working on this from day one. They should have been working on this from the day that the merger was approved. Instead, they delayed, and that delay put the ongoing strength of our cash system at risk. The last thing this country needs is a run on cash. That is a dangerous thing for an economy to face, and this government should have taken it seriously in June of 2023, when the merger was announced. This is a government that waits for a crisis instead of preventing it.</para>
<para>On the bill itself, it finally puts a regulation in charge of the cash distribution system. It creates an emergency regime so that, if the carrier is ever at risk of collapsing, cash can keep moving—rather than the system simply falling over. The Reserve Bank would manage that regime with emergency powers similar to those APRA already holds over banks and insurers—and to the financial market infrastructure regime. It gives the ACCC the power to require fair and transparent pricing, to approve the terms offered to banks and to retailers and to set service-level standards instead of having a monopoly set its own terms. In a crisis, the Treasurer, with the written approval of the Minister for Finance, can draw up to $400 million per event from consolidated revenue, to be recovered afterwards from the major users.</para>
<para>We are the party of lower regulation, free enterprise and less government interference. That has not changed. But a monopoly is a market failure. You cannot have one company setting the price of moving the nation's cash without anybody watching. That is not fair. That is not fair on the Australians who rely on it. These powers are sensible; they are the same kind we already use to protect banking, insurance and payments. We support them.</para>
<para>But here is the problem. This bill makes sure cash gets delivered; it does nothing to guarantee that you can actually spend it once it gets there. Labor's cash payment mandate, which commenced on 1 January of this year, is simply inadequate. It only covers supermarkets and fuel—only up to $500 and only between 7 am and 9 pm. It does not even cover medicines bought from a pharmacy, so an older Australian who has budgeted in cash their whole life can be told that their money is not good enough for their own prescriptions. That is not good enough.</para>
<para>Then there is a larger hole. Cash only works if you can withdraw it and if a business can bank it. We have seen over 800 bank closures since 2022. More than 2,489 closed between 2017 and the middle of last year. The moratorium on regional bank closures expires on 31 July 2027. It only applies to major banks, and many of them left our towns long before it was signed. Only last year, we had banks close down in Tumby Bay, Cleve and Wudinna, never to be opened again. Those communities no longer have access to banking services. Previous to that, up in Coober Pedy, a town five hours away from Port Augusta and some seven hours away from Alice Springs—there is no bank in that community of 1,600 people. The moratorium ends in less than 12 months, and this government has no plan for the day after. You cannot protect the cash system while the places to keep cash keep disappearing.</para>
<para>It's not only about taking money out; it's about putting it back in. The Reserve Bank found that around 75 per cent of Australians report inconvenient access to withdrawal services, but only 65 per cent say the same about deposits. By both measures, access has become less convenient than it was three years ago. More than two-thirds of merchants who accept cash report problems doing so. They struggle to find somewhere to deposit cash and draw out change. In the city, that is a walk down the street; in my electorate, it is a small-business owner driving an hour and a half each way, with the week's takings on the passenger seat, to a branch two towns over.</para>
<para>Until recently, Peter and Wendy Amey ran the Orroroo post office. There is no bank in Orroroo. The post office is the only option for banking services in that town not just for residents but for businesses and community organisations—the pub, the footy club, the netball club—and there are strict limits on how much cash the post office can hold. At the time, it was $15,000; it's just been increased to $20,000. That sounds like a lot, but when there are no banking services in town it simply is not. On pension day, that money goes out the door quickly, even with the $2,000 daily limit in place.</para>
<para>And it's not just on pension day. Say you want to buy a second-hand car and the seller wants cash. If the price is 4½ grand you cannot simply walk up and withdraw that; it takes three days to do so. Or, on a Monday, when the pub and the sports club want to deposit their cash, all of a sudden you're over your holding limit. Peter and Wendy Amey then had to notify the area managers, and it could take days to bring it back down. Too much cash is a problem; not enough cash is a problem. And a family behind a post office counter in the country is left to manage it.</para>
<para>It is worse further out. In the more remote communities, the mail run might be only once or twice a week—and in the last six months not at all, given that the roads in the north-east of the state are still closed. The government has no plan for what will happen after the branch moratorium ends. Then again, this government has no plan for regional, rural and remote Australia at all. It is a city-centric government with blinkers on as to the realities of regional, rural and remote Australia.</para>
<para>Policies get written for a postcode where the bank, the chemist, the ATM and the mobile towers are all within walking distance. We saw it with the 3G shutdown, when the promise was equivalent coverage but the delivery was silent on the handset. We see it with a cash payment mandate that assumes that the only things you ever buy with cash are groceries and fuel. And we see it here in a framework that protects the trucks but forgets the town they are driving to.</para>
<para>The coalition will help pass this bill and will help pass it quickly, because the undertaking runs out in September. Putting a regulator in charge of cash distribution is the right call. Giving the Reserve Bank the power to keep cash moving in a crisis is the right call. Requiring fair and transparent pricing from a monopoly is the right call. But let's be honest about the record. This is a government that let the cash system drift for three years and acted only when the clock ran down. For the people I represent, cash is not nostalgia, and it is not a preference. It is how you pay when the power is out, when the network is down, when the terminal will not connect and when the bank left the town a decade ago. The coalition will always stand up for the right of Australians to use cash.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this important bill, the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. At a recent community event I was reminded of how handy it is to carry cash. I was at a market, and a stallholder's EFTPOS machine wasn't behaving. Some of us who were waiting were unfazed; we had cash and could still support that small trader by handing over notes for our purchase. That's a very everyday example of why cash is still so important—not just that businesses accept it but that it's available, including in ATMs and post offices, in places outside the main cities, including those across the vast area of Macquarie. Whether it's a petrol station on the Putty Road, the post office at Bilpin, the upper mountains in Blackheath or the Lennox Centre in Emu Plains—it shouldn't matter where you are—cash should be within cooee.</para>
<para>My constituents know firsthand that, when natural disaster hits, cash is more than just handy to have. We need cash because it provides a reliable backup when digital systems fail, and that's what happens in bushfires, in flood, in major storms and even in cyberattacks. And when bank branches have largely left the playing field over the course of the previous decade or so in much of Macquarie, it's the post offices and agencies that can provide essential access to cash through Bank@Post.</para>
<para>For some people, cash protects personal privacy. For others, it's a way to stick to physical spending limits. For some elderly people, it's an easier concept than tapping, and others prefer it because it lets them bypass surcharges or processing fees. These are some of the reasons people like Peter from Blackheath, Jasmine from Lawson and Isabel from the Hawkesbury have shared with me their preference and their desire to continue to be able to access cash, and we absolutely agree.</para>
<para>Cash promotes economic inclusion. It makes payment systems more resilient, and it's an important store of value, including in times of uncertainty. 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. In 2025, the Reserve Bank found that roughly one in 10 Australians still used cash for most of their purchases, particularly older Australians, lower income households and those in rural and regional Australia, and around 15 per cent of payments were made overall in cash. No-one should be left behind in a payment system.</para>
<para>The amendments that we're considering today, those put forward by the government, support our legislation and provide additional certainty that cash will be delivered and collected around Australia so businesses have cash in their tills, ATMs are stocked with notes and consumers can use cash at the checkout. We're continuing to build on our changes that make it mandatory for fuel and grocery retailers to accept cash so Australians can continue to pay with cash for essentials if they want to. So the Albanese government is getting on with the job of not just talking about cash but also ensuring that Australians have continued access to cash, recognising it remains essential for many households, small businesses and regional communities.</para>
<para>We know that Australians still need and want to use cash, and this reform puts people first by protecting choice, inclusion and access, but what's become really clear is that the system of distribution for cash, from bank vaults to machines or cash registers was not up to scratch. The cash distribution framework bills, including these amendments, aim to change that. The framework demonstrates the government's commitments to a payment system that's resilient, fair and works in the interests of everyday Australians. By strengthening the oversight and accountability, the government is ensuring critical cash services operate transparently and sustainably, providing confidence to communities and businesses alike. This is a really practical, forward-looking reform. We're backing industry initiatives but at the same time providing a regulatory framework so that we secure a reliable cash distribution system for the long-term.</para>
<para>As I've highlighted in speaking about Macquarie, Australia's natural geography can heighten the challenges of ensuring that communities in regional and remote areas continue to have services provided and that those services are delivered at reasonable prices. Consultation on our changes highlighted that reliable access to cash and bank branch services is a significant concern for consumers, and I know that that would be the case for many people across the more regional parts of Macquarie.</para>
<para>Our legislation also introduces a crisis management and resolution regime for cash distribution services, and that's critical to the availability of cash in Australia, not when everything's going right but when things are going wrong. Overall, the framework will support the long-term sustainability of the cash distribution system in Australia so that cash is available for those who need or want to use it. For businesses, it will strengthen confidence in their ability to access and transact in cash. The government's committed to maintaining cash for as long as Australians want to use it. Let me make that really clear: we are committed to maintaining access and availability of cash for as long as Australians want to use it. It's a key priority in the government's strategic plan for Australia's payments system. How does it all work? The regulatory framework we've established and are refining with these amendments will be administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, and the Reserve Bank of Australia, the RBA. The framework will apply to critical cash distribution service providers that have been designated by the Reserve Bank. They allow for the creation of ACCC approved standard terms covering services and pricing, and these create the baseline offer that a designated entity must provide to its customers, unless it is not reasonable or where it has specifically negotiated other terms with its customers.</para>
<para>Designated cash providers will be required to negotiate in good faith, such as by offering terms that are fair, transparent and non-discriminatory. Businesses using cash distribution services have access to dispute resolution and arbitration pathways where they're not happy with what is happening. The ACCC also has that power to establish mandatory minimum service level standards.</para>
<para>Appropriate pricing is important. You know that gets passed through somewhere in the chain, and it always lands with the consumer. We have pricing that is set in a fair and transparent way under the framework, but it also has to consider different geographies and customer types, and that's a key element of ensuring the long-term viability of the sector.</para>
<para>The bill provides for reporting and record-keeping requirements for designated entities in relation to service agreements and access agreements so that it supports informed, regulated decision-making and actions. The detail in this bill is what will make it a long-term, workable process. It's not a quick fix.</para>
<para>I want to talk a bit more about crisis management and resolution. This is where the rubber really hits the road in anything that we do in this place. When things are going as they should, there isn't a problem. When things get in the way of the normal operations, we have to have thought that through. This framework includes crisis readiness and resolution powers to ensure that critical cash distribution services continue to operate in the event of a crisis. Where legislative triggers are met, the RBA could step in to exercise resolution powers in relation to any service provider that they designated as critical to the cash distribution system. The RBA is also able to trigger their crisis resolution powers in a specified set of circumstances, including instances where an entity becomes insolvent or enters administration, or if a provider seeks to reduce or stop providing their critical cash distribution services.</para>
<para>Resolution powers would include directions powers, the ability to appoint a statutory manager and compulsory transfer powers. The bill also provides for moratoriums, stays, suspension of termination rights, and, if required to address the crisis, temporary government funding. Similar provisions were in place in relation to banking, insurance, and clearing and settlement facilities. If a crisis were to occur, critical service providers would themselves be expected to be ready to respond and to have plans for dealing with any potential disruption.</para>
<para>I want to discuss how this interacts with the cash mandate. The cash acceptance mandate, which means people have to accept cash, commenced on 1 January. It required that supermarkets and fuel retailers that meet certain criteria must accept cash between 7 am and 9 pm for transactions of $500 or less. By underpinning businesses' ongoing access to cash, the framework enables and supports these businesses' compliance with the government's cash acceptance mandate. The framework will also provide confidence that, in these circumstances, users of cash can continue to access it where they wish to.</para>
<para>The framework is also an important element in ensuring that regional banks and businesses can access cash on fair and transparent terms, and at a reasonable price. This does support the viability of branch networks in regional and remote Australia, and we all know how important those branches are. In February 2025, our government announced new commitments by Australia's major banks to not make any further branch closures in regional areas before 31 July 2027. Westpac has subsequently announced that it's extended that moratorium until 2030. The government has also secured from the banks increased commitment to and investment in Bank@Post, which provides greater certainty and choice to banking customers, including that ability to access cash. Bank@Post definitely plays a role in peri-urban communities like mine. The government is continuing to work with the sector to develop long-term solutions to support access to essential banking services for the regions, but this bill certainly plays a role in ensuring that the delivery of cash to those branches will be done on fair and transparent terms and at a reasonable price.</para>
<para>The bill itself is intended to support the ongoing sustainability of the cash distribution system, but there are additional amendments because the bill itself is not intended to supersede industrial relations laws, including the road transport contractual chain orders, which set minimum standards for people in road transport contractual chains to ensure operators are safe, sustainable and viable. In most instances, the cash distribution framework contained in the contractual chain orders will not overlap, given these regimes target different policy outcomes. However, in the event that the two regimes do have some overlap or conflict, the proposed amendments provide a pathway for resolving that conflict. These changes ensure that requirements of the Fair Work Commission set out in a road transport contractual chain order are appropriately protected and address concerns about potential regulatory ambiguity. The amendments require the ACCC to consider a relevant contractual chain order when setting, varying or revoking approved standard terms and service-level standards or when exercising interim powers. The amendments will support those outcomes. The amendments also require the ACCC to have various roles in it.</para>
<para>This is all about ensuring the bill we have is the most robust it can be and that it has looked at all sorts of possible interactions that might occur. This is about ensuring the certainty of the delivery of cash from the bank vault to the ATM that you take it out of. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SOON</name>
    <name.id>298618</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to rise in support of the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the related legislation before the parliament. The bill's aim is to ensure that Australians continue to enjoy access to cash for as long as they wish to use it, and it complements previous government actions in this area.</para>
<para>In 2025, the Reserve Bank found that roughly 10 per cent of Australians still use cash for most of their purchases, and around 15 per cent of payments were still made in cash. Cash plays an important role in promoting economic inclusion, supports the resilience of payment systems and acts as a store of value that is particularly useful in times of uncertainty. Furthermore, the positive effects are most pronounced in regional areas and lower-socioeconomic communities. However, the decline in transactional cash use is not only putting pressure on these functions; it is also making the economics of storing, processing and transporting cash around the country harder, especially in the communities that need it most, where the tyranny of distance dries up the associated costs.</para>
<para>The government is committed to safeguarding Australians by ensuring continued access to cash and recognising its essential role in our society in law. That is why the government introduced the cash acceptance mandate, which came into effect on 1 January this year. It is enforced by the ACCC and requires major grocery and motor fuel retailers to accept cash for everyday transactions of $500 or less during regular business hours. This is a commonsense measure that protects small businesses by exempting those with a turnover of less than $10 million, unless they share a trademark with a larger retailer. While the cash acceptance mandate is working as intended, we need to ensure that no-one is left behind in the payment system. With the introduction of the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, the government is taking the next step and delivering on its commitment to maintaining cash for as long as Australians want to use it.</para>
<para>At its core, the bill before the House establishes a legislative framework to regulate cash distribution services in Australia to ensure that critical providers can operate fairly and with transparency within a sustainable, resilient and efficient sector. It also introduces a crisis management and resolution regime for cash distribution services, which are critical to the availability of cash in Australia. The framework will also support the long-term sustainability of the cash distribution system, ensuring that cash is available for those who need or want to use it.</para>
<para>Australia's landscape can heighten the challenges of ensuring that communities in regional and remote Australia continue to have access to services provided at a reasonable price. The bill before the House seeks to address this problem by allowing for the creation of ACCC approved 'standard terms'. These standard terms will cover both services and pricing, ensuring that customers of cash providers are given a simple baseline while not precluding them from negotiating a stronger deal themselves where possible. Further, the bill will require cash providers to negotiate in good faith with terms that are fair, non-discriminatory and transparent.</para>
<para>During the transition period to the new framework, the Reserve Bank will have heightened powers to direct designated entities in relation to cash distribution services. These additional powers are designed to be used swiftly when needed while regulators establish longer-term settings. The formulation of the long-term settings will be aided by provisions in the legislation before the House. Appropriate pricing that considers the various commercial and geographical challenges inherent to this industry is crucial to ensuring the long-term health of the sector. The reporting and record keeping requirements for cash providers in relation to service and access agreements will help ensure this. Importantly, the ACCC will also have the power to establish mandatory minimum service level standards, and input from the public will help shape these standards.</para>
<para>Further, the bill contains important provisions to ensure continuity of service during crisis events through the frameworks, crisis readiness and resolution powers. The framework specifies various circumstances where the Reserve Bank can step in to exercise resolution powers in relation to any service provider that they have designated as crucial to the cash distribution system, including instances where a particular entity becomes insolvent, enters administration or seeks to reduce or cease their crucial services. The resolution powers include direction powers, the ability to appoint a statutory manager and powers of compulsory transfer. The bill also provides for moratoriums and stays, suspensions of termination rights and, if required to address the particular crisis event, temporary government funding. These powers are a standard feature of crisis resolution frameworks in the financial sector. Such powers are necessary to enable a rapid regulatory response when the supply chain that so many Australians rely on for access to their own money is stretched. Finally, the bill has an impact on bank branches and bank closures. The framework is an important element of ensuring that regional bank branches can access cash on fair and transparent terms and at a reasonable price. Such a move will support the viability of bank branch networks in regional and remote areas of Australia but also in my electorate of Banks.</para>
<para>However, this is not the only action the government is taking to ensure continued access to banking services in regional and remote communities. In February last year, the government secured a commitment from Australia's major banks to not make any further closures in regional areas before 31 July 2027, and one bank has subsequently extended its moratorium until 2030. The government has also secured new and increased commitments from the banks to Bank@Post services. While post office closures are a problem all of their own, the availability of Bank@Post as a service provides wider choice and greater certainty to consumers that cash will be available to them. While this is all welcome news, there is more work to do and the government is continuing to work hard to develop long-term solutions that support access to essential banking services in regional communities.</para>
<para>The issue of access to cash and in-person banking services is one I've spoken about previously in the Federation Chamber. Indeed, the effects of bank branches closing and cash becoming less readily available are well known to many of us in this House. The Hawker inquiry into the level of banking and financial services in regional and rural communities outlined these issues quite clearly back in the 1990s. Federal inquiries and research by academics have come to the same conclusions: lower access to cash and banking services has profound negative social impacts, including socioeconomic marginalisation and financial exclusion. Research out of the United Kingdom from only a few years ago, prepared against the backdrop of proposed legislation to protect access to basic banking services, indicated that the closure of bank branches was entirely eliminating access to cash and financial services in some communities. In regional communities, the effects are also devastating for small businesses and local economies. When people travel to larger regional centres to do their banking, they do their shopping there as well, taking their business and money out of their local communities, much to the despair of those local businesses.</para>
<para>The same challenges can be observed in metropolitan areas at a smaller scale. Of the 26 suburbs in my electorate, only two still have a bank branch. While it might not be universal, the closure of bank branches and post offices drives a large section of consumers to larger suburban centres. This harms the business ecosystems everywhere outside of these larger suburban hubs. While it might not be possible to integrate social licence into legislation, it is something that financial institutions need to consider. The ongoing acceptance and approval of a business and its practices from the community and other stakeholders is an often unseen and underappreciated element of business success.</para>
<para>The legislation does not exist in isolation. As mentioned, the government has instituted a cash acceptance mandate, but we are also ensuring that Australia has a stronger payment system across methods. Following the RBA surcharging review, surcharges on debit and credit cards will end from 1 October this year. While surcharging was intended to encourage consumers to use cheaper payment methods, it is no longer achieving this goal, not least because avoiding surcharges has become almost impossible. The government also recognises that the fees paid by businesses for card payments are too high. To begin remedying this problem, the maximum interchange fee will be lowered. This will reduce card payment costs, especially for our small businesses. This follows previous government action to stop passing on surcharges from the Tax Office and Services Australia and to ensure these everyday payments don't cost Australians more.</para>
<para>The government has also instituted a plan for the orderly winding down of Australia's chequing system. While fewer than 0.1 per cent of retail payments in Australia are made with cheques, a rapid industry exit has the potential to disrupt both consumers and industry. The government's plan provides certainty as the system is gradually phased out in September 2029. As payment methods change, the government is making sure the system works for everyone, not just those who can easily move away from cash and towards digital alternatives. This bill keeps cash available for the people and businesses who rely on it the most while building an altogether stronger and more resilient payment system for Australia, for our country, including for my great electorate of Banks.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MONCRIEFF</name>
    <name.id>316540</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is cash. Don't be afraid. Don't be scared. It won't hurt you. Australian cash is iconic. Our polymer banknotes are one of the country's most successful technological innovations. Following the joint development of new banknote technology in Australia by the Reserve Bank and the CSIRO, Australia issued a polymer $10 commemorative banknote in January 1988. The successful issue of the $10 commemorative banknote to mark the bicentenary of British settlement in Australia was a world first, and it set the scene for a new era of banknotes.</para>
<para>Especially when compared to other countries that still use fragile, indistinguishable and lifeless paper for their currency, Australians are rightly proud of the unique and recognisable cash that displays iconic Australians including one of the greatest Australians to ever live General Sir John Monash, as well as Edith Cowan, Banjo Paterson and David Unaipon. From lobsters to pineapples, cowboys and prawns and even to the Granny Smith herself, the 'hungee', the Australian Labor government is making sure that Australians can continue to use cash in all its varieties for the foreseeable future.</para>
<para>We know that many Australians still rely on cash for the transactions that are essential to everyday life. Last year, the RBA found that roughly one in 10 Australians still use cash for most of their purchases, especially older Australians, with about 15 per cent of payments being settled with cash. Protecting cash is not just essential for the smooth functioning of our economy; it is also about putting people first by protecting choice, inclusion an access. No-one should be left behind in the payment system.</para>
<para>Many of us knew, as kids, the rewarding feeling of diligently completely household chores in eager anticipation of cold, hard cash. For some, it's a core memory and a lesson about the value of work and reward for effort. Many of us have the memory of a grandparent slipping a folded $10 note into our pocket with a cheeky imperative not to tell Mum. Maybe in 10 or 15 years time—who knows?—this common childhood experience will be replaced by a pop-up notification of an electronic transfer or a buzz from a bank to the microchip in our brain. But that isn't where we are now.</para>
<para>For some, in the age of online banking, this may be all cash represents: a historical curiosity no less quaint than the spinning jenny, which helped us make our textiles, or the now-extinct turnspit dogs, which once turned food during cooking. But for many Australians cash remains the essential medium of exchange and store of value that gives them freedom, choice and control. Cash is critical for many households, small businesses and regional communities. A substantial portion of the Australian population would face genuine hardship or major inconvenience if cash were to become harder to access or to use as a payment method.</para>
<para>I used to work at the Jannali Woolworths, which, further up Box Road from where it used to be, still serves residents of my electorate. Every day I'd serve customers who were still reliant on cash for access to basic services—fresh food and groceries to ensure that they lived healthy and comfortable lives. That was a decade ago, but that reliance still exists. Any challenges to the viability of cash in Australia would not only risk locking many Australians out of obtaining the basic goods needed for life but also threaten the 15 per cent of our economy that is facilitated by cash transactions.</para>
<para>That's why our government took the forward-looking step of mandating cash acceptance for essential goods and services. From the start of this year, supermarkets and fuel retailers that meet certain criteria have an obligation to accept cash between 7 am and 9 pm for transactions of $500 or less. The importance of cash to many Australians and to the broader economy is abundantly clear.</para>
<para>But what often goes unnoticed is the hidden architecture underpinning our transactions: the cash distribution system that facilitates the movement and processing of enormous volumes of cash right across our country. Cash doesn't just magically float from the printers at Note Printing Australia's Craigieburn location to your local bank branch or ATM. Coins do not roll from the mint straight into supermarket tills. The journey from production to point of sale involves a vast distribution network incorporating transport and logistics, collection and supply services, security, and ATM servicing. It includes administration, quality control and counterfeit detection. And cash must be stored, processed and packaged before it is used.</para>
<para>As customers and businesses transition to using EFTPOS and digital payments more frequently, the economics of the cash distribution system are becoming harder to sustain. With demand for cash declining while downstream costs for those operating in the network remain the same, retailers often face higher costs in obtaining cash. This is especially true in regional and remote areas, where Australia's natural geography can heighten the challenges of ensuring that cash distribution services are provided at reasonable prices.</para>
<para>A related anxiety for many has been the closure of some regional bank branches. The viability of branch networks in regional and remote Australia is a critical part of making sure that those in the bush and smaller towns right across the country have access to the cash they need on the same terms as those in the major cities. Last year our government announced new commitments by Australia's major banks to not have any further branch closures in regional areas before 31 July 2027. Westpac has subsequently announced that it has extended its moratorium until 2030.</para>
<para>When cash becomes expensive for businesses to access, the ability to offer cash as a payment method to customers becomes harder to sustain. Any risk to businesses being able to access cash at a reasonable cost is a risk to the viability of cash transactions. If retailers find it too expensive to keep their tills stocked, they will find it more and more difficult to keep the requisite cash on hand to offer change as well as continue to perform complementary tasks like closing tills at the end of shifts and purchasing insurance.</para>
<para>Unlike other sectors that deliver essential services in the financial system, there are currently few regulatory guidelines to manage the systemic risks and sustain an efficient, resilient cash distribution. Amidst heady new developments in fintech, digital assets and agentic commerce, it is important that our authorities and regulators don't lose sight of the technology that remains essential for so many Australians: the polymer notes we carry in our wallets—that unique Australian invention that powers hundreds of billions in economic activity every single year.</para>
<para>Let's be clear: the viability of cash distribution services is a serious risk to the sustainability of cash in our economy, and it is absolutely an issue meriting the focus of this parliament. In light of these challenges, the government's aim is resolute: maintain cash for as long as Australians want to use it. It's a key priority in the government's strategic plan for Australia's payments system, and it is what this bill intends to address.</para>
<para>The regulatory framework contained in the bill is a practical and measured response to the challenges in cash distribution services. It will be administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the RBA. It will apply to critical cash distribution service providers that have been designated by the RBA. This bill gives the RBA powers to designate entities that have a significant role in the cash distribution system. It promotes the efficient operation of and investment in a cash distribution system, such as the upstream and downstream markets for cash transport, collection and supply services and the stocking and servicing of ATMs. These powers allow the RBA to designate entities as significant to the cash distribution system based on whether these actors can substantially influence the market, whether the actors are of national or regional importance to the market and whether they provide services that are critical to the efficient functioning of the cash distribution system and other factors that the RBA may consider relevant.</para>
<para>The bill establishes an oversight framework to be administered by the ACCC. It incorporates definitions relating to service and access agreements, reporting and record-keeping requirements, obligations when entering into service and access agreements, a process for approving standard terms and a process for the ACCC in certain circumstances to determine standard terms that cover a designated entity's provision of cash distribution services and facilities access. It also introduces a crisis management and resolution regime for cash distribution services that are critical to the availability of cash in Australia. This includes price and service oversight of critical cash and distribution entities.</para>
<para>The amendments to this bill address concerns around potential regulatory ambiguity on the interaction of the cash distribution framework and road transport contractual chain orders made by the Fair Work Commission. We have engaged in a wide-ranging consultation with relevant stakeholders to introduce a framework that is rational, coherent and timely to the transitions under way in Australia's payments system.</para>
<para>In the absence of such a regulatory framework, the clear trends in Australia's payment system paint a worrying picture for the future of cash distribution services in this country. It is a trend that our government is not prepared to settle for. That's why we are taking action with a package that supports the continued long-term availability of cash as a means of payment in Australia; a package that gives our regulators the power to effectively manage and resolve threats to the distribution services that are critical to the availability of cash; a package that promotes the provision of cash distribution services and facilities access on terms and conditions, including pricing levels that are fair, reasonable and transparent; and a package that promotes effective competition at both ends of the market for cash, transport, collection and supply.</para>
<para>It forms part of our broader agenda to safeguard the use of cash well into the future along with reforms to Australia's payments system, the cash mandate introduced earlier this year and ongoing work to ensure sustainable access to regional bank branches. It's a bill in the best Labor traditions of inclusion, choice and fairness. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. I acknowledge the constructive engagement by the member for Page also. These bills establish a framework to designate, monitor, regulate and, in the event of a crisis, manage entities that have a significant role in Australia's cash distribution system. Cash remains a valued payment method for many Australians, and safeguards are needed to support its ongoing availability. Together, the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026—which are, together, 'the bills'—provide safeguards to sustain an efficient and resilient cash distribution system and respond to and manage threats to the ongoing availability of cash. They ensure that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, and the Reserve Bank of Australia can give effect to these arrangements.</para>
<para>Firstly, the bills provide the RBA with powers to designate entities that play a significant role in the Australian cash distribution system. The bills create obligations for these designated entities when negotiating cash distribution service and access agreements and create a mechanism for the ACCC to approve standard terms for classes of these agreements. The bills also enable the ACCC to determine dispute resolution requirements for designated entities and establish an arbitration process to resolve disagreements over terms. Together, these elements support good-faith negotiations and the timely resolution of disputes. The ACCC is further empowered to establish service-level standards to support fair and reliable access to cash across Australia.</para>
<para>Under the bills, the RBA is provided with powers to ensure the continuity of cash distribution services critical to the ongoing availability of cash as well as powers that help them prevent disruption to these services in the first place. This includes the power to step in and manage designated entities, to support the continuity of critical cash distribution services and to minimise disruption in the event of a crisis. The bills also equip the ACCC and the RBA with information-gathering and enforcement powers to support compliance with the framework.</para>
<para>I thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the bills and note the additional comments of coalition senators. The committee made two recommendations: to provide clarity on the interaction between the cash distribution framework introduced in the bills and on any road transport contractual chain order; and to ensure consistency in references to the Australian Crime Commission. The government has introduced amendments to the bills to clarify the interaction between the framework and any road transport contractual chain order. This will ensure that relevant Fair Work obligations are appropriately prioritised in the event of incompatibility with relevant elements of the cash distribution framework. Minor technical amendments have also been made for clarity, including to references to the Australian Crime Commission. I commend these bills to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Page moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Clare has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. I put the question.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7513" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>151</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill now be read a second time. I put the question.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>151</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 11 (after line 33), after subitem (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) In giving, varying or revoking an interim direction, the ACCC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must have regard to any relevant cash-related contractual chain orders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may consult the Fair Work Commission or the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to interactions with any such orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, item 5, page 12 (line 16), after "Note", insert "1".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, item 5, page 12 (after line 17), after the note, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: There is an exception to this civil penalty provision in section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders) of the new Act, as modified by subitem 8(2) of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 2, item 6, page 16 (after line 11), at the end of subitem (5), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also section 195A of the new Act, as modified by subitem 8(2) of this Schedule, in relation to interactions between interim directions and cash-related contractual chain orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 17 (line 10), before "A reference", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 17 (after line 16), after paragraph (c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 17 (after line 21), at the end of the item, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Section 195A (interactions with cash-related contractual chain orders) of the new Act applies as if the list of civil penalty provisions in paragraph (1)(b) of that section included the civil penalty provision in subitem 5(1) of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>152</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7509" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>152</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SOON</name>
    <name.id>298618</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No-one knows when they're going to get sick or pick up an injury. That is why having a strong healthcare system is so important. The Labor government's healthcare agenda is ambitious and wide-ranging, and it is why, each time I stand in the House on a bill or motion relating to healthcare, there is a new initiative or new data showing the efficacy of the record investment this government is making in health.</para>
<para>The legislation before the House, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026, is another new initiative and the latest step in strengthening our healthcare system for every Australian. The medicines shortages and other measures bill exists to strengthen key aspects of our public health administration, ensuring Australia is better prepared for shortages and discontinuations of critically important medicines.</para>
<para>Medicines are truly essential goods, and shortages and discontinuations have significant impacts if not mitigated, not just for patients but for the practitioners they entrust with their wellbeing. As the minister outlined in her second reading speech, medicine supply chains are incredibly complex global systems, and each stage that could cause supply disruption requires a unique response.</para>
<para>The legislation before the House improves Australia's preparedness in several ways. Firstly, it requires pharmaceutical companies to notify the secretary of the department of any decision to permanently discontinue the supply of a reportable medicine in Australia at least 12 months in advance. This change will ensure there is enough time for patients and their healthcare workers to make plans for their future treatment needs. The bill also requires pharmaceutical companies who give such notice to the department to provide an update if there is a change in approach, including if the decision to discontinue is reversed or a timeline is adjusted.</para>
<para>Secondly, the current arrangements of the Therapeutic Goods Act allow the department to request information from pharmaceutical companies about the availability of reportable medicines in Australia, as well as any shortage or discontinuation. Recognising that the shortage of any medicine can have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of Australians, this legislation expands the power of the department to request this information from pharmaceutical companies on any approved medicine.</para>
<para>Finally, the legislation makes important procedural changes to the Therapeutic Goods Act. For instance, it allows the secretary of the department to determine common biologicals, so that similar biologicals can share a single entry in the register. Currently, pharmaceutical companies navigate a duplicative process for maintaining multiple entries for products that are essentially the same but have very minor differences, resulting in avoidable costs and administrative burden.</para>
<para>Further, the bill also makes technical amendments to provide a clear legal power for authorised persons to enter, search and inspect clinical trial sites to ensure that unapproved therapeutic goods are in accordance with conditions and are safe for clinical trial participants. Importantly, the bill interacts closely with the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026—which is also before the parliament—specifically on changes in this bill related to common biologicals groupings to ensure that the measures can operate as intended.</para>
<para>The existing Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act imposes annual charges on the registration, listing and inclusion of therapeutic goods in the register. The legislation before the parliament amends the existing act to enable regulations for the imposition of charges for the inclusion of grouped biologicals. The amendments being made will ensure that grouped biologicals attract a single entry into the register and, in turn, a single annual charge. As a result, the legislation will reduce costs and regulatory burden for industry associated with multiple entries, as outlined earlier.</para>
<para>Supporting this legislation is a commonsense decision. The changes outlined across both of the bills before the parliament will support greater access to medicines for all Australians and further strengthen our world-leading Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme while costing the budget less than $200,000 over the next three years. It is a demonstration of how this government is committed to ensuring Australians have access to affordable health care, including cheaper medicines under the PBS.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker Fernando, as you would be aware, this is not the first move this Labor government has made to ensure that Australians have access to medicines. Indeed, this government's cheaper medicines program is benefiting millions of Australians, including many in my electorate of Banks. In January 2023, the Labor government's first cut to the maximum general co-payment came into effect, reducing the cost of PBS scripts from $42.50 to $30, representing a 30 per cent reduction. Following the election last year, this Labor government delivered another reduction as promised, bringing the maximum co-payment down to just $25, the lowest level since 2004, and at the same time ensuring the maximum price for pensioners and concession card holders remained frozen at $7.70 until the year 2030.</para>
<para>This government's cheaper medicines program is not just about cutting the co-payment for PBS medications. It is also about reducing dispensing costs for nearly 300 medications through 60-day dispensing for patients with chronic or ongoing medical conditions that have been approved by their doctor. The results of these programs are undeniable. In my electorate of Banks alone, more than 2.1 million cheaper scripts have been filled, and residents in my community have saved a combined $12.7 million. Across the country, the number of cheaper scripts filled is approaching half a billion. At last count, it was 436 million scripts. Australians have saved more than $2.8 billion as a result of this government's initiative.</para>
<para>A few weeks ago I took up an invitation to visit Ben Galluzzo in Riverwood, who operates Galluzzo's Chemist in Riverwood Plaza as well as a separate shopfront servicing aged-care facilities on Belmore Road. Ben and his team provide amazing service to people in my community and said the government's cheaper medicines program has made a massive difference for his customers. At a time when Australians are still feeling cost-of-living pressures, exacerbated by events overseas, making PBS medicines cheaper than they have been in more than 20 years is a practical way for the government to provide cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>While both of the pieces of legislation before the parliament and this Labor government's cheaper medicines program are providing more affordable medications and delivering real results for Australian patients, the government knows that access to medicines is influenced by a much broader network of factors, and we are making sure we are addressing these challenges in these spaces too. In the post-pandemic environment, the Labor government made addressing critical health workforce shortages a key priority after coming to government, and we have seen the results.</para>
<para>In the last two years, we've seen a massive growth in our healthcare workforce, with an extra 17,000 doctors joining the Australian system, which is more than at any time in the past decade. But there is still more work to do, and we are continuing to give students more opportunities, rolling out the largest GP training program in history and providing hundreds of scholarships for nurses and midwives to extend their skills and qualifications. In the last few weeks we've seen another major investment in our healthcare workforce with the announcement that the Commonwealth paid prac payment would be expanded to 10 more health professions from 1 July next year.</para>
<para>Nursing and midwifery were included alongside teaching and social work in the first set of professions to receive the paid prac payment, and the results were clear: students were no longer putting off their mandatory practical training because they couldn't afford it.</para>
<para>Now, this government will expand the program to student paramedics, psychologists, physios, radiographers, audiologists, podiatrists, speech pathologists, occupational therapists and, most importantly for supporting Australians' access to medicines and particular legislation before the House, pharmacists. The government has delivered the record funding to encourage bulk-billing that we promised at last year's election, and it is an investment that is already paying dividends in my electorate of Banks.</para>
<para>In my community, we now have 22 fully bulk-billed GP clinics, and bulk-billing rates are now climbing again, reaching 89.5 per cent in the June quarter this year, nearing the 90 per cent mark that this government's changes were designed to reach. The government has also delivered funding in the most recent budget to make Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of our healthcare system, filling the missing middle between a GP clinic and an emergency department with fully bulk-billed care.</para>
<para>When this Labor government was first elected, we promised to open 50 clinics. Instead, in our first term, we delivered 87 nationwide. Last year, we promised 50 more clinics, and now every single one is open, bringing us to 137 urgent care clinics nationwide. Across the country, there have been more than 3.3 million presentations at urgent care clinics, and the Carlton and Bankstown urgent care clinics that are closest to my electorate have seen thousands of patients since they've opened, with more than 15,000 presenting at Bankstown and more than 31,000 through the doors at Carlton.</para>
<para>The 2026 budget also included new Commonwealth funding for public hospitals, with $25 billion over the next five years going to every state and territory through our landmark hospital funding agreement. In my local community, stage 3 of the St George Hospital redevelopment project, delivered by the state Labor government in New South Wales, reached a significant milestone with the completion of the new Kensington Street building, with more works continuing. Further, works on the long-awaited new Bankstown hospital are underway with the demolition of the existing building on the future site with construction expected to start in the next year. More federal funding for public hospitals will ensure that our state and territory counterparts are able to operate hospitals effectively, undertake major upgrades that are needed and improve patient care for our communities.</para>
<para>Amongst all of the government's measures to both improve the accessibility and affordability of health for Australian patients, the two pieces of legislation before the House are relatively minor, technical changes, but each important change this government has made is making an important reform in this area and is part of this government's agenda to make health care accessible and affordable to all. This is why I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WHITE</name>
    <name.id>224102</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Medicines are essential for the provision of health care in Australia, although many improvements have been made since the introduction of the mandatory medicines shortages and discontinuations reporting scheme in 2019.</para>
<para>Supply disruptions continue to impact the health and wellbeing of people in Australia, and the health practitioners and the systems that support them. The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medicines Shortages and Other Measures) Bill 2026 strengthens key aspects of the mandatory medicines shortages and discontinuations reporting scheme under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, principally by requiring sponsors to notify the secretary of any decisions to permanently discontinue the supply of reportable medicines in Australia at least 12 months in advance, requiring sponsors to give such notice to update the secretary if there is a change in that approach, including if the supply is no longer proposed to be discontinued or if the discontinuation is to occur at a different time to that notified, enabling the secretary to require all sponsors of approved medicines to provide information about the availability and any shortage or discontinuation of their products in Australia.</para>
<para>These amendments are consistent with this government's unwavering commitment to public health and will mitigate the public health risks associated with medicine shortages and discontinuations by supporting a strong and effective mandatory reporting scheme under the Therapeutic Goods Act. Together with the associated amendments in the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026, this bill will implement measures to reduce costs and regulatory burden for sponsors who have multiple similar biologicals in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. These amendments are consistent with this government's commitment to reducing regulatory burden. The other minor amendments in this bill will support the consistent and effective operation of the Therapeutic Goods Act and the Therapeutic Goods Regulatory Framework. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on these bills.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lindsay be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7508" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>155</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>155</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7518" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>155</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRENCH</name>
    <name.id>316550</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is an island nation, and that gives us an enormous advantage. We are separated by sea from many of the pests and diseases that damage farms, animals, plants and natural environments in other parts of the world. But that advantage only works if we protect it. Every day, aircraft land at Australian airports, ships arrive at our ports and travellers return from holidays, visit family, come here for work or arrive in Australia for the first time. They bring luggage, food, clothing and equipment. Almost all of them are simply getting on with their lives. But sometimes, without even knowing it, a traveller can also bring something in that could cause enormous damage. It could be seeds stuck to a boot, soil on camping equipment, fruit carrying an insect or meat carrying a disease. That is why we have a biosecurity system.</para>
<para>The Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 is about making that system work better. It does not lower our biosecurity standards. It does not remove the responsibility on people entering Australia to tell us what they are carrying. In fact, it gives our biosecurity officers better tools to get the right information earlier and use that information more effectively.</para>
<para>The bill has three main parts. First, it supports the Australia travel declaration, or ATD, and allows biosecurity information to be collected in modern ways. Second, it gives businesses operating under approved biosecurity arrangements a clearer and fairer process when government decisions are being made about those arrangements. Third, it fixes a small technical problem in the existing Biosecurity Act. Those changes might sound fairly dry, but the reason behind them is simple: Australia is receiving more travellers and goods, the risks are changing and our border system has to keep up.</para>
<para>In 2025 alone, biosecurity officers inspected more than 280,000 commercial air and sea consignments and intercepted more than 359,000 incoming travellers. In March this year, alone, officers intercepted more than 33,300 travellers carrying biosecurity risk material. Those are not small numbers. As international travel continues to grow, we cannot simply respond by making every traveller stand in a longer line. We need smarter systems.</para>
<para>That brings me to the first major reform in this bill, the Australia travel declaration. Most Australians who have travelled overseas know the current system. You're sitting on the plane as it approaches Australia. The cabin crew hand out paper incoming passenger cards. You find a pen—more often than not you discover you don't have one—then you try to remember the flight number, where you were staying and whether something buried at the bottom of your suitcase falls within one of the questions on the card. For decades, that system has done an important job. But in 2026 we can do better.</para>
<para>The Australia travel declaration allows travellers to provide biosecurity information digitally. Under the current pilot, eligible travellers can complete the declaration through the Qantas app before arriving in Australia. Once it is completed, they receive a QR code which can be scanned once they arrive. The declaration can be completed up to 72 hours before departure. The pilot started in Brisbane in 2024. It was expanded to Sydney in 2025 and to Melbourne in 2026. By 26 May this year, more than 380,000 travellers had used the system. The government has now announced its intention to expand the system further. The bill creates the legal framework needed to support that work.</para>
<para>Importantly, this is not simply about replacing a piece of paper with a screen. The real benefit is getting useful information earlier. At the moment, much of the information on an incoming passenger card becomes available to officers when a traveller is already arriving at the border. A digital system can allow that information to be provided earlier. That gives biosecurity officers more opportunity to assess the risk, and it means officers can spend more time looking at people and goods that require closer attention instead of treating every traveller in exactly the same way.</para>
<para>The explanatory memorandum makes the purpose clear. The aim is smoother passenger flows, less congestion and faster processing while maintaining our biosecurity standards. That last part is important. Efficiency cannot mean weaker biosecurity. The point is to be more efficient because we have better information, not to wave more people through and hope for the best.</para>
<para>Under the bill, new section 195A will create a clear obligation on incoming travellers—including passengers, crew members and people in charge of aircraft or vessels—to provide prescribed biosecurity information and documents. Adults can also be required to provide information for children or other people for whom they are responsible. The information that can be required is tied to biosecurity. For example, travellers may be asked what goods they are bringing into Australia. They might be asked where they have travelled—whether they've visited farms, been around animals, walked through wilderness areas or visited freshwater areas. In some cases a person's occupation may help officers understand the risk. That does not mean that Australia has suddenly developed an unhealthy interest in what everyone does for a living. It means that someone who works around farms, plants or animals may be more likely to have soil, seeds or other biological material on their equipment and clothing.</para>
<para>The bill also allows information to be used for future assessment and profiling of biosecurity risks. In plain English, that means looking for patterns. If we know where the risks are appearing, where travellers have come from, what goods are causing problems and where breaches are occurring we can put officers and resources where they are most useful. That is basic risk management. The bill also makes clear that information needs to remain accurate. If information changes or is incomplete, travellers are required to correct it. There are penalties for failing to comply. There are also existing serious penalties for knowingly providing false or misleading information, and that is appropriate.</para>
<para>Australia welcomes millions of people through our border. The overwhelming majority of people do the right thing. The system should make their journey as simple as possible. But there must be consequences for people who deliberately ignore biosecurity rules, because the cost of a serious pest or disease outbreak does not stop at an airport terminal. It can reach farms thousands of kilometres away. It can affect food production. It can close export markets. It can destroy businesses. It can damage the environment. It can threaten jobs in regional communities. Australia's agriculture sector depends heavily on our strong pest and disease status. Our producers are able to sell high-quality food and fibre around the world because international customers trust Australian products. Biosecurity helps protect that reputation.</para>
<para>That is why farmers are right to insist that any new technology must strengthen the system, not weaken it. The National Farmers' Federation has described Australia's biosecurity as non-negotiable. The Queensland Farmers Federation has also supported greater digital efficiency in principle, while stressing the importance of strong border protection and cybersecurity. These are reasonable expectations.</para>
<para>Modernisation has to be done properly. Accessibility also has to be part of the rollout. Not every traveller owns the latest phone. Not everybody is confident using an app. Not everybody has reliable internet access. And some travellers may have a disability or another reason that a particular digital process is difficult to use. Canberra Airport has specifically raised the importance of keeping the declaration process accessible for travellers who face barriers with digital technology, and that should be taken seriously as this program expands. Digital government should make services easier. It should not turn possession of the right phone into an entry requirement.</para>
<para>The second major reform in this bill deals with what are called approved arrangements. That phrase needs some explanation. Some businesses regularly deal with goods that carry biosecurity risks. Rather than having government officers personally manage every step of the transaction, an approved arrangement allows an organisation to manage certain biosecurity risks itself under rules agreed with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. These arrangements can make the system more efficient while still requiring the business to meet strict biosecurity standards.</para>
<para>The issue addressed by these bills is: what happens when an organisation applies for one of these arrangements or asks to change an existing arrangement and the department is considering saying no or imposing conditions? The bill establishes a clearer notice-of-intention process. Again, the name sounds complicated; the idea is not. If the department is considering refusing an application it should generally tell the applicant why before making the final decision. The applicant then gets a chance to respond. Under the proposed process a notice of intention must be in writing. It must explain what the decision-maker is considering doing. It must provide reasons and, except in serious or urgent cases, the applicant can be invited to provide a written response within 30 days. It must also tell applicants about the review rights. For lawyers, we call that procedural fairness; for everyone else, we might call it giving somebody a fair chance to put their side of the story.</para>
<para>If a government regulator is considering refusing an application, an applicant should normally know why. If the regulator has misunderstood something, the applicant should be able to correct it. If there was more information that could change the decision, the decision-maker should be able to consider it. The department already uses notices like these as part of its administrative practices, and this bill puts that practice more clearly into legislation. That means greater certainty for industry and more consistent decision-making. Good regulation is not simply about being tough; it is about being clear. Businesses need to know what the rules are, regulators need to have the power to enforce those rules and, when decisions are made, people should understand the process. That combination supports confidence in the system.</para>
<para>The third part of this bill is much smaller. It fixes wording in section 568 of the Biosecurity Act, relating to the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. The act currently uses the phrase 'relevant information' in that section. The problem is that relevant information already has a special defined meaning elsewhere in the act. That special meaning was not intended to apply here, so the bill removes the word 'relevant' from that provision, making the meaning clear. It is not a dramatic reform; no-one will be making a documentary about it, but clear laws are better laws, and fixing confusing drafting is worthwhile.</para>
<para>This bill also forms part of a much larger investment in Australia's biosecurity system. Since the 2022 election, the Albanese Labor government has committed more than $2 billion in additional biosecurity and resourcing. We've also strengthened our frontline capability. Detector dogs remain one of the most effective tools we have. In 2024 biosecurity detector dogs intercepted more than 42,000 items at our borders and mail centres. More than 10,000 of those interceptions were made by the additional 20 detector dogs funded by this government.</para>
<para>Technology is valuable, but good biosecurity will always depend on people as well. It depends on trained officers making decisions. It depends on scientists identifying risks. It depends on detector dogs finding things that people would rather they not find. It depends on farmers and industry working with government. And it depends on travellers being honest about what they are bringing into Australia. The aim of this bill is to make each part of that system work better together. We should welcome international visitors. Tourism supports businesses and jobs across Australia. Australians should also be able to return home without spending unnecessary time standing in airport queues. But convenience and security are not opposing ideas. Done properly, technology can give us both. Information can be provided earlier. Risk can be assessed sooner. Low-risk travellers can move smoothly through the system. Biosecurity officers can concentrate on areas that require closer attention. Businesses working under approved arrangements can receive clearer and fairer decisions, and our farmers, environment and economy continue to receive the protection they depend upon.</para>
<para>Australia has built one of the strongest biosecurity systems in the world, but a strong record is not an excuse to stand still. Travelling numbers will continue growing. Trade will keep growing. Technology will keep changing. Pests and diseases will keep changing too. Our laws have to be capable of changing with them. That is what this bill does. It replaces unnecessary reliance on paper with a framework for better digital processes. It gives officers access to information earlier. It strengthens the legal obligation to provide accurate biosecurity information. It improves procedural fairness for industry, and it cleans up an unclear provision in the existing act. These are practical reforms. They make the border more efficient without lowering the standard of protection Australians expect. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR</name>
    <name.id>315618</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a kid, I would sit with my uncle, late at night, on his car bonnet, watching the planes taking off or landing at Sydney airport. Fast forward to today: if you stand on the northern edge of my electorate on any given morning, you'll see the planes lining up over Botany Bay and, one after another, descending into Sydney airport. It is a visual Barton locals know very well because behind each landing and take-off is a small force of my own constituents. They're baggage handlers, check-in staff, cleaners, caterers, ground crew and biosecurity officers checking bags at the carousel before anyone gets to go home. Sydney Airport sits right on Barton's doorstep. For thousands of families in Hurstville, Rockdale, Kogarah and Bexley, it isn't just a piece of infrastructure; it's the family income. And that's the lens I bring to this piece of legislation, the Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026, seeing it not as a theoretical piece of border machinery but as legislation that touches on an industry my community works in, lives near and very much depends on.</para>
<para>I want to start with something almost everyone in this chamber has experienced personally: standing in the arrivals hall after a long haul flight, exhausted, filling out a paper form by hand, trying to remember exactly what farm you visited a couple of countries ago, then shuffling forward in a queue that never seems to actually move. That paper form is the Incoming Passenger Card, and it has been part of the arrival experience for many decades. It works in the sense that it gets the job done, but it's slow. It's manual, and in an age when almost everything else about air travel has gone digital, it increasingly feels like a bit of a relic. Two previous attempts to digitise it, between 2016 and 2022, didn't get across the line, but this bill is the third attempt and, unlike the first two, it's already proving itself in the real world.</para>
<para>Since October 2024, a pilot program called the Australia Travel Declaration has been running on select Qantas international flights, starting in Brisbane and expanding to Sydney in 2025 and to Melbourne this year. Instead of a paper card, travellers fill in their declaration on their phone up to 72 hours before they even board. It generates a QR code sent straight to their email, which a Border Force officer simply scans on arrival. As of May this year, more than 380,000 travellers came through this system this particular way.</para>
<para>In July, the government announced that it would extend the digital declaration to every capital city before the end of the year and has backed it with $56.1 million over four years to build a web form version so that no traveller, regardless of which app they have or don't have, is left behind. For an airport that sits in my community's backyard, that's not a minor technical upgrade. It's the difference between a smooth Tuesday arvo at the terminal and a bottleneck that ripples through every gate, every ground crew's shift and every connecting flight.</para>
<para>Let me put some scale around what our biosecurity system is actually managing. Last year alone, biosecurity officers intercepted more than 359,000 incoming travellers carrying something of concern and inspected over 280,000 air and sea consignments. Detector dogs, including the extra 20 this government has added to the front line, caught more than 42,000 items at our borders and mail centres in 2024. Over 10,000 of those were through the new dogs alone.</para>
<para>Those aren't just statistics for a briefing note. Every one of those interceptions happened because a person was standing at a desk or a dog was working on a bag at an airport where my constituents go to work every single day. When traveller numbers keep climbing—and they are climbing, with Australia welcoming millions of visitors a year and with Brisbane, in particular, preparing to host the Olympics—the volume passing through the system only grows. If we don't modernise how we collect basic biosecurity information, the strain doesn't fall on some faceless bureaucracy; it falls on the workforce at Sydney Airport, on the queues that snake back from immigration and ultimately on whether Barton locals actually get home on time after their shift.</para>
<para>This legislation makes three changes to the Biosecurity Act 2015. First, it creates a clear, standing obligation for travellers arriving in Australia—passengers, crew or anyone in charge of an aircraft or vessel—to provide the biosecurity information regulators need, in whatever form regulations prescribe. That's the legal foundation that lets the Australia travel declaration keep expanding as the paperless replacement for the Incoming Passenger Card, covering the same essential questions—what goods you're carrying, where you've travelled and your occupation—but just collected earlier, digitally and with far fewer touchpoints between a traveller and an official.</para>
<para>Second, it introduces a notice-of-intention process for businesses operating under approved arrangements, the agreements that let companies manage their own biosecurity risk under departmental oversight. Under this bill, if the department is proposing to refuse an application or attach conditions to it, the business gets advance notice and a genuine opportunity to respond before that decision is finalised. This is not a new concept, invented from scratch; it puts into law a practice the department already follows informally. But writing it into legislation matters, because it gives industry participants certainty and a proper avenue to be heard, rather than simply being told after the fact.</para>
<para>Third, the bill fixes a drafting error concerning the powers of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity to request relevant information during a review. This is a small but important piece of legislative housekeeping that ensures independent oversight of our biosecurity system actually functions the way parliament always intended it to.</para>
<para>I note for the House that none of the regulation-making powers in this bill are exempt from parliamentary disallowance. Every regulation made under the new traveller information obligation remains subject to the parliament's scrutiny, which is exactly where that scrutiny belongs. Listening to people who actually use it, what struck me the most in reviewing the evidence before the Senate committee inquiry into this bill is how broad the support is and how thoughtfully conditional some of it is, too. Industry has been asking for this for years. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has recommended digitising border processes in successive pre-budget submissions. The Tourism & Transport Forum called it 'practical, achievable and long overdue'. The Australian Airports Association surveyed travellers and found 71 per cent wanted a digital option. Sydney Airport itself told the committee this bill 'provides an important legislative foundation for a more efficient, secure and technology enabled border environment'.</para>
<para>But I think the most important voices in this debate are the ones asking us not to rush the substance of biosecurity protection in the name of speed. The National Farmers' Federation put it plainly at last year's Economic Reform Roundtable: 'Our biosecurity is a non-negotiable, and any change to the paperwork has to prove it strengthens border protection, not just streamlines it.' The Queensland Farmers Federation made a very similar point, stressing that cybersecurity has to be a genuine pillar of any digital system, not an afterthought. Canberra Airport, even as it has welcomed the change, reminded us that the declaration process has to stay accessible for travellers who face barriers using digital technology—older travellers, people without smartphones and people who simply aren't confident online. That is a very true reflection when I think about my grandparents, when they travel.</para>
<para>I think those are the right instincts, and they're instincts that this bill actually tries to build in. The regulations remain disallowable. A web form option is funded specifically so no-one is forced to rely solely on an airline's app. And the underlying information being collected doesn't change. We are not lowering the bar on what biosecurity risks were already screening for; we're changing how efficiently we screen for them.</para>
<para>At the end of the day, I think the bill is about two things at once. It's about protecting Australia's farms, food security and environment at the border. And it's about making sure that people who work that border—many of them who live in my electorate, who are also members of the mighty United Workers Union, I must say—aren't carrying the weight of a system that's very much stuck in 2005 vibes. Every time I drive past the airport, I see the queues at the drop off. I think about the shift workers heading in and the exhausted families heading out, all of them relying on a system that must be quite rigorous but also fair.</para>
<para>I believe this bill doesn't compromise on that rigour. What it does is finally bring a much fairer and a much clearer system to the industry. As the Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, this is something that would be of interest for the participants in this forum, who look at a lot of things outside of the scope, particularly on LTOPs and the sounds of aircrafts, but it is also quite relevant to the functions and the operations of Sydney Airport, which are really pertinent. I think for them this is an important step. It will also make it clearer for Sydney Airport and also for the workers and travellers. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:25 to 16:00</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MATT SMITH</name>
    <name.id>312393</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a strange trick of legislation sometimes. This is the Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026. Its purpose is to get rid of those stupid cards that nobody likes filling out when they arrive back in Australia. The first time I travelled overseas I was 16 years old. I was coming back from a basketball tour and I was tired and injured. Because of where Australia is in the world, all flights seem to go overnight, and I hadn't slept when we arrived in Melbourne. It was the late nineties. Someone handed me a card and on it they needed a whole bunch of details, some of which I couldn't remember. I wasn't entirely sure where my passport was. I was 16, so I certainly didn't have a pen. I couldn't remember if I'd been on a farm. It was a complete shemozzle. We got through it and I was allowed back into the country, which I'm very thankful for. That is something that we Australians face—those of us lucky enough to travel overseas—but it's something that our international visitors face as well, particularly in a region like Leichhardt. We have two international airports. We are a tourist destination. People come from all over the world. It's a bucket list investment, just for a few hours on the beautiful Great Barrier Reef or to smell the clean air in the Daintree or to take a look at the vastness of Cape York.</para>
<para>The last thing people want to do when they get off that plane is fill out that card. You've got the card, you trudge through customs and get through security, then you get your bag and you get to go out into the beautiful sunshine. But we're changing that. We have been working with Qantas over the last few years, developing the prototype and making sure we've got a system that works. Over 425,000 people have already used it. Over the next four years we're phasing those cards out—gone, done, finished. If I'm lucky enough to travel overseas again, I'm looking forward to being able to do it all electronically on my phone, nice and quick, and get back to doing the things I want to do—which, when I'm coming home, usually involve collecting my dogs. But, for our tourists, it'll be getting out amongst everything that Australia has to offer.</para>
<para>This is going to create cost savings. It's going to make sure that people get where they want to go faster. It's going to improve the opportunity for our customs and Border Force officers to do the thing that they are best at doing: keeping our borders secure, keeping our country safe and keeping contraband—tobacco, alcohol, drugs and weapons—out of Australia. They won't have to collect the cards. You won't have to remember where you're staying, which can be a bit tricky, particularly if English is not your first language. We want to make the experience better. We want to make sure the people—the men and women—who are working some really strange hours at times, with flights arriving at two or three in the morning, are doing the job that they put their hand up for. Every customs officer and Border Force officer I've ever met in this job has put their hand up for one reason: they want to keep Australians safe. They understand the responsibility and the commitment that that takes. They understand the precious nature of what we have been given naturally and the precious nature of what we've built as a society. And they are hell-bent on making sure that it continues in the right direction. They don't want things that are dangerous coming into our country, and they don't want to be collecting cards and entering data when it could be done electronically.</para>
<para>This has been in the works for quite a while. It seems like such a small change, but small changes have big impacts, and it also brings us into the 21st century. It is not a great look to hand people a card on their way into Australia, particularly when they're sitting there on their smartphones—probably playing the block game. This will make it better and easier. Pressure will be taken off the system, and our Border Force and customs officers will be able to continue to do what they need to do. For example, in 2025, over 359,000 incoming travellers and more than 280,000 air and sea consignments were inspected. The modernisation will allow those numbers to increase.</para>
<para>We know that organised crime is testing the borders always. We've seen it up my way, in the Torres Strait, and we responded hard with BROADSTAFF. But it's like the velociraptors in <inline font-style="italic">Jurassic Park</inline>. They're going to keep testing and they're going to keep coming. Each time that happens, we need to be ready for them. We need to make sure that our security systems are there. We need to make sure that our Border Force is well resourced. There was an extra $74 million for Operation BROADSTAFF in the last budget, keeping the most northern border safe. It's a bit of a porous border with the treaty villages there, but it's an important part of Australia. Being smart and practical is the Australian way. It's always been the Australian way. Now our customs is going to catch up to what we know we're capable of. I'm really excited to know that the guys who are on the front line will be making a difference and that they're not going to have to do the paperwork. No-one likes paperwork.</para>
<para>Since this commenced in 2024, as I said, over 450,000 passengers have already utilised this system, mostly on inbound Qantas flights to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and they've trialled it as a travel declaration. The anecdotal evidence coming out of this is that it has been met as a resounding success. We're going to expand it out to Perth and Adelaide before the end of 2026. That will take care of most of our capital cities, and then it will be rolled out more broadly across Australia to our regional international airports, of which Cairns is one and Horn Island is another. This is an essential part of what co-design looks like. This isn't a department saying to business or an entire industry, 'This is what we think you need.' This is sitting down, listening and understanding what the requirements are and building a system that meets the needs of that industry. That's what good governance looks like—understanding the needs of who it is that you're working with. In this particular case, the airline industry has been very excited to get this up and running because they know what that means. They know that faster movements through customs is a selling point.</para>
<para>Everyone always starts their story about their trip overseas by saying how bad customs was—'How was your trip to Peru?' 'Oh, it was great, but I was three hours in customs.' It's the negative that always sticks. I don't want people talking negatively about the Far North or about Australia when they come here. I don't want them to say, 'But customs was a bit rough; we were there for a couple of hours.' I want them to say: 'I got off the plane and I went outside and felt that beautiful Australian sunshine hit my skin for the first time. It's got that tingle that is not available in most of the rest of the world.' I want them to say that they smelt that air and that they looked at our blue sky. Our sky, compared to a lot of the other countries I've ever been to, is electric—and, in my part of the world, set against the rainforest or, down south, the gum trees.</para>
<para>That's what I want people to talk about when they get off the plane. That's what I want them to talk about when they go back to their countries of origin. That's what I want them to remember—that initial beauty and the fact that someone said, 'G'day, welcome to Australia; we hope you enjoy your stay here.' We understand what that means for tourism, what that means for our international reputation and what that's going to mean to the hundreds of thousands of people who will descend on Queensland over the next few years, especially when the 2032 Olympics are up and running. We're going to make it nice and smooth. We're going to make it nice and easy. The sun will hit their skin. They'll be in Brisbane, they'll be in Cairns, they'll watch the Olympics and we will say, 'G'day, welcome to Australia.' I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 deals with biosecurity, I want to talk about a biosecurity issue we have in Australia. I met recently in my office with some commercial beekeepers from across the Northern Rivers and heard directly about the growing impact of varroa mite on their business and their ability to maintain the healthy colonies that are so important to them and their businesses. What I heard was exceptionally concerning because the impact of varroa is now no longer confined to the beekeeping industry; it's becoming a threat to Australia's agricultural productivity and, indeed, our food security.</para>
<para>Commercial beekeepers, as everyone would understand, provide essential pollination services for all of Australia's fruit, all of Australia's vegetables and for the nut and seed industries. As colonies are being lost, hive numbers decline and operators come under increasing financial pressure, and it is putting at risk an essential part of Australia's infrastructure. Beekeepers have invested heavily in approved treatments, changed their management practices and adapted their businesses to manage varroa. Yet, despite the current advice that they're getting, many are still losing colonies. They are questioning whether the current system is giving them the tools that they need to manage an established biosecurity threat under Australian conditions.</para>
<para>The most concerning message from beekeepers I've spoken to is that commercial operators are making decisions about whether they can remain in the industry. Every loss of an operator means a loss of hives, expertise, breeding programs, equipment and, more importantly—and I can't stress this enough—commercial pollination capacity, meaning a threat to food availability. This capacity simply cannot be immediately rebuilt if we lose it, if we wait until businesses have failed. We're trying to rebuild an agricultural capability when we can, right now, have it protected.</para>
<para>Varroa has exposed weaknesses in our biosecurity system. We need to understand what happened. We need to understand the weaknesses in our border protection—the surveillance, the detection and the responses—and what measures are being put in place to ensure those weaknesses are addressed. We need a biosecurity system that more than responds once a threat has been established. We need a system that prevents, detects, responds early and is prepared for a threat that we have not yet seen.</para>
<para>Australia spent years preparing for the possibility of varroa entering the country, yet now it's established and has been widespread in New South Wales and across eastern Australia. This should prompt a serious examination of how our biosecurity system has performed. We need to understand how varroa entered Australia, whether our border surveillance and detection systems were sufficient and whether the response was capable of containing the threat before it became established.</para>
<para>Biosecurity needs to work as a complete chain from prevention and early detection to rapid response and ongoing preparedness. If that chain fails, the cost does not disappear; it moves from the border to farmers, businesses and, ultimately, consumers. We are managing varroa under conditions that are very different to other countries. Our warmer climate allows colonies to continue breeding for much of the year. Treatment resistance is emerging, and Australia has limited practical experience managing an established varroa population. The industry believes the problem is moving faster than the regulatory response and the system needs to be capable of adapting to Australian conditions and to the evidence emerging from the field.</para>
<para>The national approach to varroa treatment and own-use certification and the experience of commercial beekeepers also highlight a second weakness in the current system: Australia does not have a consistent national pathway that gives trained commercial beekeepers access to practical, affordable varroa treatments for their own hives. Beekeepers are managing an established pest under Australian conditions, yet treatment options, approvals and regulatory pathways can be complex, costly and slow to adapt to emerging evidence. The industry is not asking for deregulation or unrestricted chemical use. The experience of varroa demonstrates the need for a national biosecurity framework, rather than a fragmented approach across jurisdictions and agencies. That framework should bring together border protection, surveillance, research, diagnostics, emergency response and industry expertise. It should also ensure that, once a threat is established, commercial beekeepers have the regulatory tools needed to manage it effectively. This includes considering a lawful, accredited, regulated own-use pathway for specified organic varroa treatments supported by appropriate training safeguards and Australian field trials.</para>
<para>I'll end by saying that I can't stress the importance of this enough. What we're talking about here is the industry that provides pollination services to the whole of Australia's agricultural sector—fruit, vegetables and a whole lot of other food products. We need to do better than we currently are, or a lot of this could be called into question when these industries are asking for pollination services.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Page. While I absolutely critically understand the importance of varroa mite and biosecurity, I would remind you that a link to the bill that we are debating would really be appreciated in your commentary. Thank you. I understand that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of their speech for incorporation into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">The incorporated speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<para>I would like to speak to the Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026. Australia's biosecurity system is one of the quiet achievers of our national framework—rarely seen, but absolutely essential to the protection of our environment, our agricultural strength, our economy and, ultimately, our way of life. For communities like those across the electorate of Pearce in Western Australia, biosecurity is not an abstract concept; it is deeply practical. It is about protecting local growers, supporting small and medium agricultural enterprises, and ensuring that the produce cultivated in our regions continues to meet the high standards expected both domestically and internationally.</para>
<para>Australia's favourable pest and disease status is something we should never take for granted. It is the foundation upon which our agricultural productivity is built, and it is a key reason why Australian products are trusted across global markets. That trust translates directly into jobs, into export opportunities, and into regional economic resilience. But, while our biosecurity system is strong, it is not static. It operates in an environment that is becoming more complex, more dynamic and more challenging with each passing year. We are seeing unprecedented volumes of international travellers and goods moving across our borders. At the same time, global disease profiles are shifting, climate change is altering the distribution of pests and pathogens and the expectations on our border systems to operate quickly and efficiently are increasing. These pressures are not theoretical; they are very real, and they are growing.</para>
<para>In 2025 alone, biosecurity officers inspected more than 280,000 commercial air and sea consignments and intercepted over 359,000 incoming travellers carrying biosecurity risk material. More recently, in just the month of March this year, over 3,000 mail items and more than 33,000 travellers were intercepted with goods that posed a risk to Australia's biosecurity system. Each one of those interceptions represents a potential threat that was stopped at the border. Each one is a reminder of what is at stake.</para>
<para>For Western Australia in particular, where our geographic isolation has historically been a natural advantage, maintaining strong biosecurity controls is critical. Industries across Pearce—from horticulture to livestock—depend on that protection. A single incursion of a serious pest or disease could have devastating consequences for local producers and for the broader economy. That is why the Albanese Labor government has taken decisive steps to strengthen Australia's biosecurity system. Since coming to office, we have committed over $2 billion in additional resourcing to ensure that our biosecurity framework remains robust, responsive and fit for purpose. This investment recognises that protecting Australia's borders requires not only skilled personnel but also modern systems, up-to-date legislation and the ability to respond quickly to emerging risks. However, resourcing alone is not enough. A strong biosecurity system must be supported by legislation that enables efficient operations, supports informed decision-making, and reflects the realities of today's border environment. That is precisely what the Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 seeks to achieve.</para>
<para>This bill is practical, it is targeted and it responds directly to the operational challenges faced at our borders. It focuses on two key areas. The first is modernising the way travellers provide biosecurity information. For too long, aspects of our biosecurity system have relied on outdated, paper based processes. In a world where millions of travellers move through our borders each year, those processes are no longer sufficient. This bill enables the adoption of new digital methods, including the Australia Travel Declaration, which allows travellers to provide information earlier, more accurately, and in a more accessible format. This is not simply about convenience; it is about better risk management. When information is provided in advance, biosecurity officers are better equipped to assess risk before a traveller even arrives. That means faster processing for low-risk travellers and more targeted attention on those who present a higher risk.</para>
<para>The Australia Travel Declaration pilot has already demonstrated clear benefits. It has supported smoother passenger flows, reduced congestion at airports and enabled quicker processing times—all without compromising Australia's high biosecurity standards. Importantly, it also allows biosecurity officers to access and analyse information more effectively. That means less time spent on administrative tasks and more time focused on protecting Australia from genuine threats. For travellers, this means a more streamlined experience at the border. For our biosecurity system, it means greater efficiency and stronger outcomes.</para>
<para>The second key element of this bill is improving transparency and fairness for industry participants. Approved arrangements are an important part of Australia's biosecurity framework, allowing businesses to manage certain biosecurity functions under strict regulatory oversight. However, the current system does not always provide sufficient clarity or opportunity for applicants to respond before decisions are made. This bill addresses that gap by introducing a clear notice-of-intention process for decisions relating to approved arrangements. This is a straightforward but important reform. It ensures that applicants are informed of proposed decisions and given an opportunity to respond before those decisions are finalised. It supports a more consistent and transparent regulatory process, and it reinforces procedural fairness. For businesses operating within the biosecurity system—including those in Western Australia who rely on efficient import and export processes—this provides greater certainty and confidence. It also strengthens the integrity of the system as a whole.</para>
<para>In addition to these substantive changes, the bill also makes a minor technical amendment to the Biosecurity Act to remove the use of a defined term that has created ambiguity. While technical in nature, this change is important. Clear and precise legislation is essential for effective implementation, and even small ambiguities can create challenges in practice. Taken together, these amendments represent a meaningful step forward. They strengthen operational effectiveness at the border, improve the quality and transparency of regulatory decision-making and support better engagement with industry. But perhaps most importantly, they do all of this while maintaining Australia's uncompromising biosecurity standards.</para>
<para>Let us be clear: efficiency must never come at the expense of protection. Australia's biosecurity system is rightly regarded as one of the strongest in the world. It is a system built on vigilance, expertise and a commitment to continuous improvement. However, past performance is not a guarantee of future success. If anything, the evolving nature of biosecurity risks means that we must work even harder to stay ahead. Maintaining the trust of our farmers, our communities and our international trading partners requires us to constantly adapt—to embrace new technologies, to refine our processes, and to ensure that our legislative framework remains contemporary and fit for purpose. This bill reflects that mindset. It facilitates the long overdue transition from paper based systems to modern digital solutions. It enhances procedural fairness and transparency. And it ensures that our biosecurity laws continue to support effective, real-world outcomes.</para>
<para>For electorates such as Pearce, where local industries depend on strong biosecurity protections, these reforms matter. They matter for growers who rely on pest-free conditions to maintain productivity, they matter for exporters who depend on Australia's reputation for clean, safe produce and they matter for communities who understand that a strong biosecurity system underpins economic stability and environmental protection. More broadly, they matter for Australia's place in the global economy. Our ability to compete on the world stage is closely tied to the strength of our biosecurity system. Trading partners need to have confidence in our standards, and that confidence is built on a system that is not only strong but also modern, efficient and transparent. By strengthening the links between innovation, operational delivery and legislative clarity, this bill helps ensure that Australia remains resilient, adaptive and trusted. It is a forward-looking reform that recognises the realities of today while preparing us for the challenges of tomorrow.</para>
<para>In closing, this bill is not about sweeping changes or unnecessary complexity. It is about practical improvements that make a real difference. It is about ensuring that our biosecurity system continues to evolve in step with the world around us. And it is about protecting what matters most: our environment, our industries, our communities and our way of life. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>163</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7519" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>163</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NG</name>
    <name.id>316052</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise again today to speak on the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Like a lot of Australians, I like a glass of wine at the end of a long day or sharing a bottle with friends over dinner. It's part of our culture. We bring a bottle to a house warming. We gift it on birthdays or special occasions. But Australia hasn't always been a wine drinking country. Around Federation, the Australian official yearbook stated 'Australians are not a wine drinking people.' That changed in the postwar period, when a new generation arrived—a generation of European migrants. It is another example of how multiculturalism has enriched and benefited our nation.</para>
<para>In 1965, our newfound love of wine and the Australian spirit of innovation combined to create our own globally significant invention: the wine cask. It keeps wine fresher for longer. It's a staple of many pantries and kitchen benches for when you don't want to commit to a whole bottle of wine, but you just want a quiet glass or two. Wine has become such a part of life in this country that we don't always stop to think about where it comes from: the hardworking grape growers who spend months worrying about frost, if rain is going to fall at exactly the wrong time or a market that might not pay a fair price when the harvest finally comes in. This bill is about getting a fairer deal for them.</para>
<para>For too long, many growers have carried the weather, the water, the years it takes for a vine to mature and the debt that comes with all of it or having almost no say in the price they are ultimately paid or when they are paid it. Growers have described turning up to sell a season's harvest without knowing the price until the truck is already loaded. There were payment terms that stretched out over months, sometimes almost a year, while their own bills were due and continued to pile up, and a voluntary code of conduct that was fair on paper but meant almost nothing in practice because nobody was required to follow it and nobody could enforce it if they didn't. That is not a fair go. That is not the kind of marketplace Australians expect us to build. We are a government that wants businesses to thrive and wants our primary producers to be fairly compensated for the hard work they do and the risks they take to produce great Australian wines. This bill is about levelling the playing field, about providing the same basic protections we would expect for anyone dealing with a much larger, more powerful buyer.</para>
<para>In August 2024, the government asked Dr Craig Emerson to test whether the market was genuinely failing growers and to look closely at contracting practices and how risk is shared across the supply chain. His review, delivered in mid-2025, made 14 recommendations. It found what growers had been saying for years: that small growers hold too little bargaining power against large winemakers and a concentrated retail sector and that the existing voluntary code simply cannot be enforced. His central recommendation was to replace that voluntary code with a mandatory code, enforceable by the ACCC, applying to large winemakers in their dealings with growers. The government accepted that recommendation in December 2025 and has since been developing the code with an advisory group, bringing growers and winemakers to the same table—maybe over a glass of wine.</para>
<para>This bill is the groundwork that the code needs to function. It confirms Wine Australia's role running industry surveys, building on the longstanding National Vintage Survey, and allows that information to be shared with the ACCC, which would otherwise struggle to identify which businesses the code applies to. The bill also lets the government's independent agricultural research bureau pass on survey contact details to a mailing provider, solely to send out survey letters, lift response rates and improve the data this sector relies on. Put simply, this bill does not write new rules for the wine industry; it builds the infrastructure for the rules to work, giving the ACCC the information it needs and giving growers the data they need to know whether they are getting a fair price.</para>
<para>My electorate of Menzies is not typically thought of as a grape-growing electorate, but we do have our winemakers. Last year I had the pleasure of visiting Rebecca and Adrian at Santolin Wines in Warrandyte South. They were kind enough to walk me through their business, and it was clear how much passion and hard work goes into every bottle they produce. They told me how they had both worked in the wine industry for much of their working lives, and they took the risk of stepping out on their own, starting out with just a single barrel. They bet on themselves, and their hard work paid off. They received armloads of awards for their wines, which allowed them to grow and eventually expand their facility into the one they're in now in Warrandyte South. They walked me through some of the challenges that they have faced, showing how they managed to make their business work despite these challenges.</para>
<para>They took the time to walk me through the three stages of making a bottle of wine. First, of course, comes the harvest, picking the grapes at exactly the right moment, because picking too early or too late means the whole batch can be affected. Then comes fermentation, where the grapes are crushed and the sugar in the juice is slowly turned into alcohol. Finally, there is the ageing and bottling, where the wine is left to develop its character before it is ready for someone's dinner table. Each of the three stages demands patience, skill and a fair bit of risk.</para>
<para>Winemakers were also consulted on this bill and will also benefit from the clearer market information and the mandatory code. Of course, the wine industry benefits people across our community in a whole range of ways. When growers are paid fairly and the sector is sustainable, that flows through to the businesses on our high streets that depend on a reliable, well-priced local product.</para>
<para>My community may not grow the grapes—that's nearby in the Yarra Valley and further beyond—but we are part of the reason there is a market for what the growers produce, and we have a stake in making sure that market is a fair one. Wine, of course, is served in the fantastic pubs and clubs in my community, like the Sporting Globe Bar & Grill at Shoppingtown, Shoppingtown Hotel, the Blackburn Hotel, Cherry Hill Hotel, Templestowe Hotel and many others. I'd like to congratulate the Grand Hotel Warrandyte, who recently won not one but two awards in the 2026 Australian Hotels Association Victoria awards. They won the Heart of the Community award and the best overall hotel of the year award for the metropolitan area. As these accolades show, they are absolutely at the heart of the community in Warrandyte. Locals go there to watch the footy or the World Cup, for birthdays, for New Year's Eve or to catch up with friends and family. They've got a fantastic restaurant—I can testify to the quality of their parmas—and they even partner up with local suppliers like Warrandyte Quality Meats to host their popular meat tray raffle for our local champions the Warrandyte Pink Ladies, who have raised so much money for cancer around our community. Alongside these raffles, the hotel runs charity drives, live auctions and community dinners and donates the proceeds from the monthly menu features, such as 'parma of the month' and 'cocktail of the month', to very worthy causes.</para>
<para>Wine sits at the table of the many restaurants my community fills every weekend, from Bulleen to Templestowe and from Surrey Hills to Box Hill. It sits on the shelves of local bottle shops and it sits at the centre of the festivals that define who we are, from Lunar New Year celebrations to the countless community dinners that bring people from every corner of Menzies together.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 16:26 to 16:43</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NG</name>
    <name.id>316052</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wine is also served in our great local restaurants in Menzies, like the Doncaster Greek Tavern in Jackson Court. I was at the Doncaster Greek Tavern last Friday night with the Jackson Court Traders Association, who were holding their regular networking dinner. It was clear what a great sense of community the traders association have created, with not just the owners and operators of the businesses but also their families and their children in attendance. I say thank you to Con, Diana and all the members of the traders association for bringing our community together and supporting each other's businesses to thrive and grow, creating jobs and servicing our local community.</para>
<para>Australia is also an exporting nation, and the quality and ingenuity of Australian winemakers has elevated our wines to be iconic, luxury brands that are known around the world, particularly in places like China. In our Chinese Australian community, Penfolds Grange is often given as a gift for special occasions or in gratitude. We as a government are supporting our local winemakers by keeping our export market strong and keeping our trade strong.</para>
<para>When they were last in government, those opposite mishandled our relationship with our largest trading partner. As a result, growers and winemakers found their largest export market suddenly closed to them after tariffs of up to 218 per cent were imposed on Australian wine in 2021. Growers, winemakers and their employees and communities paid the price for that. It was the Albanese Labor government that did the patient, methodical work of repairing that relationship, and, in March 2024, those tariffs came off. This was a huge relief for an industry already sitting on serious oversupply and falling global consumption. It is one thing to talk about backing regional Australia, and it is another to do the delicate work of rebuilding a relationship built on mutual respect and mutual benefit. This bill continues in that same spirit. It continues doing the important, practical work that actually changes the conditions on the ground for growers, rather than just talking about supporting them.</para>
<para>This bill sits within a much broader program of support. Since coming to office, the government has provided more than $90 million to the wine industry across trade, research, tourism and viability programs. The free trade agreement and the wine agreement finalised with the European Union in March remove tariffs of up to 32 euros per 100 litres and cut the certification costs that have made exporting harder than it should be, while protecting Australian winemakers' right to keep using terms like 'prosecco'.</para>
<para>None of these measures alone solve every challenge facing the wine sector, but they are addressing them. They represent a government that is showing up for an industry that has too often been left to fend for itself. This bill is the foundation of a fairer, more enforceable set of rules governing one of the country's great agricultural industries. It backs in growers. It backs in winemakers—like Rebecca and Adrian, from my community, and thousands like them across the country—who spent years being told to wait for a fair deal that never quite arrived. This bill makes sure we have fairness in the paddock and fairness at the negotiating table. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to speak on the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Given that I represent the best wine region in Australia, it would be remiss of me not to speak. I want to acknowledge, Deputy Speaker Haines, that the King Valley in your community has some good wine areas as well—just not quite as good as the Yarra Valley's! We take pride in serving communities like the Menzies community. We play such key roles in our communities but also in serving Australia and the world. The coalition is supporting this bill. It's in response to the findings of the Emerson review, which found that grapegrowers face an imbalance in bargaining power against large winemakers and the voluntary code is no longer fit for purpose.</para>
<para>Victoria's wine industry was born in the Yarra Valley. Our wine industry began shortly after the first colonial farmers in 1837, when the Scottish-born Ryrie brothers established Yering Station, initially operating as a cattle farm. A year later, they planted the first grapevines on the property, marking the birth of Victoria's wine industry. That winery still operates today, but, in the current climate, there are many wine growers concerned about the future of their business. I've been engaging with these wine growers in many different forums and many different ways. I want to thank Wine Yarra Valley and Wine Australia for working with me in bringing together many roundtables with wineries large and small to make sure that we can hear about the challenges they are facing and do the work to help them grow into the future.</para>
<para>When we talk about wineries and the wine industry in my community and every other community that is lucky enough to have a wine region, it's not just about the wineries; there is a whole ecosystem of jobs and opportunities that is created off the back of these wineries. My own lived experience is of this. When I was at high school and, then, university, I worked for a local hospitality company called Prestige Events. We did weddings, marquee weddings, and we had partnerships with most of the greatest wineries in the Yarra Valley. Residents from the local area, from the city, from interstate and from overseas would come into the Yarra Valley to have their weddings at one of those wineries. That job not only provided me with an income but gave me so many life lessons. I'll always be grateful to Michael and Gayle Thwaites for the opportunity they gave to a 15-year-old who didn't really know what hard work was. They taught me very quickly what hard work was.</para>
<para>That's just one example of how the wine industry in the Yarra Valley and across the country is creating jobs, particularly for young people and particularly those at high school, giving them opportunities to learn about life and earn a little bit of extra money. I do say that one of the great things about working in weddings is that it is great preparation for politics, because there is no tougher customer alive than a bride. I learnt a lot. Because it is such a special day—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's be honest, Member for Lyne; as long as the groom turns up in a suit and fully shaven, they're pretty happy. But he talks about needing to set high standards, and the wineries of the Yarra Valley and of Australia set the highest standards in the world.</para>
<para>But our local wine growers and wine growers across Australia are facing continued uncertainty with challenging trade conditions, a global oversupply of wine and declining consumption in many markets. The sector is currently carrying around 262 million litres more wine than can be commercially sustained, placing enormous downward pressure on prices throughout the supply chain. The 2026 grape harvest was the smallest in 25 years, yet grape prices continue to decline. At the same time, global wine consumption has fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years. Australia cannot solve those international market conditions, but we can ensure our domestic market is as fair and transparent as possible.</para>
<para>And we need to remember that, behind these numbers—yes, there are some large organisations. There are some large businesses and some people in the wine industry who are doing well. But, in many cases, there are families that are either generational winemakers or have decided to start a winery, and their winery is their future. It's their superannuation. It's how they plan to retire, and, hopefully, they will pass it on to their children. So it's not just about the wineries; it is about the families behind those wineries who are doing it so tough at the moment. None of these challenges are addressed in this bill.</para>
<para>But what the bill does address is Dr Emerson's independent review, which found significant issues of bargaining power between major buyers and smaller-scale grape purchasers. We have many small, family-run wineries in my community. They produce amazing wines, but this imbalance in bargaining power results in growers accepting contracts with unfavourable terms or limited ability to resolve disputes.</para>
<para>The coalition has a strong record of supporting mandatory codes where there is a clear imbalance in market power and where voluntary agreements are no longer delivering fair outcomes for suppliers. We've strengthened mandatory codes including the Dairy Code of Conduct, the Horticulture Code of Conduct and the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct to ensure fairness and confidence in supply chains. This fairness is important because it delivers better, cheaper products to markets today and into the future, making sure there's a diversity of suppliers and there are consumers on the other end. We back competitive markets, but we must ensure that our primary producers and our small operators are receiving a fair deal.</para>
<para>This bill also establishes an information-sharing framework with Wine Australia to share information with the ACCC for the implementation of the mandatory code. It further makes change to the levy collection system, but it does nothing to address the broader structural problems identified by the government's own Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission found that Australia's agricultural levy system has become a bureaucratic nightmare of around 248 levies administered through approximately 70 different arrangements, creating unnecessary complexity, increasing administrative burden and dragging on productivity. We should always remember when we talk about levies for agriculture, whether for wineries or farmers, that it is the farmers' money.</para>
<para>I was very lucky. My uncle Sam, who was a strawberry grower, was president of both the Victorian and the national strawberry growers associations at the same time for over a decade. I spoke to him. I have seen firsthand the work he's done as a farmer but also in his advocacy for the strawberry industry across our country. I remember, when I got elected, he took me aside, as all good Italian uncles do, and gave me a few words of wisdom and a lot of lessons.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, he gives them to me every time, member for Groom. But what he did say to me about farmers and about levies was really important. He said, 'Never forget that those levies that are collected and spent by bureaucrats and departments are the farmers' money.' It's their money that they are giving up to deliver a better outcome for their industry, and, if it's not delivering a better outcome for the industry, they shouldn't be paying the levy. Farmers are happy to pay levies because they understand the importance of the collective nature of putting that money together to grow their industry. That's why he was president of the strawberry growers association—to grow the strawberry industry across our country. But it must always be delivering value for money for our farmers, and getting rid of that complexity will help deliver value for money for our Australian farmers. And, if our Australian farmers are strong and growing, that's means we will have better prices and better products for consumers all across our country.</para>
<para>The reality for our local wine growers is they are facing issues beyond the code of conduct and levies that this bill addresses. Earlier this year, the wine industry put forward a practical and costed package of measures through its pre-budget submission to help growers and wine makers navigate these difficult and challenging market conditions. The government, unfortunately, failed to listen, didn't engage and did not act on those recommendations. As Darren Rathbone, the chief executive officer and wine maker at Yering Station, Victoria's oldest winery, said at the time:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Backing the industry through this federal budget is an investment in regional communities like ours.</para></quote>
<para>But the government didn't back regional communities like mine. They turned their back on regional winemaking communities and continue to fail to provide meaningful support to the industry for the challenges that it is facing. Again, when we talk about industry, we are talking about people and their families, and many families have got everything invested in their winery. Instead, the government made it harder for wineries, particularly wineries like mine, which not only grow and make wine but rely on tourism for their businesses.</para>
<para>The government abolished the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program that helped wineries like those in the Yarra Valley to attract visitors, grow regional tourism and diversify their income. Not only did that cellar door grant program help the wineries; it helped sustain our local economy, because when the wineries invest in new cellar doors and upgrade their facilities, they get local builders and local suppliers to do the work. That is more economic growth taken away from communities like mine because of the heartless decisions of this government.</para>
<para>Wineries are the economic heart of communities like the Yarra Valley. They support local jobs, hospitality businesses and local tourism. When our wineries are strong, our local accommodation venues are strong, our tourism operators are strong, and our local shopping strips and small businesses are strong. A mandatory code will go some way towards evening the bargaining power between grape growers and wine makers, but it is only one part of the solution for our wine industry. We want to see Australia's wine industry thrive long into the future. For this to happen, the government must pair these reforms with practical support for growers, regional wineries and wine tourism and stop the cuts to successful programs that are helping our wineries grow. The coalition and I will keep standing up for regional wineries like ours in the Yarra Valley because our growers, our small businesses and our agricultural families are worth fighting for. They are the heartbeat of our economy. They give so much back to our communities.</para>
<para>I'm proud to come from a farming family. I'm proud to have grown up as a third-generation local in Casey and to have worked in hospitality businesses that thrived through a strong wine and grape growing industry. The industry has been great to me. I'll always continue to be a voice for our industry, because I know right now in our community young people are getting the opportunity to learn life lessons and earn some extra income through hospitality and through tourism. Not only are those young people learning and getting opportunities as teenagers at university like I did but many are seeing long-term opportunities to work in agriculture, in horticulture, in tourism and in hospitality not only in our community but also all across Melbourne. Many take the opportunity to go overseas and travel the world off the back of the hospitality experience that they gain.</para>
<para>It's so important that we continue to do the work to get it right and help this industry at this most challenging time that they are facing through no fault of their own. For every day I have the honour of being the member for Casey, I will work to support our industries, including our hospitality, our horticulture, our tourism and our wine regions.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of their speech for incorporation into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">The i</inline><inline font-style="italic">ncorporated speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<para>I would like to speak in support of the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. This is a practical and necessary bill that responds to real pressures in the wine sector and gives growers and winemakers a clearer, fairer framework in which to operate. It is a bill that recognises both the economic importance of the wine industry and the challenges it has faced in recent years, and it seeks to deal with those challenges in a measured and constructive way.</para>
<para>The wine industry is one of Australia's great success stories. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has delivered over $90 million in funding to support the grape and wine sector. This acknowledges how critical this industry is to Australia. It contributes to regional economies, supports jobs across production, transport, hospitality and tourism and helps project Australia's reputation around the world for quality food and beverage products.</para>
<para>But, like many parts of agriculture, it is also an industry that operates under pressure. It is exposed to global market shifts, changing consumer preferences, climate variability, supply chain disruptions and, at times, a mismatch in bargaining power between growers and purchasers. When those pressures build up, they can put real strain on farm businesses, family enterprises and the communities that depend on them. That is why this bill matters. It is not simply a technical amendment bill. It is a bill about fairness, transparency and confidence. It is about ensuring that the rules of the market better reflect the realities that growers and winemakers face. It is about creating a stronger foundation for long-term investment and better decision-making. Most importantly, it is about giving the industry the tools it needs to build a more stable future.</para>
<para>A key part of the bill is the move toward a mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchases. That is an important reform because the existing voluntary approach has not been enough to address the underlying problems in the market. Too often, growers have been left carrying the risk while having limited ability to influence the terms on which they sell their product. In any industry, that is not a sustainable arrangement. In an industry like the wine industry, where planting decisions, capital investment and harvest planning are made years in advance, it is particularly difficult when commercial arrangements are uncertain or opaque.</para>
<para>The bill seeks to improve those arrangements by giving growers and winemakers greater confidence and transparency. That is not just a slogan. It is a practical necessity. If a grower is making decisions about pruning, irrigation, labour, vineyard management and future plantings, they need to know more than just what the market might look like in a general sense. They need a clearer view of what buyers are likely to offer, what terms will apply and how those terms will be communicated. The reforms in this bill are designed to improve exactly that.</para>
<para>The bill also strengthens Wine Australia's ability to collect and use information through industry surveys. That may sound like a modest administrative change, but it is actually a very important one. Good policy depends on good information. If government and industry do not have accurate and timely data about what is happening in the market, they are flying blind. They cannot properly identify emerging risks, they cannot see where pressure is building and they cannot shape effective responses. Better information means better decisions. Better decisions mean better outcomes for growers, winemakers and the wider sector.</para>
<para>This reform also supports the administration and enforcement of the proposed mandatory code through the ACCC. That is important because a code is only meaningful if it can be properly implemented and enforced. Rules on paper do not help growers if they are not backed by real oversight. Nor do they help if there are no reliable mechanisms for monitoring compliance. This bill strengthens that architecture. It helps ensure that the code is not just a statement of principle, but a genuine practical tool that can improve behaviour across the supply chain.</para>
<para>One of the most significant aspects of the bill is the focus on transparency in grape pricing and contracting. The review underpinning these reforms recommended that winemakers make earlier, binding offers for each grape variety they seek under contract in certain key growing regions and that those offer prices be made public. That is a very important step. Transparency is one of the best ways to improve fairness in markets where power is unevenly distributed. When buyers must put forward clearer offers earlier, growers are placed in a stronger position to make informed decisions. They can compare options, plan ahead and avoid being left in the dark until the last moment.</para>
<para>That matters because grape growing is not an ordinary business. It is deeply tied to seasonal cycles, weather conditions, labour availability and long-term investment. A grower cannot simply switch production overnight if market conditions become difficult. A vineyard is a long-term commitment. It can take years before the benefits of planting, irrigation and management are fully realised. That is why certainty matters so much. It is also why fairness in the contracting process matters so much. If the rules are clearer and the process is more transparent, the entire sector stands to benefit.</para>
<para>The bill also includes changes relating to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES, and the Collections Act. These changes will allow ABARES to use and disclose personal information for its work, including agricultural research and analysis. That is another example of a reform that may appear technical but has broader significance. Strong agricultural data is essential for good public policy. We need to know what is happening across agriculture, fisheries and forestry if we are to respond effectively to changing conditions. That includes tracking production trends, understanding regional variation and assessing the impact of policy settings over time.</para>
<para>The bill does include safeguards, and rightly so. Any use of personal information should be handled carefully and consistently with privacy obligations, but the broad principle is sound. If we want a modern, responsive agricultural policy framework, then we need the data to match it. We need the capacity to analyse trends properly and to make evidence based decisions rather than rely on guesswork or outdated assumptions. That is especially important in a sector as complex and dynamic as agriculture.</para>
<para>The government has also indicated that it has provided substantial funding support for the grape and wine sector in recent years. That broader support is important context. It shows that this bill is not a standalone intervention but part of a wider effort to help the sector adjust and grow. The wine industry has faced tough conditions, and it is right that government has stepped in with reforms and assistance that aim to support resilience rather than simply manage decline. Industry needs a future focused policy approach, not just short-term fixes.</para>
<para>For regional communities, this matters even more. Wine is not only an export product or a line on a balance sheet. It is part of the social and economic fabric of many regions. It supports local employment, sustains small businesses, drives tourism and helps shape the identity of whole communities. In places where vineyards, cellar doors, hospitality venues and support services all depend on one another, a stronger wine industry supports a stronger regional economy. That is particularly relevant in Western Australia, where wine regions contribute not only to production but to the tourism and hospitality sectors as well. When the industry is stable, the benefits flow far beyond the vineyard gate.</para>
<para>That is why I welcome the bill's focus on rebuilding confidence across the supply chain. It recognises that the relationship between growers and buyers has not always been working as well as it should. It accepts that transparency and fairness are not optional extras; they are essential ingredients of a healthy market. And it shows a willingness to intervene where necessary to correct structural weaknesses rather than leaving individual growers to carry the burden alone. There is also a broader principle at stake here. Good legislation should do more than regulate. It should improve the conditions under which people can plan, invest and prosper. That is what this bill aims to do. It does not seek to overcomplicate the market or burden the industry with unnecessary red tape. Instead, it seeks to create clearer rules, better information and more balanced relationships. That is a sensible and responsible approach.</para>
<para>We should also acknowledge the consultation that has gone into these reforms. The bill has been developed after engagement with industry bodies, levied industries, research and development corporations and other recipients of levy and charge information. That is important because the best reforms are those that reflect real-world experience. Industry knows where the pain points are. Growers know where the system is not working. Winemakers understand the commercial pressures they face. Good government listens to that experience and turns it into workable policy. This bill reflects that approach.</para>
<para>At a time when many sectors are under pressure, the wine industry deserves policy that is clear, practical and grounded in reality. It deserves reforms that help restore trust, support investment and promote sustainability. That is what this bill attempts to do. It strengthens Wine Australia, supports ABARES, improves the regulatory framework for grape purchasing and gives the industry a better basis on which to plan for the future. In closing, this is a sensible bill and a welcome one. It recognises the value of the wine sector, the hard work of growers and winemakers and the importance of fair dealing in commercial relationships. It provides a stronger framework for transparency, better data and more accountable market behaviour. It is a bill that supports regional Australia, supports agricultural resilience and supports a more confident future for one of our most important export industries. For those reasons, I am proud to support the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 as a local MP with a small but valuable wine industry and with communities that were part of the founding and development of the Australian wine industry. I'm also an Australian who is deeply passionate about this industry. While I'm not directly related, I'm certainly proud of the history of what the Penfolds name and brand stand for in Australian wine excellence.</para>
<para>Australia was always earmarked as a wine-producing nation. From James Cook's <inline font-style="italic">Endeavour</inline> voyage, Australia was identified as an ideal place for producing wine. Vines were planted within the first months of the First Fleet landing at Sydney Cove. I'm particularly proud that part of the story of Australian wine begins in the electorate of Lyne. The Paterson Valley, and particularly Tocal, played an important role in the very early development of viticulture in colonial Australia. James Phillips Webber took up Tocal in 1822, and during the 1820s and early 1830s he established a vineyard there as part of what became one of the Hunter's pioneering agricultural properties. This was about the time my own Penfold ancestors came to Australia as farm labourers to work on the Bona Vista property in Paterson, which is very close to Tocal.</para>
<para>By 1832, Webber had three acres of vines at Tocal. That might sound modest today, but at the time there were only 15½ acres of vines recorded across the entire Hunter. What happened at Tocal did not stay at Tocal. In 1834, Webber supplied oporto and gouais grape cuttings from Tocal to another pioneering Hunter grower, George Wyndham at Dalwood, which is just on the other side of the Hunter River from my own electorate. Wyndham would go on to become one of the great early names in Australian wine, so there's a direct historical thread running from those early vines at Tocal through the pioneering vineyards of the Hunter and into the development of one of Australia's most famous wine regions.</para>
<para>Long before Australian wine was winning international awards or becoming a major export industry and long before Hunter Valley semillon was known around the world, pioneers were experimenting with vines in the Paterson Valley in my electorate of Lyne. They were sharing cuttings, testing varieties against Australian conditions and learning through plenty of trial and error how to grow grapes and make wine in this country. I'm very proud that Tocal and the Paterson Valley, in my electorate, have their place right at the beginning of Australia's wine industry.</para>
<para>The coalition supports the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. We support it because there's a genuine imbalance in bargaining power in parts of Australia's wine industry, particularly between grape growers and large winemakers. Where voluntary arrangements have failed to deliver fair outcomes, there's a legitimate role for government to establish clear rules of engagement. That has long been the coalition's approach. Coalition governments introduced and strengthened mandatory codes across agriculture, including the dairy code, the horticulture code, and the food and grocery code, so we support the direction of this legislation, but we should also be clear about what this bill does and what it does not do.</para>
<para>The Emerson review found that grape growers have too little bargaining power against large winemakers and that the existing voluntary code is no longer fit for purpose. The government accepted those recommendations in December last year and committed to developing a mandatory code of conduct. This bill is not that mandatory code, but it lays the groundwork for it.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 amends the Wine Australia Act to give Wine Australia an explicit function to conduct grape and wine industry surveys and allows information to be shared with the ACCC to help determine which businesses should be covered by the mandatory code. There are safeguards around that information and civil penalties for its misuse.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act to allow ABARES to share levy payer contact information with authorised contractors to improve participation in agricultural surveys. Importantly, this bill does not change agricultural levies, who pays them or how they are calculated. The coalition welcomes the fact that important safeguards around personal information have been placed in the legislation itself rather than simply being left to regulation, but greater transparency could be provided to farmers. There is no requirement for levy payers to be notified when their information is shared with a third party and no mechanism for them to opt out. That is something the government should continue to look at.</para>
<para>But the broader point is that this bill is a small piece of a much bigger problem. Australia's wine industry is in serious trouble. There are around 262,000,000 litres more wine sitting in storage than can be commercially sustained. The 2026 grape harvest was the smallest in 25 years, yet grape prices continue to decline. Domestic wine consumption is at its lowest level in more than a decade, and global wine consumption has fallen to its lowest level since 1961. Australian Grape and Wine is right to describe this not simply as a temporary downturn but as a structural crisis. Behind those numbers are growers, winemakers, cellar door operators and families who've spent generations building their businesses.</para>
<para>That matters in my electorate of Lyne. When people think about wine in New South Wales, they often think about the Hunter Valley. The Hunter is one of Australia's great wine regions, and its geographical indication stretches much further than the cellar doors around Pokolbin that most tourists know. The electorate of Lyne reaches into the northern Hunter, and across the Mid North Coast we have a diverse collection of smaller vineyards, wineries and cellar doors. Cassegrain, Old Inn Road, Tranquil Vale, Bago Maze and Wine, Great Lakes Paddocks, Villa d'Esta Vineyard, Jacaranda Estate, Gloucester River Wines, Faulls Ridge Wine, Mograni Creek Estate, Mill Creek Vineyard and Gap Hill Wines are all part of our local wine story. They're not necessarily the names that many people speak about but still very valuable contributors to the Australian wine industry and to the regional economy across the Lyne electorate. These wineries stretch from right down in the south-west of my electorate in Luskintyre all the way up to just east of Wauchope.</para>
<para>These aren't just places that make and sell wine. They also attract visitors. They employ local people. They buy from other local businesses and support restaurants, accommodation providers and tourism operators. Some of them also host weddings. Perhaps the member for Casey one day may need additional employment—hopefully not. He's also welcome to come and see some of these wineries in my electorate. These wineries are part of the character and diversity of our regional economy, and it's fantastic to trace my electorate's contribution over two centuries to the vineyards, winemakers and cellar doors operating across my electorate today. Nationally, wine related tourism attracts around 7½ million visitors each year, with visitors spending around $11.6 billion in Australia's wine regions. The broader grape and wine industry supports more than 203,000 direct and indirect jobs, and contributes more than $51 billion in gross economic output. When this industry hurts, regional Australia hurts, and communities like mine feel it.</para>
<para>That is why I'm disappointed that the Albanese government's response has been so inadequate. Earlier this year, Australian Grape and Wine went to the government with a serious, practical and costed plan. It proposed support for business viability and transition, concessional loans, mental health and rural wellbeing, rebuilding export markets, stimulating domestic demand and regional tourism and properly implementing the mandatory code. The total package was $139.25 million over the forward estimates.</para>
<para>But the Albanese government didn't take it up. Instead, at precisely the time the wine industry needed help attracting people into regional wine communities, the government moved to pause or cut the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant Program for two years out to 2030. That program provides eligible wine and cider producers with grants of up to $100,000 linked to cellar-door sales. That decision made absolutely no sense. If we have too much wine and insufficient demand, why reduce support for businesses bringing consumers directly to wineries and tourists into regional communities?</para>
<para>The government cannot control a decline in global wine consumption, but it can control how it responds, and we should remember how dramatically the industry was hit by the loss of the Chinese market. Before China's tariffs, that market was worth more than $1.2 billion a year to Australian wine exporters. It collapsed to less than $10 million. You can't simply switch off wine production. Grapevines remain in the ground, wine remains in tanks and barrels, and businesses still have debts, wages and bills to pay. That surplus puts pressure on winemakers and ultimately flows back to the prices growers receive, which brings me to another problem this bill does not address: market power doesn't stop winery gate.</para>
<para>The government is looking at the bargaining imbalance between growers and winemakers, which is fair enough, but what about the bargaining imbalance between winemakers and the major liquor retailers? The four largest liquor retailers have been estimated to control around 70 per cent of the market. Endeavour Group, through Dan Murphy's and BWS, is one of the dominant players, and major retailers increasingly compete with their suppliers through private-label and vertically integrated wine businesses. As Australian Grape and Wine has pointed out, that can leave a winemaker in the extraordinary position where a major retailer is simultaneously their biggest customer and one of their biggest competitors. That matters because pressure at the retail end of the supply chain eventually flows back to the grower. There's little point addressing the balance between growers and winemakers while ignoring concentrated market power further down the chain. We need competitive markets. We don't need government setting the price of a bottle of wine, but competitive markets only work when competition is genuine and small businesses have a realistic ability to negotiate.</para>
<para>Australian Grape and Wine has also pointed to the barrier small businesses face in challenging unfair conduct—that is, the cost of litigation, the imbalance in resources and fear of commercial retribution. Those issues need to be taken seriously as the government considers the next stage of these reforms. While the government is suddenly discovering the merits of mandatory agricultural codes, perhaps it could dust off the work already done for the poultry industry.</para>
<para>Poultry growers—many of them in my electorate—have been waiting for action on their own code of conduct and their own bargaining power problem for years. Maybe the chickens will come home to roost before the government finally gets around to dealing with this one.</para>
<para>The coalition supports this bill. A properly designed mandatory code can improve transparency and provide clearer and fairer rules between growers and winemakers, but nobody should pretend this legislation fixes the Australian wine industry. It doesn't address the enormous wine surplus, it doesn't rebuild international demand, it doesn't address concentrated market power further down the supply chain, and it doesn't provide the structural support the industry itself says it needs.</para>
<para>Our wine industry is a great Australian industry. It turns Australian agricultural produce into a high-value manufactured product, exports an Australian brand to the world and brings millions of visitors into regional communities. In places like Tocal and Paterson, its history reaches back almost to the beginning of European agriculture in this country. So, yes, let's give growers a fairer deal and get the mandatory code right, but, if the Albanese government is serious about the future of the Australian wine industry, it needs to look at the whole supply chain and the structural challenges facing the industry. Australian grape growers, winemakers and regional communities deserve much more than this bill alone.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SMALL</name>
    <name.id>291406</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It seems relevant, while we're talking about the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, to say, if we could get a little of what the member for Lyne has and bottle it, this place would be better off!</para>
<para>It gives me great pleasure to rise and talk about wine yet again in this place, coming as I do from the little patch of Western Australia called Forrest, which is home to unquestionably the greatest wine grown in Australia. There are many in this place who join me in a little friendly rivalry as we compare and contrast little emerging regions like the Barossa and the Hunter with Margaret River. Nonetheless, when it comes to this bill, I think the problem is in the bill's snapshot, and that is that there is no financial impact on the budget, as the explanatory memorandum makes clear.</para>
<para>The problem with that is that the wine industry, as many speakers today have lamented, is going through a tough and sordid time. It is not due to one bad growing season or one bad vintage in one region but, rather, a structural surplus of wine in the Australian market across all categories, from that very premium wine grown in Margaret River right through to the more mass produced wine and the fruitgrowers who provide that fruit through the Riverina and other areas.</para>
<para>The industry has been calling for sensible, targeted and limited financial support. But that's not what we're here to talk about today, and that is a great shame. Nonetheless, the coalition is supportive of this bill, because it responds to the findings of the Emerson review, and the member for Lyne was just discussing that imbalance whereby fruitgrowers have such little bargaining power with larger winemakers and how the existing voluntary code of conduct in that space is no longer fit for purpose.</para>
<para>The coalition has a proud history when it comes to codes of conduct across the agricultural, viticultural and horticultural spaces. When we were last in government we introduced and indeed strengthened mandatory codes of conduct for the dairy industry, the horticultural industry, and the food and grocery sector. We did that to improve the transparency, fairness and confidence that need to exist in our agricultural supply chains. As we see it, mandatory codes have an important role where there is a significant imbalance in bargaining power. These codes do that by providing clear rules of engagement that allow markets to continue operating competitively.</para>
<para>So, given that the government accepted the Emerson review's findings in December and committed to developing a mandatory code of conduct alongside industry—and that's most important, that this was done in close consultation and collaboration with industry, with bodies like Australian Grape & Wine—we find ourselves in a position to support the bill. Of course, that mandatory code itself is not in this bill, but the important legislative groundwork has been laid by enabling information-sharing that the ACCC needs in order to determine who the code should apply to ahead of the commencement of that code at the start of next year.</para>
<para>Importantly, there was movement from the government through that process to ameliorate legitimate concerns from growers, which I'd certainly heard in my patch, around the mandatory collection and provision of information and ensuring that that process was something industry could get around. Fairer commercial arrangements between growers and winemakers that will flow from this code of conduct—at least the intention is that they will flow from this code of conduct—represent an important step towards restoring confidence in the sector, which, as I said has been through a very tough couple of years. Those structural challenges—the structural surplus that we see across wine in Australia and indeed globally—extend well beyond this legislation.</para>
<para>The sector is currently carrying some 262 million litres more wine than is otherwise commercially sustainable on current consumption, which is placing enormous downward pressure on prices through the supply chain. That's, of course, if winemakers are able to move their product at all, and the feedback that I have from certain growers and winemakers is that they've got storage sheds full of produced wine that's been labelled and that's obviously incurred all of that capital cost upfront, and then years later there's simply no market for it. The heartbreak of those providers in having to make decisions to either destroy stock because they can't afford to keep storing it or face insolvency as a business is pretty hard to listen to, I can tell you.</para>
<para>The 2026 grape harvest was the smallest in 25 years across Australia's growing regions, yet grape prices continue to decline. Think about that for a second. This is the smallest yielding season in a quarter of a century, yet prices fell. That underscores the nature of the challenge facing the wine industry in Australia, and it's why that challenge extends beyond one bad season. This is an industry facing very, very serious headwinds. At the same time, of course, it's not just limited to Australia. We've seen wine consumption fall into its lowest level globally in over half a century as well. Whilst I'm not the biggest fan of the Albanese government, I'm certainly not going to hold them accountable for fighting against those very strong international market pressures. We do welcome steps that make our domestic market as fair and transparent as possible, which, as I said, this bill is a small step towards.</para>
<para>The other thing that is good about it in our view is that there is a civil penalty for the misuse of shared information, which, as I said, is an important movement from the government in relation to those concerns from industry through the consultation process, and we're very pleased to see that. It narrows the restrictions and includes safeguards requiring third parties to not further disclose information, which ensures that when they do so it's the minimum necessary information that's being shared and it is de-identified. That keeps the commercial sensitivities of the industry, which are understandably heightened at a time of great structural challenge, somewhat ameliorated.</para>
<para>The bill doesn't change agricultural levies, who has to pay them or how they're calculated. It's confined literally to the information-sharing and the technical administrative amendments that enable this to happen. It is a good response to the Emerson review's finding that the voluntary code of conduct that had previously existed was no longer making the market function and its finding that the mandatory code was an appropriate and, importantly, proportionate response. Where those safeguards around personal information are contained in the legislation itself, it basically eliminates future regulations either undermining the confidence of industry or allowing the commerciality of the industry to be undermined through some sort of leak, intentional or otherwise, and it does tend to happen of course. We see bad actors exploiting data being held by any major organisation, government notwithstanding.</para>
<para>The government has advised that similar arrangements for this which have existed for many years mean that this bill is not creating an entirely new practice, and that's a fair enough argument to make. But we do think that these growers deserve that greater transparency around how their information—their sensitive, personal, commercial information—was being handled, stored and promulgated to third parties. Supporting the bill that's before the House today should not prevent the government from strengthening those transparency measures into the future, and I do think that's an important point to make because, as I said, the very commerciality of the industry which is undergoing that great structural challenge is perilous.</para>
<para>While we are supportive of the legislation, this bill alone is not going to be the magic silver bullet that restores the fortunes of our wine industry. As I said earlier in this very scintillating contribution to the House, the greatest shame of this is that there's no budget impact, because earlier this year the wine industry, through Australian Grape & Wine which is a very active and engaged peak body for the industry, put forward a very practical, costed and sustainable package of measures in its pre-budget submission to help resolve the structural challenges that the market is facing. The simple reality is that we've got too many vines growing too much fruit. Those proposals that Australian Grape & Wine put forward which had a very limited budget impact would have seen those structural forces change over time. This is actually helping growers to pull grapes out and, as the member for Lyne was touching on earlier, through the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program, find additional markets to distribute their fruit, for example, through their own cellar doors.</para>
<para>Now that was a program that helped wineries attract visitors. Certainly in my electorate, it grew regional tourism and diversified the income for smaller producers. It's important for the House to remember that not all wineries are huge enterprises with big showy cellar door operations with dozens of staff. Indeed the cellar door grant program was targeted at those producers to support them in maintaining a viable cellar door when such an operation wasn't otherwise viable, and it is a great shame it was pulled in this year's budget. That was a $10 million saving, which, in a context of an industry already doing it tough, I thought was pretty mean and nasty.</para>
<para>As I say, this is a global factor, and removing that support for cellar doors sends exactly the wrong sort of message to one of Australia's most important regional industries. In a regional electorate like mine, it supports those local jobs and helps to diversify the economy away from just things like mining. We consistently talk about being a dig and ship economy. We should be digging more, drilling more, growing more, catching more, and these sorts of programs are important to support that. So, as I say, it's not a silver bullet. This is an important small step in the right direction. We will be critical where we have to be and supportive where we can be.</para>
<para>Seeing the continued move to shift more costs onto Australian wine producers through higher export cost recovery charges under the government and increasing regulatory costs is akin to asking these growers, who are literally bleeding cash, to pay more while they're getting less support from the government they're paying tax too. That seems to me to be a real slap in the face, and I'm very pleased that the member for Barker has joined us to provide some sort of a rebuttal to my claims about that little-known emerging wine region called Barossa.</para>
<para>Producers are paying more, and they're getting less. We're seeing reduced support for agriculture across the board. But, indeed, the wine industry is facing some of its toughest times, and this is really, really unacceptable to us. We'll back sensible reforms like this, but it can't be seen as the entire solution. That's why members on this side of the House will continue to fight tooth and nail for their growers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I speak to the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 at a time where the Australian wine industry is facing its greatest challenge of all time. I do not seek to catastrophise the situation, but if you're at home listening to this broadcast type the words 'vineyard removal' into your search engine. You will see video after video after video of front-end loaders and backhoe adapted bobcats removing vineyards across this country. No region, not even exalted areas like the Barossa in my electorate, is safe from this scourge of vine removal.</para>
<para>In terms of Barker, let me just set a few things straight. As the member for Barker, I often think that I have responsibilities for wine in this place, or at least that I'm the member for wine! And that is because Barker produces more wine by volume or value than any other division in this place. Producers from my electorate of Barker span the breadth of the industry, from high-volume commercial offerings in inland wine regions like the Riverland to the ultra-premium brands in places like the Barossa, the Coonawarra and other regions, whether Padthaway, Wrattonbully or Cape Jaffa. I'm loath to mention them all because, of course, I'll have producers from the regions I don't mention saying, 'Well, what about us?' I give a particular shout-out to the cool-climate producers in and around Mount Gambier that are sometimes forgotten about.</para>
<para>The reality is that this industry is in crisis. The industry hasn't been profitable for a number of years, and it's fair to say no region across Australia is currently profitable. It's easy—as those opposite have from time to time done, when it suited their narrative—to blame the breakdown in the relationship with China and perhaps reference a former prime minister and his actions around COVID. But the truth is: global demand for table wine has been in decline for a very long time. In fact, if you map it, you can see that about a billion litres—that's a billion, with a B—less table wine is consumed year on year.</para>
<para>If we think about why that is, we can start with a few factors. Firstly, I think everyone in this place and perhaps outside of it realises that the globe is going through a cost-of-living crisis. So that's a factor. The second factor is: table wine competes with other alternatives. Other alcohol substitutes seem to be more on trend, and we see it with our own friendship networks, don't we? Once upon a time, you'd buy a bottle of wine and four or five glasses. Now, someone wants a daiquiri. Someone else wants an espresso martini. Someone wants a cider, someone wants a ginger beer, and someone will have a glass of wine as well. That's what's happening, right?</para>
<para>The last thing is something we probably should celebrate. My generation, rightly or wrongly, was often measured by how much we could drink, particularly here in Australia—and I put my hand up. As a young uni student, I participated in all the bad behaviours. You might believe that; it's not hard to believe! But this generation, I like to think, measures itself on how much you can lift. There's a real push for wellbeing, spending time at the gym, being healthy and these things, and that's not necessarily consistent with serious consumption of Australia's premium wine—and wine otherwise. We're seeing this global trend. It's not an Australian trend; it's a global trend.</para>
<para>I mentioned, at the beginning of this contribution, vineyard removal. That's not an Australia-specific phenomenon. They're removing vineyards in the Napa Valley. They're removing vineyards in Bordeaux. But there is a difference, and that difference emanates from this place and other decision-making theatres like this at a state level. In those jurisdictions I just spoke of, growers are being actively supported to transition. I've been calling on this for a very long time. It is cruel to sit down around a kitchen tables at farms, with husband-and-wife producers in their 80s—some of whom don't have great command of the English language, and some of whom share my cultural background, so we can speak Italian together—to explain to them that this isn't a small blip in the price of Aussie wine or the global price of wine; this is a permanent change and one that has been a step-change. And, yes, their vineyard isn't worth anything. In fact, it's the value of the land itself, as bare land, minus the cost of removing the infrastructure that's on it, which isn't insignificant.</para>
<para>What upsets me about this is that I rang the bell on this about four years ago. I called on those opposite to do something serious about supporting the transition. Why do I say 'transition'? I say it because not everyone is a grower. Not everyone can grow things. Now, that might sound like a silly statement to make, but it's true, so we can't afford to lose these growers. We need to help them transition to other horticultural commodities. But it's expensive. It's much more expensive than the kind of farming my parents do, where you put in a crop one year and put in another crop the next year, or where you graze cattle or sheep. You not only have to remove the infrastructure; you also then have to plant new permanent plantings. There might be an almond tree, an olive tree, citrus and other things. Then, before you know it, you've got to wait two to three years for any sort of income. So you not only have the sunk cost of removing what's there; you also then have to spend the capital to put the new plantings there. Then you've got to wait and wait for an exceptionally long time. That's why these growers have needed support. It's something that I've been calling for for a very long time, and I wasn't going to miss the opportunity with this bill to restate the call—which, I've got to say, is supported by Australian Grape & Wine—to achieve that outcome of a transition.</para>
<para>Do you know why else it's important? These communities rely on this horticultural effort. If you remove that vineyard, then the job goes. When the job goes, the employee goes. When the employee goes, you've not only lost the economic activity that comes with that; you've also lost a student at a school or a volunteer at the CFS. Communities, particularly regional communities, break down.</para>
<para>And there's a further factor in many communities I represent. They rely on collective infrastructure to move water around—irrigation trusts. These irrigation trusts effectively extract water from the River Murray and pump it to properties all along the river. It's the reason why, when you fly over the Riverland, for example—and I'm using the Riverland as an example because it's the epicentre where the most harm is felt. It has the industry, the commercial sector, which is suffering the most pain, and it's where assets are most tied to this issue of horticulture. In the south-east, I've seen vineyards removed, fences placed around properties and livestock grazing there quite quickly.</para>
<para>But I will get back to collective assets and the irrigation trusts. Say that I'm running a vineyard block, my colleague the member for Groom is running a vineyard block, the next person is and the next person is. If I stay in the industry and the irrigation trust needs to pass over the member for Groom's property, the following member's property and the following member's property to get to the last property that's still growing, the costs of running that trust are no longer divided amongst five or six—they're divided amongst two. And, of course, we end up with these fallow blocks, which are another real challenge.</para>
<para>The ask of government is a pretty simple one: support growers in the Riverland and the industry more generally to transition. This bill is not what's currently needed, but it is something we support. So I'm quite happy to see it pass the House, but it is a really small part of what needs to occur right now.</para>
<para>I've spoken about the need for growers to transition, but we've also got to sell more Australian wine. I call on those opposite to have another think about Export Market Development Grants that have tapped out. Support producers who want to stay in this sector to go overseas and export their wine.</para>
<para>It's a combination of things right now. We need to reduce the amount that we produce. That's happening naturally, sadly, without the support of government, which I worry about because some of the best producers who are making the most hard nosed economic decisions are the very people we don't want to lose from this industry, whilst others who haven't got perhaps the same level of business acumen are staying in the industry, like smaller holdings et cetera. But, at the same time, there's nothing being done to support increased exports at scale, or at least nothing I'm seeing.</para>
<para>This sector feels like it's been forgotten. I speak to their representatives, Australian Grape and Wine. I speak to local producers all the way along the value chain. They've got a sense that those opposite think that, if they just ignore this issue for long enough, it'll go away, and it might. People will make decisions. They'll remove vineyards and recalibrate supply and demand and these things. But that will cause immeasurable hurt for particular groups, individuals and family businesses. It will really harm communities because it's not done with any rhyme or reason.</para>
<para>What those opposite ought to have done as a very bare minimum—and let's be clear. I don't Support water buybacks for the same reasons why I don't like the idea of communities shrinking because we're having to remove vineyards. I want growers to transition from viticulture to some other horticultural endeavour, retain that economic activity in the community and keep regional communities and river communities otherwise resilient. But what those opposite have is a policy to remove water from the river buybacks.</para>
<para>Now, given that that was their policy, do you think they could have solved for this problem at the same time? They could have calibrated a program of buybacks that said: 'You know what? We're going to come into particular grape growing communities where we'd like to acquire water for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and we're going to target older growers and individuals that are principally invested in red wine production, because that's the category most oversupplied.' With the funding they had available to acquire that water for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, they could have achieved their goal, their target, which, I'll be clear, is one I don't support. But they could have achieved their goal and at the same time supported this industry to recalibrate, to reduce supply and to bring supply closer to what is likely to be long-term demand for Australian red and white wines.</para>
<para>But instead that didn't happen. I'm not sure why it didn't happen. I hope it wasn't the politics of punishment. Sometimes I worry in this place that that's where we're at. But that didn't happen. And right now we've got a wine industry that's screaming for support. I attend more forums about mental health in the wine industry than I do wine tastings right now. That's how worried we are about this sector. Those opposite need to start taking it seriously.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VENNING</name>
    <name.id>315434</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to associate my words with the words of the member for Barker. The wine industry in Australia, particularly in the region of South Australia, is on its knees and it is not getting any support from this government. Wine Australia put in a very decent pre-budget review to this Labor government. Not only did the government ignore it, but they actually took out the cellar door program that's keeping some of them alive. It was very, very disappointing, and the industry is rightly frustrated.</para>
<para>Regional South Australia, Grey, is home to the world leading Riesling vineyards of the Clare Valley. Ask most people what the Clare Valley is worth to this country, and they'll tell you it makes fantastic wine. It absolutely does. Ask them to put a number on it, and most won't even be close. Grape production in the Clare Valley is worth around $30 million to $40 million a year, and given the issues we're having, we're actually at a 25-year low in both production and exports from this region. Wine sales add another $150 million per year. Tourism, built around that wine industry, brings a further $162 million to the sector. That's a staggering $300 million in a regional economy. Now that is not a boutique industry. That's jobs in vineyards, cellars, hospitality and tourism. This is the reason that towns across the Clare Valley have a tourism trade at all. I raise those numbers because they show exactly what's at stake and what I want to talk about today—wine, and not just the wine industry but also what's happening to the people who grow the grapes and make the wine in regional South Australia, and what this government is doing and not doing about it.</para>
<para>Let's turn to the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 in front of us. It amends the Wine Australia Act to allow information sharing with the ACCC. It amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 2024 to let ABARES share levy payer details with authorised contractors. It's a technical bill. It doesn't fix the wine industry's problem, but it does one useful thing. It gives the ACCC the information it needs to work out what a mandatory code of conduct should apply to, ahead of that code starting 1 January 2027.</para>
<para>The coalition supports this bill. We support it because it responds directly to the Emerson review, which found that grape growers have too little bargaining power against large winemakers and that the voluntary code we have now is no longer fit for purpose. The government accepted that finding in December last year and promised to develop a mandatory code during 2026. This bill is a step on that path, but it's not the destination.</para>
<para>I want to be clear about what this bill does. It gives Wine Australia an explicit function to run grape and wine industry surveys on top of the National Vintage Survey that it already runs. It sets up a framework, so Wine Australia can share relevant information with the ACCC. It introduces a civil penalty if that information is misused. It narrows an existing restriction on ABARES sharing levy paper contact details with third parties, with safeguards attached. Now, those third parties can't pass information on further, and only minimal necessary information can be shared, or it must be de-identified. This bill doesn't touch the levies themselves. It doesn't change what growers pay, or how those levies are calculated.</para>
<para>I will say, though, that while I welcome that the safeguards are written into this bill itself rather than left to future legislation, there's still no requirement to notify levy payers when their information is shared, and there's no way for them to opt out. The government tells us this kind of arrangement has existed for years. Maybe so, but growers deserve to know how their information is being used. Supporting this bill today shouldn't stop the government from fixing that gap later.</para>
<para>Now to the industry itself, because that's really what I came here to talk about today. Australia's wine industry is in serious trouble. We are sitting on around 262 million litres more wine than the market can absorb. That's not a minor imbalance. I go back to the wool crisis last century. Farmers stored wool on their farms, in their sheds, and the price of wool never increased until we got rid of that backlog. That's what we're facing in this country right now. It's a wall of oversupply, pressing down on prices right through the supply chain, from the grower to the cellar door.</para>
<para>And here's the part that should worry every member in this place. The 2026 harvest was the smallest in 25 years, yet grape prices still fell. When the crop shrinks and prices fall away, that tells you that the problem isn't a bad season; it tells you that it is structural. Growers in our inland regions have been hit the hardest, like in the member for Barker's region of the Riverland. On top of that, global wine consumption has dropped to its lowest level in more than 60 years. We can't fix that from Canberra. But we can make sure our own domestic market is fair and transparent, and right now it isn't.</para>
<para>A few weeks ago I sat down with Senator Anne Ruston in Clare for a wine industry round table. We sat down with growers and winemakers from across the region. They were telling us in plain terms what's happening to them. These are people who've been in the industry for decades, who've built family businesses over generations, telling us they can't get a fair price, can't get a buyer and do not know how much longer they can hold on. That's what I heard sitting across the table from them.</para>
<para>On that note, I want to talk just briefly about the container deposit scheme. This is what really frustrates winegrowers today. They are under so much pressure, and this will be the final straw that breaks the camel's back. The container deposit scheme was brought in during the 1970s in South Australia to fix the problem of littering. But there is no problem to be fixed in the wine sector. Wine is consumed at home, in private, or it's consumed in a restaurant. There is no issue with littering of wine bottles in our nation. But these rules impose up to $2 per wine bottle on our industry, which simply cannot afford that. If this deposit can't be removed, it must be harmonised across our states and territories.</para>
<para>Regional South Australia has some of the finest wine country in this nation, and Clare Valley is known around the world. These aren't marginal industries in my electorate. They are the backbone of towns. They employ people in vineyards, in cellars and in hospitality. They bring visitors into regional towns, who then spend their money at the local bakery and the local pub. When the wine industry struggles, it's not just a statistic. It's a grower in Clare who can't move his or her fruit. It's a family winery wondering whether they'll open the door next season—and I tell you what, a lot of them are leaving town. It's a town that depends on the tourists that those businesses bring in.</para>
<para>What has this government done for these people, at a time when they are asking for help? Earlier this year, Australian Grape & Wine put together a comprehensive and sensible submission ahead of the budget. It wasn't a wish list. It was industry doing exactly what we asked industry to do: to come to government with practical, considered proposals to help grapegrowers and winemakers get through a difficult period. What did the government do? Nothing. There was not one dollar of new funding for the wine industry in this budget. It was worse than nothing, actually. Instead of backing the industry, the government has decided to phase out the $10 million Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program. This is a program that helps small wineries attract visitors, build their cellar door experience and diversify their income away from just grape prices. For a lot of these businesses, the cellar door is what keeps them viable when grape prices are down. It's tourism income, direct sales and a reason for people to make the drive out to the Clare Valley in the first place, or indeed the Flinders Rangers, which makes some fantastic wine. And this government's answer, at that exact moment the industry is under pressure, is to take away that support.</para>
<para>I don't think the government has thought this one through—or, if they have, they've decided that regional wine just isn't a priority. Either way, the outcome is the same for the people I represent. Growers who already can't find a buyer for their fruit will now watch as the tourism support that helped their neighbours survive gets wound back, too. That's more pressure, at the worst possible time, on communities that are already doing it tough. And it doesn't stop there.</para>
<para>This bill makes some administrative changes to how levies work, but it does nothing about the bigger problem of the levy system as a whole. The government's own Productivity Commission found Australia's agricultural levy system to be—a word that I can't pronounce. Around 248 different levies are administered through roughly 70 separate arrangements. That's not a system; that's a maze. It creates unnecessary complexity, adds to the administrative burden on producers and drags on productivity. Producers already put millions of dollars into that system every year to fund research, biosecurity and development. They're entitled to expect it to be efficient and transparent. Instead, this government keeps making piecemeal changes around the edges while the fundamental problem sits there untouched.</para>
<para>At the same time as all of this, the government has increased export cost recovery charges and other regulatory costs on producers. So the message to our wine growers over this term has been pay more and get less: high costs, cuts to the programs that actually helped and no new funding.</para>
<para>I want to be fair here. The coalition has a long record of backing mandatory codes where there's a genuine imbalance of market power. A voluntary code isn't cutting it. We introduced and strengthened the dairy code of conduct, the Horticulture Code of Conduct and the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct because, in each of those cases, we recognised that without clear rules of engagement, the party with the least power in the chain gets squeezed.</para>
<para>The Emerson review found the same imbalance in wine. A mandatory code is an appropriate response, and this bill is one piece of the groundwork for it. That's why we support it today. But supporting this bill cannot be where this government's response to the wine industry begins and ends. A mandatory code that starts in January next year is welcome, but it will not put money back into growers' pockets. It will not replace the $10 million this government is taking out of the cellar door program, and it will not undo a budget that gave the wine industry nothing despite that industry doing everything right.</para>
<para>If this government is serious about the future of Australia's wine industry, serious about towns like those in the Clare Valley that depend on it, then it needs to do more than pass a technical information-sharing bill and call it a day. It needs to reverse that decision to phase out the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants program.</para>
<para>I'd also like to remind this House that the Minister for Trade and Tourism lives in the Clare Valley—he lives in the electorate of Grey—and the wine growers are calling on him to do something. I'm calling on him to do something! This government needs to actually engage with what Australian Grape & Wine have put forward, and it needs to stop loading additional costs onto an industry that is already carrying more oversupply, lower prices and less global demand than it has seen in decades.</para>
<para>I've heard what this feels like for growers and winemakers in Clare. It isn't a crisis they've created; it's a product of global market conditions well beyond their control. The government response here at home has, so far, taken support away rather than add it. The coalition will keep supporting sensible, practical reforms like the one before us. Regional wine communities in South Australia and right across the country deserve better than what this government is giving them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill, the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, implements part of the government's response to Dr Craig Emerson's review of the wine and grape sector by establishing a mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchasers and expanding Wine Australia's powers to collect industry data.</para>
<para>Dr Emerson's review found what growers in the community and across the country have told us for years: a voluntary unenforceable code has left too many growers exposed to unfair contracting practices and imbalances in bargaining power with winemakers. So a mandatory code backed by ACCC enforcement is a sensible and overdue correction.</para>
<para>I'm glad that this bill clarifies the objects of the wine act as a precursor to the mandatory code commencing on 1 January 2027, but I also want to use this debate to raise a fairness question that the bill does not yet address—a question which this parliament has not yet addressed but which has been put in front of the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability into alcohol and other drugs by a number of expert groups and stakeholders. I have the honour of serving as the deputy chair on that committee, and I feel that I need to raise the issue in the House at this time. That issue is how we tax wine. Every major alcohol category in Australia other than wine is taxed volumetrically, with a fixed rate per litre of alcohol scaled to strength. Wine is the exception. It's taxed under the wine equalisation tax, a 29 per cent levy on the wholesale value, with a rebate for small producers. That structure does not tax harm; it does not tax alcohol strength; it just taxes price. As a result, a high-value boutique wine from the Yarra Valley or the Mornington Peninsula incurs proportionately much more tax per standard drink than the cheapest cask wine on the shelf. The consequences of that are pretty stark. Cask wine is the cheapest alcoholic beverage available in this country. The mean price for cask wine is 54c per standard drink, but at the bottom end you can get it for as little as 24c for a standard drink. You can't buy a schooner, a can or a nip of spirits for anywhere near that price.</para>
<para>The gap is not an accident of the market; it's a direct product of how this parliament has chosen to tax wine. And it matters because Australia is, right now, experiencing the highest rate of alcohol induced deaths in over two decades. The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education has documented in depth what that cheap, high-volume product does in practice. The harm caused by too easy access to rubbish, cheap alcohol is the direct and foreseeable result of a tax system that this parliament has left unreformed for 50 years. None of this is a new issue. None of this is news to Treasury or to Australia's peak health bodies. Ken Henry's 2010 review of Australia's tax system recommended a volumetric tax on alcohol based on evidence and based on the social cost of that harm. It singled out the wine equalisation tax because of its perverse effect on the price of cheap wine. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have jointly noted that replacing the WET with a volumetric tax has now been recommended by nine separate sequential government reviews. The RACP has put the problem pretty bluntly. It says that the current wine tax actually provides preferential treatment for cheap wine. Cancer Council Australia's position statement calls for a volumetric excise tax across all alcohol products, together with abolition of the wine equalisation tax. Cancer Council warns that a tax based on the wholesale value rather than the alcohol content has already contributed, and continues to contribute, to an oversupply of cheap, high-volume wine products, including cask wine.</para>
<para>When the current National Alcohol Strategy was released in 2019 without a volumetric tax, the then President of the Australian Medical Association said that that was most disappointing and that doctors treating the short-term sequelae and lifelong complications of alcohol fuelled harm deserve a response as serious as the problem itself. Addiction medicine specialist Professor Kate Conigrave, who is a director at the Foundation of Alcohol Research and Education, has pointed to the fact that we have broad agreement amongst virtually all Australian health bodies that reforming alcohol taxation should be a key priority for this government. In her words, we shouldn't be treating alcohol 'like it's flour or wool'.</para>
<para>The National Alcohol Strategy 2019-2028 itself lists volumetric taxation and a minimum floor price amongst the reform options which we should be considering to manage the price and availability of alcohol. FARE's recent submissions to the health committee's ongoing inquiry into the health impacts of alcohol and other drugs set out exactly what that reform should look like. We should continue to index the excise on beer and spirits, replace the wine equalisation tax with a volumetric rate and introduce a properly indexed minimum unit price in every state and territory. The Northern Territory's experience with the minimum unit price has already shown measurable reductions in alcohol related harm. Modelling shows that a minimum unit price of at least $1.30 per standard drink could reduce alcohol use in Australia by 1.5 standard drinks per week, on average, per Australian.</para>
<para>So I put it to the House: this is not just a public health argument; it's also an argument for the very wine growers that this bill is seeking to protect. The code of conduct in this bill exists because growers of quality products are being squeezed out by a market that simply does not value what they produce. A tax system that rewards the cheapest possible bulk product at the expense of quality does the same thing from a different direction. Fixing the contract is not enough if our tax settings keep subsidising the product that competes hardest against what our better wine growers are actually trying to sell.</para>
<para>I support this bill and the fairer trading arrangements that it will deliver for wine grape growers, but I ask the government not to treat fairness in this sector as finished business. Growers deserve a market that isn't distorted against quality. Communities deserve a tax system that doesn't quietly subsidise the cheapest and most harmful product on the shelf. Twenty-six years after the wine equalisation tax was designed and 16 years after the Henry review told us that we need to fix it, it's well past time that this parliament did. To that end, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) taxes wine on its wholesale value rather than its alcohol content, unlike every other major alcohol category, which are taxed volumetrically;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this structure subsidises the cheapest, highest-volume wine products, including cask wine, which can be purchased for as little as 24 cents per standard drink; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) reform of the WET has been recommended by at least thirteen separate government reviews, including the 2010 Henry Tax Review, and is supported by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Cancer Council Australia, the Australian Medical Association, and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the government to bring forward, without further delay, a plan to replace the WET with a volumetric tax on wine, consistent with the taxation of beer and spirits".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>11788</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Scamps</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I first came into this parliament in 2010, I proudly represented the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, where so many of the fine wines that Australians drink and Australia exports are produced. Whether it's De Bortoli or Casella or many of the other fine wine producers in that area, as far as the grape industry and the wine industry are concerned, water legislation has been of vital importance.</para>
<para>In recent times—late last year certainly—we've seen De Bortoli, a family generational business, pulling out vines. This is a tragedy. Just today we've seen SunRice issue a media statement in relation to workers that it is being forced to make redundant, particularly at its Leeton and Deniliquin mills. That is rice; I appreciate the difference. But that is ninety-two people put out of work. Thankfully, 14 of them have been given other jobs within the operation. But there are still, in all, 78 people who've lost their jobs because of water policy. It's 78 incomes, 78 families affected and the hopes of 78 people—more, in fact, if you count the families—dashed because of poor water policy.</para>
<para>When we talk about wine and we talk about the grape industry, the same applies. Yes, I get that we have a wine glut worldwide at the moment, and that is also an issue. It certainly was brought into focus with the recent issues around the Middle East with the Strait of Hormuz and the lack of availability of fuel. There were suggestions that the oversupply of wine could be turned into biofuels, and this is certainly something that the nation can look to in the future. It is possible, but the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is not just about the legislation amending two acts but also, very much at the heart and core of this, about this federal Labor government's water policy. If you go and ask any of those irrigators or any of those grape growers in the Riverina—the old part of the Riverina that I once represented and elsewhere—they will tell you that, but for poor water policy, they would be growing more food for this nation and for this nation's exports.</para>
<para>The member for Nicholls has just entered the chamber. He, like me, understands how keenly water policy is felt in our electorates. He represents Shepparton and many other fine food-producing areas besides. If you take his electorate and the older parts of the Riverina that were in the Riverina up until 2016—why they're not still is a matter for the Australian Electoral Commission; it's the true geographical and every other definition and meaning of the Riverina, that area Narrandera west, with Narrandera being the gateway to the Riverina, taking in Coleambally, Leeton, Griffith, Deniliquin, Finley and Tocumwal, and I could go on and on—those people are fine Australians.</para>
<para>They went there just after World War 1. They turned what John Oxley, the explorer, described as a 'wilderness that people would never look twice at' as far as being a place to live—'inhospitable', I think, he called it—into a garden of Eden. They were told to go out there with soldier settlements, they were given a bare block with stones and pretty poor soil, and, then, Sir Samuel McCaughey came along, Burrinjuck Dam was built, Snowy Hydro was built later, and there was full irrigation, but not necessarily hydroelectricity. They converted that area, that wilderness, into something very, very special.</para>
<para>What do we do in return? What do we do as legislators? We say: we're not going to provide you with the water. We're going to buy that water back, and, in turn, we're going to flush it down the mouth of the Murray. Never mind the grape growers, never mind the wine producers, never mind the rice growers. Never mind those people who grow the world's finest fruit and vegetables. The same is happening in Nicholls. The same is happening in that outstanding member's electorate. We're not going to continue to cop it. We are not. Somebody has to make a stand. Our irrigators have, but they are so tired and so bogged down with water legislation, with changes to the act and all the rest, and they get very weary when, once again, they get a water minister—particularly a Labor minister—suggesting that there's going to be another buyback. Buybacks are Labor lazy policy. Labor and lazy are interchangeable because they mean the same thing.</para>
<para>There is a proposal before this nation to buy another 100 gigalitres out to complete the 450 gigalitres of water that then prime minister Julia Gillard promised on the banks of Goolwa in 2012. We've just seen 86 gigalitres taken out of the Murray-Darling Basin system. Eighty-six gigalitres is the equivalent of 34,400 Olympic sized swimming pools taken out of farm production, taken away from grape growers. Labor, bureaucrats and anybody else who cares to think that this policy is good will say, 'Well, they get paid for it; they get a fair price for it.' So they do. Many of them are dead stressed, thanks to the Labor government.</para>
<para>What it means is less local government area production. Griffith City Council will tell you how much their shire production has been devalued by since the Murray-Darling Basin Plan came into play. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that organisation, will be asked to account for every drop of water when we get back into government. They already have 72 per cent of the available water in the Murray-Darling system, so there's only 28 per cent left to grow the food and fibre in a huge area of Queensland, the ACT, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. There's only 28 per cent in the Riverland, in the areas that the member for Nicholls represents, in New South Wales, in the northern and southern connected systems, in South-East Queensland and western Queensland too. But most of the recent buyback as part of that 450 gigalitres came out of the southern connected system. It always comes out of the southern connected system. Always. It's the people I represent and, often, the people the member for Nicholls represents who are hit the hardest.</para>
<para>Now, this bill, as I say, amends two acts. The first is the Wine Australia Act 2013, which will give Wine Australia an explicit function to conduct or arrange grape and wine industry surveys—fair enough—building on the existing National Vintage Survey, to set up an information sharing framework so relevant information can be shared with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and to enable a mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchasers be made separately under the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010 intending to commence on 1 January next year. The amendments to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 2024 allow authorised ABARES staff to share levy and charge information, including some personal information, with contractors such as mail houses to improve response rates and data quality for ABARES and agricultural surveys, plus a minor technical fix to the secretary's rule making power.</para>
<para>Now, I note that the member for Kooyong has moved a amendment, seconded by the member for Mackellar. Always be wary when those two, or any of the teals, start putting in their pious amendments. Always be on guard. They were just in the House talking about gambling, and you should have seen the looks they were pulling when the Prime Minister was saying there's nothing wrong with having a bet in Question Time today. They've had their say about vaping and smoking, and they like to have their say about everything. I mean, seriously. If we followed the teals' way, we wouldn't be able to have a bet. We wouldn't be able to have a drink. In a liberal democracy, those who choose to smoke—I don't—wouldn't be able to have a smoke. They are just anti everything most Australians like to do.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Repacholi</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear 'hear, hear' from the member for Hunter. But a sensible balance has to be reached. There has to be. And we as legislators can't just keep banging Australians on the head and forcing more regulation on them. We as legislators also need to be reminded often of the role that has been played, is being played and will continue to be played by those people who don't wear suits, who work the land, who roll their sleeves up, who don't mind getting dirt under their fingernails, who actually grow our food to help this nation and many others. If they choose to grow grapes, almonds, fruit, vegetables, whatever the case might be—whether it's west of Narrandera or whether it's in some of the grape growing areas and wine producing areas in the Riverina electorate I now represent including: Tumbarumba; Hilltops, which is centred on Young; Gundagai; and Cowra as well as Murrumbateman and the Yass Valley—then we should be applauding them and doing everything we can to help those people.</para>
<para>There's nothing wrong with people having a tipple. There's nothing wrong with people getting in the car and driving out of the nation's capital, going to one of those little cellar door wineries, having a taste on the weekend and having a good time, maybe even having a bet at the Yass Picnic Races if they want to. It's totally unhealthy, but if they choose to have a smoke, well, so be it. They should be able to without the teal's telling us, 'Oh no'. Smack on the wrist. 'You can't do that.' You can't do that? Goodness gracious. What's Australia coming to?</para>
<para>Tumbarumba has around 300 hectares under vine, about 20 family owned vineyards and an annual crush of roughly 3,000 tonnes. Tumbarumba is known for its world-class, internationally acclaimed chardonnay and pinot noir. The Gundagai and Hilltops areas produce shiraz, cabernet sauvignon and chardonnay, and it's good, and we applaud them. Murrumbateman and the Yass Valley have a number of globally recognised brands and local hidden gems. Shiraz, riesling and cab sav are the main varieties, with proud brands of Clonakilla—who wouldn't like a glass of that right now?—Helm and Eden Road located in the Riverina boundaries that I now proudly represent. Wagga Wagga—of course, my hometown—is also home to the National Wine and Grape Industry Centre at Charles Sturt University. Plus, CSU has its own commercial winery and offers a wine science degree.</para>
<para>But, as I said at the outset, high water prices and the lack of availability of water are huge problems for the wine sector. They are. These are permanent plantings that need a secure and stable water supply. Can we have confidence, member for Nicholls, in the Labor government providing that? I think not.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Birrell</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>None whatsoever.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>None whatsoever, he says. And he's right. And there's very little that the member for Nicholls and I disagree on. I don't think there's quite anything that we disagree on. Certainly, when it comes to making available the water for our wine growers, for our great producers and for our irrigators and farmers in general, we should be doing everything in our power as legislators to make the water available, to make their futures possible. If we don't, we're going to suffer as a result, and we'll have to rely on imported products to stock up. And that would be to our eternal shame.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Riverina for his comments in relation to the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. His constituents—and the ones he has represented over the years before there were boundary changes—are suffering in a similar way to my constituents, my communities, member for Mallee, because of the disastrous water policies of the Labor government. I'm speaking in support of this bill because I'm very supportive of it, and the coalition is supportive of it. It's sensible, it's proportionate, and it does what needs to be done.</para>
<para>But I want to make this point, too. A person could read this bill from end to end—the schedules, the explanatory memorandum, every clause—and they would come away not knowing about the significant pressures that the wine industry is facing at the moment. There's nothing about how a grower at Nagambie can't find a buyer for his fruit this year. There's nothing about the family at Echuca, growing wine grapes, who can't afford to keep farming but can't afford to stop. And there's nothing about the 262 million litres of wine sitting in tanks across this country that nobody can sell.</para>
<para>Whilst I'm supportive of this bill, the Albanese government is not going far enough to assist an industry that is on its knees. In fact, some of what they're doing is actively making the situation worse, and irrigation water is a big part of this. The member for Riverina talks about Labor's buybacks and the 450 gigalitres that were supposed to be subject to a socioeconomic neutrality test, which the previous and some Labor states as well insisted upon. Socioeconomic neutrality means the socioeconomic effects—the effect on the society, the effect on the economy—must be neutral. The socioeconomic effect of these water buybacks is not neutral. It is significantly negative. These purchases should never have gone ahead. The previous minister in the last parliament was disastrous on this, and the current minister, Senator Watt, isn't any better. They're coming in and buying all of this water out of the most productive irrigation regions of our nation, including the irrigation regions that grow a large proportion of Australia's wine grapes now. It's the egregiousness of taking this water away from these communities that rely on the produce, and, as has been pointed out many times, it's not just about the produce that's grown.</para>
<para>Let's take wine grapes. It's not just about what a wine grower gets paid for the grapes that he or she has irrigated. When those wine grapes go to the winery, there are a whole swag of people employed in that process. When that becomes a bottle of wine, there are a whole host of people who are involved in the marketing, the sale and the export of that product. The value of the megalitre of water that grew the crop expands massively, and it's really important for Australia's economy. So taking it away and putting it into an environmental account that sits somewhere in Hume or Eildon and can't be used is not only economic vandalism; it's just silly.</para>
<para>I have one more thing about this, and the <inline font-style="italic">Weekly Times</inline> reported on this today. When the Albanese government go in and buy this water, they are paying a huge premium for it. They're not getting it at market value. So the government go in to buy this water on behalf of you, the Australian taxpayer. A high-reliability water share in the Goulburn system of the GMID is approximately $4,000. The Albanese government are going in and paying $4,800 for it. So they're not getting good value. They're paying a massive premium. In many cases, because of the way that certain companies have managed to arbitrage this system, the companies that have sold all this water to the Albanese government for $4,800 or whatever it is—that's what's been reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Weekly Times</inline> today—go back into the market and buy it from someone else for $4,000 to stock up their portfolios again. So the taxpayer ends up paying much more than they ever should have.</para>
<para>In relation to this bill—it's largely administrative, but I'm supportive of it. The bill has two schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Wine Australia Act and gives Wine Australia an explicit function to conduct industry surveys. That builds on the National Vintage Survey, and there's a framework that Wine Australia can establish to share relevant information with the ACCC. Schedule 2 amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act to allow ABARES to share levy payer contact details with authorised third-party contractors so that agricultural survey participation improves. So there's no financial impact of this on the budget. It doesn't change the levies, who pays them or how they are calculated, but it does lay the groundwork for a mandatory code of conduct, and we do need a mandatory code of conduct in this industry. We need a fair playing field between large producers—I'm not demonising them; they do a great job—and the wine growers, who are trying to use what little irrigation water the Albanese government has left in the system to grow a really good quality product that is respected the world over.</para>
<para>The wine industry is really hurting at the moment. I drive around the electorate of Nicholls, and I have the wine region of Dookie and part of the wine region of Heathcote, which is renowned for its shiraz. It's got a magnificent hillside which has soils and a climate that produce a shiraz that is known far and wide across the world. I also have the Nagambie region, which has Tahbilk and Mitchelton. So there are great quality wines and there is great history. I was actually an agronomist before I came to parliament. I did soil testing, I did advice on nutrition and I did advice on managing those grapevines. Now as a member of parliament I drive around and see excavators pulling those vines out of the ground and pulling the pine posts out. Just thinking about the work that went into all of that is really quite heartbreaking.</para>
<para>I implore the Albanese government to look at whether there are ways we can manage what is a very difficult transition for an industry, and most of it's not their fault. The China tariff thing is not their fault. I agree there was a coalition government at the time, which was well before I was in parliament. I am critical that some of the managed investment tax laws meant that there was too much of a boom in the wine plantation in the early 2000s, and I think that has created some issues. But the reality is there are people, agriculturalists, who have tried their hardest to produce a great-quality product that we're trying to export and find new export markets for and send around Australia and send around the world, and they are struggling to survive.</para>
<para>There's a huge amount of wine, both red and white, that is just sitting in tanks around Australia. Unless we can find something to do with that wine—maybe it's not drinkable, but we need to work together to try and find something to do with it so that that tank space becomes empty and it can be filled with a product that is saleable—then the situation's not going to get better and the pain is going to be huge. So, whilst I accept that this bill is something that is a positive step and I support the Albanese government in bringing it forward, I implore them to do more to help this industry.</para>
<para>We sit in question time, and there are people from different political persuasions. The Albanese government likes to talk a lot about helping people like aged-care workers and childcare workers, and that's okay. That's fair enough. They're workers in the system. These people who run small businesses are workers in the system too. They've had an industry fall apart around them and they're not asking for massive handouts, but they are asking for a strategic plan and some assistance to come in and try and right the ship that is the Australian wine industry at the moment. I think there are a lot of things we could do to do that. That's really important, and I implore the Albanese government to stop being so ideological when it comes to irrigation water and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.</para>
<para>This is one of those issues that I've watched from outside the parliament because I've been in incredibly involved in it in the Goulburn Valley and the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District. It's one of those things where common sense keeps evaporating and evaporating; pardon the pun. There is no reason to be taking more irrigation water out of the GMID, out of the southern connected basin or out of the northern Murray-Darling Basin because there's a limit to which the people who use that environmental water can use it. One of those organisations is the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. It is a wonderful organisation that is very interested and very committed to making sure that environmental water gets used as well as it can be used to give us environmental outcomes. Carl Walters is the CEO of that organisation. He has said, 'I wish the government would just stop buying environmental water because we can't use what we've already got.'</para>
<para>So what's happening is all this water is sitting up there in Hume or Eildon and taking up space. Irrigation—the price volatility has massively risen because the government's taken so much out of the consumptive pool. This has put pressure on a lot of industries, but it's put a lot of pressure on the wine-grape-growing industry, and all for what? If we were seeing these massive increases in environmental outcomes from the megalitres that have been bought back, there might be an argument, but we're not seeing any purpose to take any more water out of these systems.</para>
<para>I was born on the Goulburn River and grew up there and I've watched its environment ebb and flow. I've watched people use environmental water to try to turn it into a channel to artificially push water down to South Australia. When you love as an industry as much as I do irrigated agriculture and you see what used to be these incredibly productive dairy industries, as well as peaches, wine grapes and apples, and—in relation to the wine industry particularly—you see an excavator go in and start ripping those vines and those posts out and piling them up for a bonfire, it's really heartbreaking.</para>
<para>I think we can do better. I'm supportive of this bill. It's just a start, though. Agriculture is important to this country. Irrigated agriculture is essential. The communities of the Murray-Darling Basin are worth fighting for and worth appreciating, and policies that damage them deserve our strongest condemnation. I condemn these policies of taking more irrigation water out of our beautiful Murray-Darling Basin. I hope that we can all work together to try and right the ship that is the wine industry and get it back to a sustainable footing, but that is going to take some assistance. This bill helps, but it's nowhere near enough.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank members of this place for their thoughtful contributions and for speaking on the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. I also thank them for their acknowledgement of the extraordinary contribution that Australian farmers and fishers and foresters make to our nation. I think that all of the speeches acknowledged our farmers and our grape growers around the country and the work that they do, and this bill is really part of our support for the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors.</para>
<para>The grape and wine sector does make a very valuable contribution to regional communities as well as to our Australian economy. Our government is committed to supporting the sector's profitability, its productivity and its resilience, and we've now provided more than $95 million in support since July 2022 to help strengthen the long-term viability of Australian grape growers and winemakers. The amendments to the Wine Australia Act 2013—the wine act—would provide Wine Australia with the function to conduct or arrange surveys of the grape or wine industry to support the operation of the wine act or the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This supports implementation of the proposed mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchases. The amendments to the wine act would also establish an information management framework that provides for the authorised use and disclosure of information obtained or generated under the act.</para>
<para>These amendments will modernise and strengthen the wine act while ensuring there are appropriate safeguards for protected information. The amendments to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 2024—the collection act—would enable the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, known as ABARES, within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, to disclose certain relevant levy/charge payer information to third parties to perform its functions, including research and data analysis. In particular, the amendments would allow ABARES to disclose relevant and targeted levy/charge payer information to third-party mail-house companies to enable ABARES to continue to conduct agricultural surveys. The bill would also make a technical change to the rule-making power in the collection act to ensure that the power operates as intended, consistent with other specific rule-making powers in the act. These changes will strengthen the ability of Wine Australia and ABARES to continue their important research work and continue strengthening the industry into the future.</para>
<para>I will also take this opportunity to thank the member for Ryan for her contribution but to indicate to her that the government is not supportive of her second reading amendment. I understand the reasons behind it, and I understand her passion in relation to volumetric tax on alcohols, but I don't think that this is the appropriate bill, time or place to have that discussion, so the government will be opposing the second reading amendment. Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:41</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>