MOTIONS

2026-08-18 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 18 August 2026

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion 1 12:01 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Berowra moving the following motion immediately—That the House: (1) notes that: (a) the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was established following the Bondi terrorist attack, which was the inevitable result of an unprecedented rise of antisemitism in Australia; (b) the Royal Commission was supported by the Jewish community and prominent Australians from all walks of life to provide for a full and forensic examination of antisemitism that led up to that attack; (c) the Government was initially opposed to the Royal Commission but relented after public pressure; (d) the Government determined both the Royal Commission's terms of reference and the timetable within which it must complete its work; (e) that timetable has imposed severe constraints on the Commission's capacity to investigate the causes, perpetrators and enablers of antisemitism in Australia; (f) many significant Australian voices will have been left unheard and critical players not put on the stand, including: (i) senior figures from Australia's arts and cultural institutions; (ii) university leaders who were in leadership positions during key periods; (iii) organisers of antisemitic protests and other activists and social agitators; (iv) representatives of the Australian Human Rights Commission; (v) senior public servants and Commonwealth Ministers; and (vi) other prominent Australians; (g) Australians are entitled to know how antisemitism spiralled so badly, who was responsible and what must change to ensure that it can never happen again; and (h) a Royal Commission cannot fully answer those questions if key people are never required to account for their actions; (2) is concerned that the Royal Commission is not set up to deal adequately with those who mask antisemitism as anti-Zionism; (3) calls on the Government to immediately extend the Royal Commission's reporting date to allow the Commission to hear and test evidence from key witnesses and properly investigate the individuals and institutions responsible; and (4) calls on the Prime Minister and his Ministers to keep faith with Australia's Jewish community by appearing before the Royal Commission and accounting for the decisions of the Government on antisemitism in the years leading up to Bondi. I note today the presence in the chamber of representatives of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students and in the building today of Sheina Gutnick, the daughter of Reuven Morrison, who was murdered on that day in Bondi. This week is the final sitting week of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The royal commission is, for many Australians, the only chance we will have as a nation to properly expose and address the antisemitism which has become so prevalent in this country and which diminishes us all. But it is a royal commission that finishes in a matter of days and, as it stands, it is a royal commission with unfinished business. The window to debate this issue is closing. These issues deserve to be heard, and urgently. This is the royal commission that the Albanese government didn't want. That's a statement of fact; it's not a political statement. The Albanese government did not want this royal commission. In the days after 15 Australians were murdered in cold blood on our most famous beach, at Bondi, merely for the crime of being Jewish, the government said a royal commission wasn't necessary—that it would be unhelpful or even harmful. They were forced into it by the weight of public outcry. Initially, they failed to see what many Australians saw: that the Bondi attacks were the inevitable outcome of years of building antisemitism in this country and that we needed to address that antisemitism comprehensively and decisively if we were to avoid a repeat occurrence. Well, that was a failure of judgement. The government now risks repeating that failure. The Prime Minister set the timeframe for this royal commission, he set the terms of reference, and he has the power to change them. Instead of spending 14 December scouring the royal commission's recommendations, let that be a day when Australians remember the victims and comfort the bereaved. Give the commission more time. This royal commission has three tasks. The first is to allow stories to be heard about the rise in antisemitism in this country from Jewish Australians in particular. On this task, to date, I must say the commission has done well. The second is to make recommendations for law and policy reforms, and we'll have to wait until the final report to see the recommendations. The third task is to hold individuals to account. Being held to account, being accountable, means being in a position where you are asked questions about your decisions and actions and required to answer them. This critical third task is where the commission has more work to do. In the child abuse royal commission we saw bishops and religious leaders long retired rightfully brought out of nursing homes to account for their conduct, just as they should have been. But that has not happened here. So today we say to the Prime Minister: give the royal commission more time. If leaders and decision-makers are not held to account by the royal commission, the antisemitism that has run rampant in our institutions will only continue. The risk is that, rather than rooting out antisemitism, we send a very different message. For those who are not called and not asked to answer for their decisions and actions, the message will be that they are not responsible, that there is no consequence for the failure to lead and that there are no findings or recommendations in relation to their conduct. A few days ago, the former Federal Court judge and royal commissioner Ron Sackville said that one of the reasons the commission exists and has such 'formidable powers' is the following: The process would vindicate the experiences of the targets of vile antisemitism; pierce the veil of secrecy behind which many perpetrators operate; hold at least some of those perpetrators accountable for their despicable conduct, and; reveal to the wider Australian community the kind of people who were prepared to act in this hateful way. The powers of a royal commission exist for a reason. They should be used. But the list of witnesses who have not appeared is long. First are the arts institutions and the cultural sector—the sector that doxxed and deplatformed Jews. There are Clementine Ford, Matt Chun, John Menadue and so many others. Why aren't they asked about their public contributions? There are Wesley Enoch and Adrian Collette, the chair and CEO of Creative Australia. Why weren't they asked about their decisions to give grant after artistic grant of taxpayer money with a clear preference for artists who propagate an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish message? Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Second are the universities, and the House has heard me speak on the universities many times. In the universities, Jewish students were targeted relentlessly over the years. They were spat on, harassed, targeted, excluded and occasionally assaulted. Jewish staff had their offices urinated on. Jews on campuses were targeted by protests and activism, with week after week of encampments. Why haven't we heard from all the key vice-chancellors who were in positions of power at the time—from people like Genevieve Bell at the ANU and Duncan Maskell from the University of Melbourne—from the NTEU, which did not stand up for its Jewish staff, or from the presidents of student bodies who encouraged antisemitic activity on campus and excluded and ostracised the Jewish students they were meant to represent? Why haven't we heard from academics like Randa Abdel-Fattah, who refuses even to be quoted in an article alongside anyone she deems as a Zionist and encourages children to support an intifada? We saw an intifada at Bondi. It means more dead Jewish bodies. Third are the protests. Recently we saw the grotesquery in the royal commission of protest organisers crossexamining an Australian Jewish communal leader in Australia about the actions of a foreign government, the government of Israel, as if he were responsible for Israel or as if Israel's actions justified the targeting of Jews here. Why weren't the protest organisers on the stand? Where are the organisers of the Land Forces protests, where so many were attacked, or of the Neo-Nazi protest in Melbourne? Where are Wisam Haddad and Sheikh Ibrahim Daoud, who was elated by the murder, rape and torture of Jews on 7 October and immediately set about whipping up hatred of Jews here in Australia? Where are the organisers of the protest on 9 October, who occupied the opera house chanting, 'Gas the Jews,' or, 'F— the Jews'? Where are people like Josh Lees, Nasser Mashni, Jenny Leong, Senator Faruqi, the executive of APAN and all those who organised and supported the weekly protests in Sydney, in Melbourne and in our other city centres? Fourth is the Human Rights Commission, who, under this government's terms of reference, have not been asked in any serious way to account for the failure to stand up for Australian Jews or even to account for the antisemitism that is endemic in their own organisation. We've seen the Race Discrimination Commissioner repeatedly refuse to denounce the phrase 'From the river to the sea' as an antisemitic phrase. Fifth are prominent Australians who have provided much-needed moral leadership—people like Nova Peris, Mike Kelly and Josh Frydenberg, good people whose voices deserve to be heard. Finally are the government ministers. Through you, Mr Speaker, I say to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Arts, to the Minister for Education, to the Attorney-General, to the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister: keep the faith with the Jewish community and with all Australians. Show the courage and the commitment to front the royal commission and be accountable. Answer questions, explain your decisions and actions in the two years leading up to Bondi. Let the commission and the public be the judge. We know where we ended up: 15 dead bodies on Bondi Beach. Let us hear from them under oath. Let us hear from them what went wrong from the very top. Show that they are serious about fixing the antisemitism here in this country into the future. Take the opportunity to show that they didn't use their power as those who wrote the commission's terms of reference to shield themselves. There will not be another opportunity like this one. Through you, I say to the Prime Minister, the royal commission cuts its cloth according to the measurements you give. It needs more time. It needs the terms of reference to hold more people to account. Give it the time and terms to do its job properly. Fifteen people were murdered on Bondi Beach. Their memory deserves that we get this right. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 12:10 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I second the motion. I'm proud to second the motion moved by the member for Berowra, my dear and good friend. As he correctly outlines, now is the time to get this royal commission right. We remember the horrific events that led to the basis of the royal commission in the first place, but we know it didn't start at the end of last year. It was the escalation of an outbreak of antisemitism which started after 7 October 2023 and cascaded through a series of events from protests on Sydney Opera House through to the attacks at the front of Central Shule in Caulfield South in the Goldstein electorate, to the harassment and the firebombing of synagogues, and even to graffiti across people's homes, streets and schools. This is not a subject that we discuss lightly, because it is very real and extremely human. We know full well that escalated to the most horrific terrorist incident in Australia's history, where 15 people lost their lives tragically on our most famous beach, including some family members of Goldstein residents. But this is not about Goldstein specifically or Berowra; it's about the whole of the country and the type of nation we want to be. Let's not misunderstand how important this royal commission and the extension of its timeframe are, because in the lead-up to this royal commission we saw one of the greatest outbreaks of racism in this nation's history—something that we should never tolerate and never accept. We have a choice now of how we're going to respond. At the start of this year, this parliament met in an extraordinary session to deal with legislation, and during that many condolence motions were moved by members and excellent speeches were delivered. If there was one recurrent theme throughout all of those speeches, it was that never again would we allow such incidents to occur. Well, if we want to honour those words and the lives and the memories of those who were tragically lost, now is the time to make sure that the royal commission is extended so it can fulfil its important purpose, which is to get to the bottom of the evil that sits at the heart of parts of our society and that has tolerated exactly this sort of conduct. As the member for Berowra correctly outlined, there are so many witnesses that have not been called, and the importance of having them called is amplified considerably following Dennis Richardson's resignation from the royal commission in making sure we're addressing, in every way and from every angle, the root cause that led to the royal commission being called in the first place. As the member for Berowra correctly outlined, we need to make sure that Australia's universities and their representatives are properly brought to account. In the chamber right now in the Speaker's gallery, we have representatives and students from the Australasian Union of Jewish Students. They have lived the frontline, firsthand consequences of antisemitism in our nation, and that should not be forgotten—firstly because a university should never be a place where people experience harassment or violence simply for who they are, but, more importantly because if we do not stamp this out for one generation then it can fester and continue on to future generations. One of the most important tests of leadership is to stand up and to be held to account. Too many universities in particular were found wanting, and the leadership of universities was found wanting in the lead-up to these horrific events and throughout this antisemitism crisis. There are so many people from the arts institutions, the unions and particularly the National Tertiary Education Union who need to be before this royal commission—and, of course, state and federal government ministers whose responsibility it was to provide that critical leadership over recent years and were found wanting. Also, the member for Berowra correctly outlined the importance of the Australian Human Rights Commission appearing before the royal commission. I remember being Australia's human rights commissioner. We were always told that our responsibility was to focus on the issues of human rights inside Australia, yet we didn't see that in standing up against antisemitism, and, even worse, we were told that things outside of the commission were not the subject or focus of the Human Rights Commission. Yet, during the past couple of years, the AHRC found a way—in response to staff, not principle—to respond to international events but stay silent on the issue of antisemitism in this country. It's a stain and very disappointing. This is one of the darkest periods in our nation's history, and we have a choice about how it is we're going to go forward. The most important thing is to make sure that those who were responsible and failed to act are held to account and that the protests, the violence and the harassment that has occurred is held to account so we can move forward as a nation together. 12:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson on indulgence—I'm seeking a brief indulgence before I move a procedural motion. The reason I'm seeking the indulgence is that I would not want a vote that happens on a procedural motion to be somehow viewed by some of the worst elements in society as being a division within our parliament about antisemitism. I want to pay respect to both members who've spoken and to respect absolutely that, while there are differences in terms of whether the royal commission should be extended or whether it should keep to its initial timeline, there is no division within this parliament about the horrific nature of antisemitism and about viewing not merely the horrors of the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi but also the antisemitism which has occurred in our country both before and since that moment as being unilaterally rejected by every member of this House. I would not want the fact that there's about to be, I expect, a division on a procedural motion to be seen to detract from that. While there is a difference in the process, I don't want to offer anything other than respect to the members for the arguments that they've just put. I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the debate be adjourned.

The House divided. [12:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

87 AYES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 48 NOES Aldred, M. R. (Teller) Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Conaghan, P. J. Farley, D. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

BILLS 5 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 5

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026

Second Reading 5 12:27 The SPEAKER 53517 The immediate question is that the amendment moved by honourable member for Ryan be agreed to. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 12 August 2026, I will put the question immediately. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 85 NOES Abdo, B. J. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:39 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 86 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

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

Consideration in Detail 7 12:43 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move government amendments, as circulated, together: SHEET HG141 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 25 (line 11), omit "5 minutes before", substitute "15 minutes before". _____ SHEET HG142 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (line 28), omit "6:00 am", substitute "5:00 am". (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 26 (line 7), omit "6:00 am", substitute "5:00 am". (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 27 (line 34), omit "6:00 am", substitute "5:00 am". _____ SHEET PJ123 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (after line 26), at the end of Division 3, add: 62SA ACMA powers relating to opting out requirements (1) If: (a) a person provides an online content service; and (b) wagering advertising content is provided on the online content service; and (c) the ACMA is satisfied that the person is not providing or displaying the things mentioned in paragraph 62S(1)(a) or (b) in relation to the online content service; the ACMA may, by written notice given to the person, direct the person to take, or refrain from taking, specified steps to provide or display those things. (2) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the ACMA gives the person a direction under subsection (1); and (b) the person fails to comply with the direction within 30 days. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (2) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 14), after paragraph 64A(xm), insert: (xmc) subsection 62SA(2); or (3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 12), after paragraph 64C(1)(xm), insert: (xmc) subsection 62SA(2); (4) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 10), after paragraph 64D(1)(xm), insert: (xmc) subsection 62SA(2); _____ SHEET MM110 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1 to 4", substitute "All Schedules (except Schedule 5)". (2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 21), omit "Part 7C", substitute "Part 7C or 7D". (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 8), omit "circumstances.", substitute "circumstances;". (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 8), after paragraph (g), insert: (h) licensed interactive wagering service providers must not offer inducements or commissions in certain circumstances. (5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 7), omit paragraph 16(e), substitute: (e) Part 7C; or (f) Part 7D; (6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 12), omit subparagraph 21(1)(a)(v), substitute: (v) Part 7C; or (vi) Part 7D; (7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 25), after paragraph 64C(1)(xz), insert: (xza) subsection 62ZQ(1); (xzb) subsection 62ZQ(2); (xzc) subsection 62ZR(1); (xzd) subsection 62ZS(1); (xze) section 62ZT; (xzf) subsection 62ZU(1); (xzg) subsection 62ZU(2); (xzh) subsection 62ZU(3); (xzi) subsection 62ZV(3). (8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 23), after paragraph 64D(1)(xz), insert: (xza) subsection 62ZQ(1); (xzb) subsection 62ZQ(2); (xzc) subsection 62ZR(1); (xzd) subsection 62ZS(1); (xze) section 62ZT; (xzf) subsection 62ZU(1); (xzg) subsection 62ZU(2); (xzh) subsection 62ZU(3); (xzi) subsection 62ZV(3). (9) Schedule 3, page 83 (after line 19), after item 61, insert: 61A Section 61NC (heading) Omit "the National Self-exclusion Register", substitute "National Self-exclusion Register information". 61B Subsection 61NC(1) Omit "individuals are registered individuals as at the time when the request is made.", substitute: individuals: (a) are registered individuals as at the time the request is made; or (b) ceased to be registered individuals in the period of 90 days prior to the day the request is made. (10) Schedule 3, item 76, page 88 (line 6), omit "(1A)", substitute "(1B)". (11) Page 92 (after line 28), after Schedule 4, insert: Schedule 4A — Inducements Interactive Gambling Act 2001 1 Before Part 8 Insert: Part 7D — Restrictions on inducements etc. Division 1 — Preliminary 62ZK Simplified outline of this Part Licensed interactive wagering service providers must not: (a) send electronic messages, or make telephone calls, offering inducements (called restricted direct marketing messages) to certain customers; or (b) authorise or cause material offering inducements (called restricted social media advertisements) to be provided to certain customers on social media services. Licensed interactive wagering service providers also must not: (a) provide, offer to provide, or promise to provide a commission relating to customer activity; or (b) cause a commission relating to customer activity to be provided, or the offer or promise of a commission relating to customer activity to be made. Licensed interactive wagering service providers are also subject to other requirements, including restrictions on contacting former registered individuals and a requirement to keep certain records to ascertain compliance with this Part. The costs of administering this Part are recovered through a levy imposed under the Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026. Part 7F of this Act deals with collection of the levy. 62ZL Definitions In this Part: commission includes any commission, incentive, bonus, referral fee, revenue share, profit share, performance payment, variable remuneration or other benefit (whether monetary or non-monetary). customer activity includes the following: (a) creating or reactivating a licensed interactive wagering service account; (b) depositing an amount to a licensed interactive wagering service account; (c) placing or making a bet with a licensed interactive wagering service; (d) removing gambling minimisation measures applied to a licensed interactive wagering service account. designated customer: see section 62ZN. electronic message has the same meaning as in section 61GB. inducement: see section 62ZM. licensed interactive wagering service has the same meaning as in section 61GB. licensed interactive wagering service account has the same meaning as in section 61GB. licensed interactive wagering service provider has the same meaning as in section 61GB. provided: material is provided on a social media service if the material is delivered to one or more of the end-users using the service. registered individual has the same meaning as in section 61GB. restricted direct marketing message: see section 62ZO. restricted social media advertisement: see section 62ZP. social media service has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021. 62ZM Meaning of inducement Basic definition (1) For the purposes of this Part, inducement means any payment or other benefit that could reasonably be expected to induce a person to wager or gamble. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), each of the following is taken to be a payment or other benefit: (a) credit; (b) a gift; (c) a rebate; (d) a reward; (e) a token; (f) a voucher. Things may be determined to be inducements (3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a specified thing, or a specified kind of thing, is taken to be an inducement for the purposes of this Part. Things may be determined not to be inducements (4) If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a specified thing, or a specified kind of thing, is taken not to be an inducement for the purposes of this Part. ACMA may give advice (5) The ACMA may provide advice to the Minister on any matter relevant to a determination under subsection (3) or (4). Meaning of thing (6) For the purposes of this section, thing includes a series of things. 62ZN Meaning of designated customer For the purposes of this Part, an individual is a designated customer on a day if: (a) the individual ceased to be a registered individual within the period of 90 days before that day; or (b) the individual: (i) ceased to be a registered individual more than 90 days before that day; and (ii) has not, in the time since that 90-day period, consented to receiving restricted direct marketing messages. 62ZO Meaning of restricted direct marketing message (1) For the purposes of this Part, a restricted direct marketing message is an electronic message, or message conveyed in a telephone call, where, having regard to: (a) the content of the message; and (b) the way in which the message is presented; and (c) the content that can be located using the links, telephone number or contact information (if any) set out in the message (including as provided as part of the telephone call); it would be concluded that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the message is: (d) to offer to provide an inducement to an individual; or (e) to promise to provide an inducement to an individual. (2) Paragraphs (1)(d) and (e) are to be read independently of each other. 62ZP Meaning of restricted social media advertisement (1) For the purposes of this Part, a restricted social media advertisement is material provided on a social media service where, having regard to: (a) the content of the advertisement; and (b) the way in which the advertisement is presented; and (c) the content that can be located using the links, telephone number or contact information (if any) set out in the advertisement; it would be concluded that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the advertisement is: (d) to offer to provide an inducement to an individual; or (e) to promise to provide an inducement to an individual. (2) Paragraphs (1)(d) and (e) are to be read independently of each other. Division 2 — Restrictions on offering inducements etc. 62ZQ Prohibition on offering inducements to designated customers via direct marketing Civil penalty provision — general (1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if: (a) the licensed interactive wagering service provider sends, or causes to be sent, a restricted direct marketing message to an individual; and (b) the individual is a designated customer on the day the message is sent. Note: For the meaning of designated customer, see section 62ZN. For the meaning of restricted direct marketing message, see section 62ZO. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — multiple contraventions (2) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if: (a) the licensed interactive wagering service provider sends, or causes to be sent, a restricted direct marketing message to an individual; and (b) the individual is a designated customer on the day the message is sent; and (c) the licensed interactive wagering service provider has been found to have contravened subsection (1) on 2 or more occasions during the previous 12 months (whether in respect of that individual or another individual). Note: For the meaning of designated customer, see section 62ZN. For the meaning of restricted direct marketing message, see section 62ZO. Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units. Exception — due diligence (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the licensed interactive wagering service provider took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the contravention. Note: A licensed interactive wagering service provider who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Separate contraventions (4) A licensed interactive wagering service provider who contravenes either subsection (1) or (2) commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each time that the provider sends a restricted direct marketing message to a designated customer. 62ZR Prohibition on offering inducements to designated customers via social media (1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if: (a) the licensed interactive wagering service provider authorises or causes a restricted social media advertisement to be: (i) provided on a social media service; and (ii) delivered to an individual who is an end-user of the service; and (b) the individual is a designated customer on the day the advertisement is provided on the service. Note: For the meaning of designated customer, see section 62ZN. For the meaning of restricted social media advertisement, see section 62ZP. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Exception — due diligence (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the licensed interactive wagering service provider took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the contravention. Note: A licensed interactive wagering service provider who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Separate contraventions (3) A licensed interactive wagering service provider who contravenes subsection (1) commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each time that a restricted social media advertisement is delivered to (or attempted to be delivered to) a designated customer. 62ZS Prohibition on sending restricted direct marketing messages without new consent (1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if: (a) the licensed interactive wagering service provider sends, or causes to be sent, a restricted direct marketing message to an individual; and (b) the individual was a designated customer on a day before the message is sent; and (c) before becoming a designated customer, the individual had consented to receiving such messages; and (d) after ceasing to be a designated customer, and before the restricted marketing message is sent, the individual has not given consent to receiving such messages. Penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Exception — due diligence (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the licensed interactive wagering service provider took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the contravention. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Separate contraventions (3) A licensed interactive wagering service provider who contravenes subsection (1) commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each time that a restricted direct marketing message is sent to an individual. 62ZT Prohibition on commissions for referrals etc. A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this section if: (a) the licensed interactive wagering service provider; (i) provides a commission to a person; or (ii) causes a commission to be provided to a person; or (iii) offers to provide, or promises to provide, a commission to a person; or (iv) causes an offer of the provision of a commission, or a promise of the provision of a commission, to be made to a person; and (b) the person is: (i) an employee or agent of the licensed interactive wagering service provider; or (ii) another person engaged to provide services to, or on behalf of, the licensed interactive wagering service provider; and (c) the person is involved in acquiring, retaining, reactivating, managing or referring customers to a licensed interactive wagering service; and (d) the commission relates to customer activity. Note: For the meaning of customer activity, see section 62ZL. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Division 3 — Miscellaneous 62ZU Record keeping Civil penalty provision — keeping records about direct marketing (1) If: (a) a person is a licensed interactive wagering service provider; and (b) the person sends a restricted direct marketing message to an individual; the person must keep and retain, for a period of 3 years after the message is sent, sufficient records to enable the person's compliance with this Part to be readily ascertained. Civil penalty: 500 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — keeping records about social media (2) If: (a) a person is a licensed interactive wagering service provider; and (b) the person authorises or causes a restricted social media advertisement to be provided on a social media service; the person must keep and retain, for a period of 3 years after the advertisement is sent, sufficient records to enable the person's compliance with this Part to be readily ascertained. Civil penalty: 500 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — making records available (3) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the ACMA requests the person to make a record available to the ACMA; and (b) the person fails to comply with the request. Civil penalty: 120 penalty units. 62ZV Anti-avoidance (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) after the commencement of this section, the person, either alone or with one or more other persons or entities: (i) enters into a scheme; or (ii) begins to carry out a scheme; or (iii) carries out a scheme; and (b) the sole or dominant purposes of the scheme is to avoid the operation of one or more provisions of this Part in relation to the person or another person or entity. (2) For the purposes of the section, a scheme is: (a) any agreement, arrangement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether express or implied, and whether or not enforceable, or intended to be enforceable, by legal proceedings; and (b) any scheme, plan, proposal, action, course of action or course of conduct, whether unilateral or otherwise. Civil penalty provision (3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1). Civil penalty: 7,500 penalty units. (4) This section applies whether or not the scheme is entered into, begun to be carried out or carried out: (a) in Australia; or (b) outside Australia; or (c) partly in Australia and partly outside Australia. 62ZW ACMA may make advisory guidelines (1) The ACMA may make written guidelines for the purpose of providing guidance about the operation of this Part. (2) The Minister may direct the ACMA to make guidelines under subsection (1). (3) Guidelines made under subsection (1) are not a legislative instrument. (4) Guidelines made under subsection (1) must be published on the ACMA's website. 62ZX Additional constitutional basis (1) Without limiting its effect apart from this section, this Part also has effect as provided by this section. (2) This Part also has the effect it would have if each reference in this Part to a licensed interactive wagering service provider were, by express provision, confined to a licensed interactive wagering service provider that is a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies. 62ZY Implied freedom of political communication (1) This Part does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication. (2) Subsection (1) does not limit the application of section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to this Part. (12) Schedule 5, item 8, page 95 (lines 20 to 23), omit the item, substitute: 8 Application provision — record keeping (1) Section 62ZD of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a broadcast, datacast or provision of content on an online content service that occurs on or after the commencement day. (2) Section 62ZU of the new IGA Act applies in relation to: (a) a restricted direct marketing message sent on or after the commencement day; and (b) a restricted social media advertisement provided on a social media service on or after the commencement day. (13) Schedule 5, page 96 (after line 15), after item 12, insert: 12A Application provision — prohibition on inducements (1) Section 62ZQ of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a restricted direct marketing message sent, or caused to be sent, on or after a day specified in an instrument made under subitem (3). (2) Section 62ZR of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a restricted social media advertisement provided on a social media service on or after a day specified in an instrument made under subitem (3). (3) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, specify a day for the purposes of subitems (1) and (2). (4) A day specified in a notifiable instrument made under subitem (3) must be after the commencement day. 12B Application provision — prohibition on sending direct marketing messages without new consent (1) Section 62ZS of the new IGA Act applies in relation to an individual who is a designated customer on or after a day specified in an instrument made under subitem (2), whether the circumstances giving rise to the individual being a designated customer arose before, on or after that day. (2) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, specify a day for the purposes of subitem (1). (3) A day specified in a notifiable instrument made under subitem (2) must be after the commencement day. 12C Application provision — prohibition on commissions Section 62ZT of the new IGA Act applies in relation to the provision, offer or promise of a commission that is made, or caused to be made, on or after the commencement day. _____ SHEET CH122 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 35 (line 27) to page 37 (line 8), omit section 62R, substitute: 62R Prohibition on wagering advertising content on online content services during live coverage of sporting events — daytime Civil penalty provision — providing content on online content service (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person provides an online content service; and (b) wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online content service; and (c) the provision of wagering advertising content on the online content service is in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event; and (d) the provision of wagering advertising content on the online content service occurs at any time during the period beginning at 5:00 am and ending at 8:30 pm. Note 1: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Note 2: For the meaning of live, see section 62B. For the meaning of sporting event, see section 10A. Note 3: For working out time in relation to when content is provided on an online content service, see section 62JA. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Assumptions about coverage (2) For the purposes of subsection (1): (a) wagering advertising content is taken to be provided on the online content service in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event if the content is provided on the service during the period: (i) beginning 15 minutes before the scheduled start of the sporting event; and (ii) ending 5 minutes after the conclusion of the sporting event; and (b) if there is a scheduled break or unscheduled break in the sporting event—any content provided on the service during the break is taken to be in conjunction with live coverage of the sporting event. Note: For the meaning of scheduled start, scheduled break and unscheduled break, see section 62B. Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing content to be provided on online content service (3) A person contravenes this subsection if the person authorises or causes wagering advertising content to be included in content provided on an online content service in contravention of subsection (1). Note: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Relationship with other provisions (4) To avoid doubt, this section applies in addition to sections 62P, 62Q and 62RA. Separate contraventions (5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (3)commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each time that wagering advertising content is provided on the online content service. 62RA Prohibition on wagering advertising content on online content services during live coverage of sporting events — overnight Civil penalty provision — providing content on online content service (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person provides an online content service; and (b) wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online content service; and (c) the provision of wagering advertising content on the online content service is in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event; and (d) the provision of wagering advertising content on the online content service occurs at any time during the period beginning at 8:30 pm on a day and ending at 5:00 am on the following day. Note 1: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Note 2: For the meaning of live, see section 62B. For the meaning of sporting event, see section 10A. Note 3: For working out time in relation to when content is provided on an online content service, see section 62JA. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Assumptions about coverage (2) For the purposes of subsection (1): (a) wagering advertising content is taken to be provided on the online content service in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event if the content is provided on the service during the period: (i) beginning immediately before the scheduled start of the sporting event; and (ii) ending immediately after the conclusion of the sporting event; and (b) if there is a scheduled break or unscheduled break in the sporting event—any content provided on the service during the break is taken not to be in conjunction with live coverage of the sporting event. Note: For the meaning of scheduled start, scheduled break and unscheduled break, see section 62B. Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing content to be provided on online content service (3) A person contravenes this subsection if the person authorises or causes wagering advertising content to be included in content provided on an online content service in contravention of subsection (1). Note: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Relationship with other provisions (4) To avoid doubt, this section applies in addition to sections 62P, 62Q and 62R. Example: The provision of content on an online content service in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event that starts at 5 pm and ends at 10 pm is subject to both: (a) the restrictions under section 62R between 5 pm and 8:30 pm; and (b) the restrictions under this section between 8:30 pm and 10 pm. Separate contraventions (5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (3)commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each time that wagering advertising content is provided on the online content service. (2) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 14), after paragraph (xm), insert: (xma) subsection 62RA(1); or (xmb) subsection 62RA(3); or (3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 12), after paragraph (xm), insert: (xma) subsection 62RA(1); (xmb) subsection 62RA(3); (4) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 10), after paragraph (xm), insert: (xma) subsection 62RA(1); (xmb) subsection 62RA(3); (5) Schedule 5, item 3, page 93 (line 25), after "62R,", insert "62RA,". In the time since this bill was introduced to parliament, there have been a number of developments that the government has resolved warrant additional amendments. In particular, our national conference unanimously resolved to support these laws and to look at further action to reduce the harm of inducements. We have also been having constructive discussions with the Greens and the coalition in relation to improvements we could make to make this law stronger whilst also ensuring we strike the right balance. The Albanese Labor government has achieved bipartisan agreement with the coalition to progress these reforms, including with additional amendments to make the bill even stronger. The government has resolved amendments in a number of areas, including increasing the daytime blackout period for gambling advertising prior to live sport from five minutes to 15 minutes, moving the start time of broadcast restrictions from 6 am to 5 am, banning commissions based on customer activity for any staff agent or affiliate of a wagering service provider, banning the direct marketing of inducements for 90 days after BetStop deregistrations, strong penalties if opt-out options are not prominently displayed, and the extension of the existing live sport broadcasting restrictions to online services. These amendments make the reforms stronger where Australians need protection most while ensuring that the new rules are practical, enforceable and capable of delivering real change. I commend the amendments to the House. 12:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I want to thank the parliament for coming together to deal with this issue and get a result that will work. This new legislation, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, is the most significant gambling advertising reform by any Australian government ever. It increases protections for people who are most at risk of gambling harm while continuing to allow those who enjoy a bet to do so. And Australians will be better protected from inducements and direct marketing, as we determined we would pursue at the Adelaide ALP National Conference. Importantly, this legislation concentrates on those who need our help the most: people at most risk of harm. It doesn't preach to the community, but it meaningfully increases protections for those who most need it. I want to pay tribute to the minister, Anika Wells, as well as to the previous minister, the member for Greenway, for the work that has been done since we came to government in 2022. This is the next tranche of reform to make a difference. It will minimise children's exposure to gambling ads by banning gambling ads during children's programming and during live sport between 5 am and 8:30 pm. It will result in fewer gambling ads during sport by blacking out wagering ads 15 minutes before a live sporting event. And it will ban celebrity endorsements as well as odds-style ads and ads in venues and on jerseys. This is what will make an enormous difference. The majority of the NRL clubs currently in the National Rugby League have something on their jumpers or some form of sponsorship, which means that sponsorship is constant, and this will outlaw that. It will allow people who want to opt out of gambling ads to do so more easily through a simple opt-out gambling ad register, 'adstop', to back up the BetStop legislation previously introduced by the former minister, which, previous to this legislation, was the most significant antigambling measure ever and one that has been particularly successful. It will protect vulnerable or addicted gamblers with strengthened measures, by prohibiting direct marketing of inducements to people at risk of gambling harm, extending to 90 days the ban on direct marketing for people exiting BetStop, and banning wagering companies from giving commissions to employees to increase customer gambling activity, with specific higher penalties for social media companies that publish illegal gambling ads. This legislation, across the board, will make an enormous difference, and I want to thank all those who have engaged constructively in this process. These issues are not simple. These issues are ones where we want to make sure we identify those who are most at risk and take action to provide protection for them. This legislation, with the amendments, both the amendments that will be moved by the government and the amendments that will be moved by the opposition, today, will make an enormous difference. It will also provide for more enforcement action—the pocket pokies ban, which is really important; the sports integrity boost; the social media ad crackdown; and the illegal offshore gambling—boosting enforcement against illegal offshore gambling providers and enabling the ACMA to issue removal notices requiring hosting service providers to cease access to illegal gambling websites for Australians. This will make an enormous difference, as will the simulcast exception, enabling broadcasters to observe broadcast rules instead of the triple-lock rules for live channels on their BVOD platforms and extend the dedicated racing and wagering exception to online simulcast services. This is an example of a common sense change that will reflect what I think are community attitudes. There will be a statutory review as well, where the minister will be required to initiate the review as soon as practicable after three years from the commencement of the act, expected to be 1 January next year. I commend the amendments of both the government and the opposition to the House. I commend the amended legislation to the House, and I'm very pleased that, after what's been an extensive debate today, reform will move forward. Question agreed to. 12:51 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 17 August 2026, the opposition may move two sets of amendments. 12:51 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I move opposition amendments (1) to (10) on sheet AE117, amendments (1) to (3) of sheet AE118, amendments (1) to (6) on sheet AE119, amendment (1) on sheet HG144, amendments (1) to (11) on sheet CH121, amendments (1) to (7) on sheet CH123, amendments (1) to (6) on sheet MM111 and amendment (1) on sheet TK116, circulated in my name, together: SHEET AE117 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (lines 11 to 13), omit the definition of online simulcast service in section 62B, substitute: online radio simulcast service: see section 62FA. online television simulcast service: see section 62FA. (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 21 (after line 18), after section 62F, insert: 62FA Meaning of online radio simulcast service and online television simulcast service (1) For the purposes of this Part, an online radio simulcast service means a service, or a part of a service, that is provided to end-users using an internet carriage service, and that: (a) does no more than provide a stream of content that is identical to the stream of programs transmitted on: (i) a commercial radio broadcasting service provided under a commercial radio broadcasting licence; or (ii) a subscription radio narrowcasting service; or (iii) a radio broadcasting service provided by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation; and (b) provides that stream of content simultaneously, or almost simultaneously, with the transmission of that stream of programs. (2) For the purposes of this Part, an online television simulcast service means a service, or a part of a service, that is provided to end-users using an internet carriage service, and that: (a) does no more than provide a stream of content that is identical to the stream of programs transmitted on: (i) a commercial television broadcasting service provided under a commercial television broadcasting licence; or (ii) a subscription television broadcasting service provided under a subscription television broadcasting licence; or (iii) a subscription television narrowcasting service; or (iv) a television broadcasting service provided by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation; and (b) provides that stream of content simultaneously, or almost simultaneously, with the transmission of that stream of programs. (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), in determining whether a stream of content is identical to a stream of programs, disregard: (a) any differences that are attributable to the technical characteristics of the provision or transmission (for example, video resolution or sound quality); and (b) the presence or absence of: (i) any advertising content, sponsorship content or promotional content; and (ii) any watermark-type logo or insignia. (4) Terms used in this section that are defined in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, or in Schedule 8 to that Act, have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Act or that Schedule. (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 32 (lines 9 to 18), omit subsection 62P(6), substitute: Exception — online simulcast services (6) Subsection (1) does not apply, to the extent that the online content service includes the provision of an online radio simulcast service or an online television simulcast service, if a notice is in force under section 62SB in relation to the simulcast service. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 33 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsections 62P(11) and (12). (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 34 (lines 14 to 23), omit subsection 62Q(3), substitute: Exception — online simulcast services (3) Subsection (1) does not apply, to the extent that the online content service includes the provision of an online radio simulcast service or an online television simulcast service, if a notice is in force under section 62SB in relation to the simulcast service. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). (6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 35 (lines 21 to 26), omit subsections 62Q(8) and (9). (7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (before line 27), before Division 4, insert: Division 3A — Alternative treatment of certain online radio and television simulcast services 62SB Notice of alternative treatment (1) If an online content service provider provides: (a) an online radio simulcast service; or (b) an online television simulcast service; the provider may give written notice to the ACMA stating they wish for this Division to apply to the online radio simulcast service or online television simulcast service (the simulcast service). Note: For variation and revocation, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (2) The notice must specify the following: (a) the day (the start day) the notice comes into force, which must not be earlier than 7 days before the day the provider gives the ACMA the notice; (b) the name of the simulcast service. (3) The notice is in force for the period that: (a) starts on the start day; and (b) ends on the day that is 12 months after the start day, or the day the notice is revoked by the provider (whichever is the earlier). Note: When the notice is in force: (a) sections 62P and 62Q do not apply in relation to the simulcast service (see subsections 62P(6) and 62Q(3)); and (b) for an online radio simulcast service—section 62SD applies to the simulcast service; and (c) for an online television simulcast service—section 62SC applies to the simulcast service. Effect of a notice must be communicated to customers (4) The provider must, before the start day, notify potential end-users of the simulcast service that this Division applies to the simulcast service. 62SC Frequency cap for wagering advertising content — online television simulcast services Civil penalty provision — providing content (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) a person provides an online television simulcast service; and (b) a notice is in force under section 62SB in relation to the online television simulcast service; and (c) wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online television simulcast service; and (d) the provision occurs at any time during the period (the restricted time) beginning at 5:00 am and ending at 8:30 pm; and (e) the total number of times that wagering advertising content is provided exceeds 3 (the frequency cap) during any 60 minute period that occurs during the restricted time. Note: The time the content is provided is worked out by reference to section 62JA. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing provision of content (2) A person must not authorise or cause wagering advertising content to be provided in contravention of subsection (1). Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Exception — streaming dedicated racing or wagering programs (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the extent the online television simulcast service provides wagering advertising content on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (a) a dedicated racing program; or (b) a dedicated wagering program. Note 1: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Note 2: See also sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC (which are about general exceptions for conduct relating to content). Note 3: For when a program is dedicated to racing or wagering, see section 62E. Exception — due diligence (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to a person if: (a) the provision of wagering advertising content that exceeds the frequency cap is a result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; and (b) the person took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the error, mistake or accident. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Separate contraventions (5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each provision of wagering advertising content that exceeds the frequency cap. 62SD Prohibition on wagering advertising content for school drop off and pick up — online radio simulcast services Civil penalty provision — providing content (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) a person provides an online radio simulcast service; and (b) a notice is in force under section 62SB in relation to the online radio simulcast service; and (c) wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online radio simulcast service; and (d) the provision occurs during a school day, at any time during the period: (i) beginning at 8 am and ending at 9 am; or (ii) beginning at 3 pm and ending at 4 pm. Note: The time content is provided, and whether the provision occurs on a school day, is worked out by reference to section 62JA. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing provision of content (2) A person must not authorise or cause wagering advertising content to be provided in contravention of subsection (1). Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Exception — streaming dedicated racing or wagering programs (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the extent the online radio simulcast service provides wagering advertising content on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (a) a dedicated racing program; or (b) a dedicated wagering program. Note 1: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Note 2: See also sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC (which are about general exceptions for conduct relating to content). Note 3: For when a program is dedicated to racing or wagering, see section 62E. (8) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (before line 15), before paragraph 64A(xn), insert: (xmd) subsection 62SC(1); or (xme) subsection 62SC(2); or (xmf) subsection 62SD(1); or (xmg) subsection 62SD(2); or (9) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (before line 13), before paragraph 64C(1)(xn), insert: (xmd) subsection 62SC(1); (xme) subsection 62SC(2); (xmf) subsection 62SD(1); (xmg) subsection 62SD(2); (10) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (before line 11), before paragraph 64D(1)(xn), insert: (xmd) subsection 62SC(1); (xme) subsection 62SC(2); (xmf) subsection 62SD(1); (xmg) subsection 62SD(2); _____ SHEET AE118 (1) Schedule 2, page 64 (after line 2), before item 9, insert: 8A Section 4 Insert: social media service has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021. (2) Schedule 2, page 64 (after line 13), after item 10, insert: 10A After subsection 61EA(1A) Insert: (1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to a person if subsection (4) applies to the person. 10B After subsection 61EA(2A) Insert: (2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply to a person if subsection (4) applies to the person. (3) Schedule 2, Part 2, page 64 (after line 15), at the end of the Part, add: 11A At the end of section 61EA Add: Publishing on social media (4) A person must not publish, or authorise or cause to be published, a designated interactive gambling service advertisement in Australia if: (a) the person provides an online content service; and (b) the publication is on the online content service; and (c) the online content service is a social media service. Note: For when a designated interactive gambling service advertisement included or provided on an online content service is taken to be published in Australia, see section 61AB. Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units. Exception (5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the person took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the contravention. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). 11B After paragraph 64C(1)(i) Insert: (ia) subsection 61EA(4); 11C After paragraph 64D(1)(i) Insert: (ia) subsection 61EA(4); _____ SHEET AE119 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 33 (line 5), omit "service.", substitute "service; or". (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 33 (after line 5), after paragraph 62P(9)(b), insert: (c) an online radio simulcast service, to the extent the wagering advertising content is provided on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (i) a dedicated racing program; or (ii) a dedicated wagering program; or (d) an online television simulcast service, to the extent the wagering advertising content is provided on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (i) a dedicated racing program; or (ii) a dedicated wagering program. (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 33 (line 9), after "online content service", insert "or a program". (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 35 (line 10), omit "service.", substitute "service; or". (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 35 (after line 10), after paragraph 62Q(6)(b), insert: (c) an online radio simulcast service, to the extent the wagering advertising content is provided on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (i) a dedicated racing program; or (ii) a dedicated wagering program; or (d) an online television simulcast service, to the extent the wagering advertising content is provided on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (i) a dedicated racing program; or (ii) a dedicated wagering program. (6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 35 (line 14), after "online content service", insert "or a program". _____ SHEET HG144 (1) Page 93 (before line 1), before Schedule 5, insert: Schedule 4C — Statutory review of certain Parts Interactive Gambling Act 2001 1 After section 68 Insert: 68A Review of operation of Parts 7C, 7D and 7E (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of: (a) Parts 7C, 7D and 7E; and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act, so far as they relate to those Parts. Timing of review (2) The persons conducting the review must commence the review as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 3 years starting on the day this section commences. Public consultation (3) The review must make provision for public consultation. Minister to be given report of review (4) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review before the end of the period of 6 months starting on the day the review commences. Minister to table copy of report of review (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. _____ SHEET CH121 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (after line 17), after the paragraph beginning "Wagering advertising content must" in section 62A, insert: Wagering advertising content must not be broadcast, datacast, or provided on certain streaming services, during children's programming. (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 13 (after line 16), after the definition of broadcast in section 62B, insert: broadcasting video on demand service has the same meaning as in Part 9E of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 13 (after line 18), after the definition of channel in section 62B, insert: children means individuals under 18 years of age. (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (after line 6), after the definition of section of the public in section 62B, insert: subscription video on demand service has the same meaning as SVOD service in Part 8C of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (after line 16), after section 62J, insert: 62JA Working out what time etc. applies for providing content on online content services Working out time (1) Subsection (2) applies in working out the time when content is provided on an online content service to an end-user for the purposes of this Part. (2) The time of the provision of the content is taken to be the legal time where the end-user of the online content service is located. Working out school days (3) Subsection (4) applies in working out whether content is provided on an online content service to an end-user on a school day for the purposes of this Part. (4) The day of the provision of the content to taken to be a school day if the day is not a Saturday, Sunday, public holiday or public school holiday where the end-user of the online content service is located. (6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 40 (before line 15), before section 62V, insert: Subdivision A — Prohibitions relating to children's programming 62UA Prohibition relating to wagering advertising content during programs directed towards children Civil penalty provision — broadcasting, datacasting or providing content on certain streaming services (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) either: (i) the person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia; or (ii) the person provides an online content service that is a broadcasting video on demand service or a subscription video on demand service and wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online content service; and (b) the broadcast, datacast or provision on the online content service of the wagering advertising content occurs during a program that is wholly or principally directed towards children; and (c) the broadcast, datacast or provision on the online content service of the wagering advertising content occurs at any time during the period beginning at 5:00 am and ending at 8:30 pm. Note 1: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Note 2: For the meaning of broadcasting video on demand service, children and subscription video on demand service, see section 62B. Note 3: The time of a broadcast or datacast is worked out by reference to section 62J. For working out time in relation to when content is provided on an online content service, see section 62JA. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing broadcasting, datacasting or provision of content on certain streaming services (2) A person must not authorise or cause wagering advertising content to be broadcast, datacast or included in content provided on an online content service that is a broadcasting video on demand service or a subscription video on demand service, in contravention of subsection (1). Note: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Relationship with other provisions (3) To avoid doubt, this section applies in addition to sections 62P and 62Q. (4) If conduct constitutes a contravention of subsection (1) and subsection 62UB(1), proceedings may be started against a person in relation to the contravention of either or both of those subsections. However, the person is not liable to more than one pecuniary penalty in relation to the same conduct. 62UB Prohibition relating to wagering advertising content during programs likely to be viewed by children Civil penalty provision — broadcasting, datacasting or providing content on certain streaming services (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) either: (i) the person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia; or (ii) the person provides an online content service that is a broadcasting video on demand service or a subscription video on demand service and wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online content service; and (b) the broadcast, datacast or provision on the online content service of the wagering advertising content occurs during a program that is classified: (i) G under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995; or (ii) as a C program or P program under the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020; and (c) the broadcast, datacast or provision on the online content service of the wagering advertising content occurs at any time during the period: (i) beginning at 6 am and ending at 8:30 am; or (ii) beginning at 4 pm and ending at 7 pm. Note 1: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Note 2: For the meaning of broadcasting video on demand service, children and subscription video on demand service, see section 62B. Note 3: The time of a broadcast or datacast is worked out by reference to section 62J. For working out time in relation to when content is provided on an online content service, see section 62JA. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing broadcasting, datacasting or provision of content on certain streaming services (2) A person must not authorise or cause wagering advertising content to be broadcast, datacast or included in content provided on an online content service that is a broadcasting video on demand service or a subscription video on demand service, in contravention of subsection (1). Note: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Exception — dedicated racing or wagering program, channel or online content service (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the wagering advertising content is broadcast, datacast or provided on: (a) a dedicated racing program, channel or online content service; or (b) a dedicated wagering program, channel or online content service; or (c) an online radio simulcast service, to the extent the wagering advertising content is provided on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (i) a dedicated racing program; or (ii) a dedicated wagering program; or (d) an online television simulcast service, to the extent the wagering advertising content is provided on a stream of content identical (disregarding the matters mentioned in subsection 62FA(3)) to content transmitted on: (i) a dedicated racing program; or (ii) a dedicated wagering program. Note 1: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Note 2: See also sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC (which are about general exceptions for conduct relating to content). Note 3: For when a program, channel or online content service is dedicated to racing or wagering, see section 62E. Relationship with other provisions (4) To avoid doubt, this section applies in addition to sections 62P and 62Q. (5) If conduct constitutes a contravention of subsection (1) and subsection 62UA(1), proceedings may be started against a person in relation to the contravention of either or both of those subsections. However, the person is not liable to more than one pecuniary penalty in relation to the same conduct. Subdivision B — Other prohibitions and restrictions (7) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 15), after paragraph (xn), insert: (xna) subsection 62UA(1); or (xnb) subsection 62UA(2); or (xnc) subsection 62UB(1); or (xnd) subsection 62UB(2); or (8) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 13), after paragraph (xn), insert: (xna) subsection 62UA(1); (xnb) subsection 62UA(2); (xnc) subsection 62UB(1); (xnd) subsection 62UB(2); (9) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 11), after paragraph (xn), insert: (xna) subsection 62UA(1); (xnb) subsection 62UA(2); (xnc) subsection 62UB(1); (xnd) subsection 62UB(2); (10) Schedule 5, item 3, page 93 (line 20), after "subsection", insert "62UA(1), 62UB(1) and". (11) Schedule 5, item 3, page 93 (line 26), after "subsection", insert "62UA(1), 62UB(1) and". _____ SHEET CH123 (1) Schedule 2, item 17, page 68 (after line 12), after the paragraph beginning "The ACMA may issue" in section 3, insert: The ACMA may also issue a notice to a hosting service provider to cease hosting a designated interactive gambling service. (2) Schedule 2, item 20, page 69 (line 7), omit paragraph (c) of the definition of removal notice, substitute: (c) section 61EJ; or (d) section 61EJA. (3) Schedule 2, item 22, page 70 (line 25), at the end of the heading to section 61EJ, add "—advertisements". (4) Schedule 2, item 22, page 71 (after line 4), after section 61EJ, insert: 61EJA Removal notice given to a hosting service provider — designated interactive gambling services (1) If: (a) a designated interactive gambling service is, or has been, provided on an online content service; and (b) the designated interactive gambling service is hosted by a hosting service provider; the ACMA may give the hosting service provider a written notice (a removal notice) requiring the provider to: (c) take all reasonable steps to cease hosting the designated interactive gambling service; and (d) do so within: (i) 24 hours after the notice was given to the provider; or (ii) such longer period as the ACMA allows. (2) So far as is reasonably practicable, the designated interactive gambling service must be identified in the removal notice in a way that is sufficient to enable the hosting service provider to comply with the notice. (3) For the purposes of this section, a designated interactive gambling service ceases being hosted if the service is neither accessible to, nor delivered to, any end-users in Australia. (5) Schedule 2, item 22, page 71 (line 7), omit "or 61EJ", substitute ", 61EJ or 61EJA". (6) Schedule 5, item 11, page 96 (line 6), before "Division 5A", insert "(1)". (7) Schedule 5, item 11, page 96 (after line 9), at the end of the item, add: (2) Section 61EJA of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a removal notice given on or after the commencement day, whether the designated interactive gambling service is provided before, on or after the commencement day. _____ SHEET MM111 (1) Amendment (7), after paragraph 64C(1)(xzd), insert: (xzda) subsection 62ZSA(1); (2) Amendment (8), after paragraph 64D(1)(xzd), insert: (xzda) subsection 62ZSA(1); (3) Amendment (11), omit section 62ZN, substitute: 62ZN Meaning of designated customer (1) For the purposes of this Part, an individual is a designated customer on a day if subsection (2), (3) or (4) applies to the individual on that day. Previously registered individuals (2) This subsection applies to an individual on a day if: (a) the individual ceased to be a registered individual within the period of 90 days before that day; or (b) the individual: (i) ceased to be a registered individual more than 90 days before that day; and (ii) has not, in the time since that 90-day period, expressly consented to receiving restricted direct marketing messages. New account holders (3) This subsection applies to an individual on a day if, on that day: (a) the individual has a licensed interactive wagering service account; and (b) the account has been open for 14 days or less. Individuals identified as at risk of gambling-related harm (4) This subsection applies to an individual on a day if: (a) on or before that day, the individual has been identified by a licensed interactive wagering service provider, in accordance with section 62ZSA, as someone who may reasonably be considered to be at risk of gambling-related harm (an at-risk customer); and (b) on that day, either: (i) the person is an at-risk customer; or (ii) the person ceased to be an at-risk customer within the period of 90 days before that day. Note: Section 62ZSA imposes an obligation on licensed interactive wagering service providers to monitor customer activity to identify individuals who may be at risk of gambling-related harm. (4) Amendment (11), paragraph 62ZS(1)(b), after "designated customer", insert "(within the meaning of subsection (2) of the definition of designated customer in section 62ZN)". (5) Amendment (11), after section 62ZS, insert: 62ZSA Ongoing customer harm minimisation monitoring (1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider must monitor the customer activity of individuals who use the licensed interactive wagering service to identify individuals that may reasonably be considered to be at risk of gambling-related harm. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), in identifying whether a customer is at risk of gambling-related harm, the licensed interactive wagering service provider must have regard to the following: (a) escalating wagering expenditure; (b) the number of deposits into a licensed interactive wagering service account within a session; (c) wagering at unusual hours; (d) failed or declined deposits into a licensed interactive wagering service account; (e) removal or relaxation of gambling minimisation measures; (f) any other indicators determined in an instrument made under subsection (3). (3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine indicators for the purposes of paragraph (2)(f). Separate contravention (4) A licensed interactive wagering service provider who contravenes subsection (1) commits a separate contravention of that provision in respect of each day during which the contravention occurs (including the day the relevant civil penalty order is made or any later day). Exception (5) Subsection (1) does not apply if the licensed interactive wagering service provider took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the contravention. (6) Amendment (13), after item 12C, insert: 12D Application provision — designated customers (1) Section 62ZN applies in relation to an individual if the individual is covered by subsection (2), (3) or (4) of that section on or after a day specified in an instrument made under subitem (2). (2) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, specify a day for the purposes of subitem (1). (3) A day specified in a notifiable instrument made under subitem (2) must be after the commencement day. 12E Application provision — ongoing harm minimisation monitoring (1) Section 62ZSA applies in relation to an individual who uses a licensed interactive wagering service on or after a day specified in an instrument made under subitem (2). (2) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, specify a day for the purposes of subitem (1). (3) A day specified in a notifiable instrument made under subitem (2) must be after the commencement day. _____ SHEET TK116 (1) Page 93 (before line 1), before Schedule 5, insert: Schedule 4B — Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register Part 1 — Main amendments Interactive Gambling Act 2001 1 After Part 7D Insert: Part 7E — Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register Division 1 — Introduction 62ZZA Simplified outline of this Part This Part establishes the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. An individual can choose to be on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. If the individual does so, an online content service provider that is implementing the triple lock system set out in subsection 62P(2) must not provide wagering advertising content to the individual on an online content service. This choice is in addition to the requirement for online content service providers that are implementing the triple lock system to have their own opt-out system, as set out in subsection 62P(2). Under the triple lock system, an individual can elect, in relation to a particular online content service, not to receive wagering advertising content on that service. An online content service provider that provides, on an online content service, wagering advertising content to an individual who is on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register contravenes the civil penalty provision in subsection 62Q(1). The costs of administering the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register are recovered through a levy imposed under the Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026. Part 7F of this Act deals with collection of the levy. 62ZZB Definitions In this Part: gambling-related lobbying has the meaning given by section 61GB. Opt-out Register operator has the meaning given by subsection 62ZZD(9). Opt-out Register proclaimed start day has the meaning given by section 62ZZC. Opt-out Register protected information has the meaning given by section 62ZZN. Opt-out Register rules means rules made under section 62ZZX. 62ZZC Opt-out Register proclaimed start day (1) For the purposes of this Part, Opt-out Register proclaimed start day means the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of this subsection. Note: The proclaimed start day is the first day on which an individual can apply to be registered in the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register: see subsection 62ZZE(4). (2) A Proclamation under subsection (1) is taken to be a commencement instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003. Division 2 — Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register 62ZZD Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register (1) The ACMA must keep, or arrange for a body corporate to keep on behalf of the ACMA, a register to be known as the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. Note 1: An online content service provider that provides, on an online content service, wagering advertising content to an individual who is registered on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register contravenes a civil penalty provision: see subsection 62Q(1). Note 2: An online content service provider must display prominently, on the online content service, information about the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register: see section 62S. (2) The register may also be known by a name specified in the Opt-out Register rules. (3) The register is to be kept in electronic form. (4) The register is not a legislative instrument. Payments to the Opt-out Register operator (5) An arrangement under subsection (1) may provide for the ACMA, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to make payments to the Opt-out Register operator. Opt-out Register operator must not provide a gambling service or undertake gambling-related lobbying etc. (6) The ACMA must not make an arrangement under subsection (1) with a body corporate that: (a) provides a gambling service; or (b) is a member of the same related company group as a body corporate that provides a gambling service; or (c) holds an ownership interest in a body corporate that provides a gambling service; or (d) undertakes gambling-related lobbying; or (e) is a member of the same related company group as a body corporate that undertakes gambling-related lobbying; or (f) holds an ownership interest in a body corporate that undertakes gambling-related lobbying. (7) The ACMA must ensure that an arrangement under subsection (1) is subject to a condition that the Opt-out Register operator must not: (a) provide a gambling service; or (b) be a member of the same related company group as a body corporate that provides a gambling service; or (c) hold an ownership interest in a body corporate that provides a gambling service; or (d) undertake gambling-related lobbying; or (e) be a member of the same related company group as a body corporate that undertakes gambling-related lobbying; or (f) hold an ownership interest in a body corporate that undertakes gambling-related lobbying. (8) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, substitute a Department, agency or authority of the Commonwealth for the ACMA for the purposes of this section. (9) The person or body that operates the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register is the Opt-out Register operator. Division 3 — Registration on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register 62ZZE Application for registration (1) An individual may apply to the Opt-out Register operator to be registered on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. Note: The effect of being registered on the Register is that an online content service provider must not provide, on an online content service, wagering advertising content to the individual: see subsection 62Q(1). (2) An application under subsection (1) must be made in a manner prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. (3) An application under subsection (1) must: (a) include a statement to the effect that the applicant is ordinarily resident in Australia; and (b) include such information relating to the applicant as is prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. Proclaimed start day (4) An individual is not entitled to make an application under subsection (1) before the Opt-out Register proclaimed start day. 62ZZF Registration (1) After receiving an application under section 62ZZE from an individual, the Opt-out Register operator must: (a) register the relevant individual by making an entry for the individual in the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register; and (b) do so within the period determined in accordance with the Opt-out Register rules. (2) The entry must include: (a) the relevant individual's contact details as prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules; and (b) any other information prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. (3) A registration of an individual remains in force unless the individual is deregistered under section 62ZZI or 62ZZJ. 62ZZG Variation of the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register The Opt-out Register rules may authorise the Opt-out Register operator to vary entries in the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. 62ZZH Application for deregistration (1) An individual who is registered on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register may apply to the Opt-out Register operator to remove the individual's entry from that Register. (2) An application under subsection (1) must: (a) be in writing; and (b) include such information (if any) as is prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. 62ZZI Deregistration (1) The Opt-out Register operator must remove an individual's entry from the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register if the individual makes an application under section 62ZZH. (2) The Opt-out Register operator must remove the individual's entry from the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register as soon as practicable. 62ZZJ Deregistration — other grounds (1) The Opt-out Register operator must remove a registered individual's entry from the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register if the Opt-out Register operator is aware that: (a) the individual is not ordinarily resident in Australia; or (b) the individual has died. (2) For the purposes of this section, an individual is not ordinarily resident in Australia unless the individual: (a) is a permanent resident within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007; or (b) has resided in Australia for 200 or more days in at least 3 of the past 5 calendar years. 62ZZK Re-registration If an individual's entry is removed from the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register, this Act does not prevent the Opt-out Register operator from subsequently re-registering the individual under subsection 62ZZF(1). 62ZZL Correction of the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register (1) The Opt-out Register operator may correct entries in the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. (2) The ACMA may give written directions to the Opt-out Register operator relating to the exercise of its powers under subsection (1). (3) The Opt-out Register operator must comply with a direction under subsection (2). (4) The Opt-out Register rules may require the Opt-out Register operator to correct entries in the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register in the circumstances prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. (5) The Opt-out Register operator must remove an entry from the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register if the entry was made in error. (6) The Opt-out Register rules may require the Opt-out Register operator to remove entries from the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register in the circumstances prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. (7) This section does not, by implication, limit: (a) section 62ZZG (variation of the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register—other matters); or (b) Australian Privacy Principle 13; or (c) Part V of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. 62ZZM Opt-out Register rules may make further provision in relation to the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register The Opt-out Register rules may make further provision in relation to the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. Division 4 — Disclosure of Opt-out Register protected information 62ZZN Opt-out Register protected information For the purposes of this Part, Opt-out Registerprotected information means: (a) information about whether an individual is or was registered on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register; or (b) any other information that is or was included in an entry in the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register; or (c) information about, or included in, an application made by an individual under Division 3 or the Opt-out Register rules. 62ZZO Access to the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register protected information by an online content service provider (1) An online content service provider may request the Opt-out Register operator to inform the provider whether the contact details, prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 62ZZF(2)(a), of one or more specified individuals are registered on that Register as at the time when the request is made. (2) A request under subsection (1) must include, for each individual covered by the request: (a) the contact details of the individual; and (b) such other information as is prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. (3) The Opt-out Register operator must: (a) comply with a request under subsection (1); and (b) do so within the period determined in accordance with the Opt-out Register rules. (4) The Opt-out Register rules may make provision for and in relation to either or both of the following: (a) the manner in which a request under subsection (1) is to be made, which must involve the use of an internet carriage service; (b) the manner in which the Opt-out Register operator is to comply with a request under subsection (1). Connectivity obligations of online content service provider (5) An online content service provider must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the provider: (a) has a computer system; and (b) is continuously supplied with an internet carriage service; that (when considered together) enable the provider to obtain information at any time about whether an individual's contact details are registered on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. 62ZZP Confirmation of contact details by individuals An individual may confirm with the Opt-out Register operator whether the individual's contact details are registered on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. 62ZZQ Disclosure of de-identified Opt-out Register protected information to Ministers The Opt-out Register operator may disclose de-identified Opt-out Register protected information to: (a) the Minister; or (b) the Secretary of the Department; or (c) an APS employee in the Department who is authorised, in writing, by the Secretary of the Department for the purposes of this section. 62ZZR Disclosure of Opt-out Register protected information for purposes of enforcement An ACMA official may disclose Opt-out Register protected information for the purposes of the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, by the ACMA under Part 7C or this Part. Division 5 — Miscellaneous 62ZZS Computerised decision-making (1) The Opt-out Register operator may arrange for the use, under that operator's control, of computer programs for any purposes for which the operator may, or must, under this Part or the Opt-out Register rules: (a) make a decision; or (b) exercise any power or comply with any obligation; or (c) do anything else related to making a decision, exercising a power or complying with an obligation. (2) For the purposes of this Part and the Opt-out Register rules, the Opt-out Register operator is taken to have: (a) made a decision; or (b) exercised a power or complied with an obligation; or (c) done something else related to the making of a decision, the exercise of a power or the compliance with an obligation; that was made, exercised, complied with or done by the operation of a computer program under an arrangement made under subsection (1). (3) The Opt-out Register operator may substitute a decision for a decision (the initial decision) made by the operation of a computer program under an arrangement under subsection (1) if the Opt-out Register operator is satisfied that the initial decision is incorrect. 62ZZT Dealing with complaints (1) The Opt-out Register rules may prescribe procedures that must be followed by the Opt-out Register operator in order to deal with complaints about the administration or operation of the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. (2) If: (a) a person has reason to believe that another person has contravened a provision of: (i) this Part; or (ii) the Opt-out Register rules; and (b) the person makes a complaint to the Opt-out Register operator about the matter; the Opt-out Register operator must refer the complaint to the ACMA. 62ZZU Application of the Privacy Act 1988 to the Opt-out Register operator For the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988, if the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register is kept by the Opt-out Register operator under a particular contract, each of the following: (a) the keeping of the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register by the Opt-out Register operator; (b) the operation of the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register by the Opt-out Register operator; (c) the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, by the Opt-out Register operator under: (i) this Part; or (ii) the Opt-out Register rules; is taken to be the provision of a service to the ACMA under the contract. 62ZZV Application of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to the Opt-out Register operator For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, if the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register is kept by the Opt-out Register operator under a particular contract, then: (a) the contract is taken to be a Commonwealth contract; and (b) each of the following is taken to be the provision of a service under the contract in connection with the performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of the ACMA: (i) the keeping or operation of that Register by the Opt-out Register operator; (ii) the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, by the Opt-out Register operator under this Part or the Opt-out Register rules. 62ZZW Implied freedom of political communication (1) This Part does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication. (2) Subsection (1) does not limit the application of section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to this Act. 62ZZX Opt-out Register rules (1) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, make rules (Opt-out Register rules) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Part to be prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules. (2) The Opt-out Register rules may make provision for or in relation to a matter by empowering the Opt-out Register operator to make decisions of an administrative character. (3) Before making Opt-out Register rules, the ACMA must consult the Minister. Part 7F — Collection of cost recovery levy 62ZZY Definitions In this Act: cost recovery late payment penalty has the meaning given by subsection 62ZZZA(2). cost recovery levy means levy imposed by the Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026. 62ZZZ When cost recovery levy is due and payable Cost recovery levy is due and payable at the time determined in accordance with the regulations. 62ZZZA Cost recovery late payment penalty (1) If an amount of cost recovery levy payable by a person remains unpaid after the time when it became due for payment, the person is liable to pay, by way of penalty, an amount calculated at the rate of: (a) 20% per annum; or (b) if the regulations specify a lower percentage—that lower percentage per annum; on the amount unpaid, calculated from the start of the day after that time occurred until the end of the day before the day when the amount of levy is paid in full. (2) Penalty payable under subsection (1) is to be known as cost recovery late payment penalty. Remission of cost recovery late payment penalty (3) The ACMA may remit the whole or a part of an amount of cost recovery late payment penalty. Review of decisions (4) Applications may be made to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review of a decision of the ACMA to refuse to remit the whole or a part of an amount under subsection (3). 62ZZZB Recovery of cost recovery levy and late payment penalty Cost recovery levy, or cost recovery late payment penalty: (a) is a debt due to the ACMA on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) may be recovered by the ACMA, on behalf of the Commonwealth, in: (i) the Federal Court; or (ii) the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2); or (iii) a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to the matter. 62ZZZC Refund of overpayment of cost recovery levy and late payment penalty If there is an overpayment of: (a) cost recovery levy; or (b) cost recovery late payment penalty; the overpayment is to be refunded by the ACMA on behalf of the Commonwealth. Part 2 — Consequential amendments Interactive Gambling Act 2001 2 Section 3 (at the end of the first dot point) Add: ; (i) wagering advertising content must not be provided by an online service content provider to an individual who is registered on the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. 3 Section 4 Insert: cost recovery late payment penalty has the meaning given by section 62ZZY. cost recovery levy has the meaning given by section 62ZZY. Opt-out Register rules has the meaning given by section 62ZZX. provider opt-out mechanism has the meaning given by paragraph 62S(1)(a). Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register means the register kept under section 62ZZD. 4 After paragraph 16(e) Insert: (g) Part 7E; 5 After subparagraph 21(1)(a)(v) Insert: or (vii) Part 7E; 6 Subparagraph 22A(1)(a)(i) Omit "Part 2, 2A, 2C, 7A or 7C", substitute "Part 2, 2A, 2C, 7A, or any of Parts 7C to 7F". 7 Paragraph 22A(2)(o) Omit "Part 2, 2A, 2C, 7A or 7C", substitute "Part 2, 2A, 2C, 7A, or any of Parts 7C to 7F". 8 At the end of paragraph 62H(d) Add ", whether through the provider opt-out mechanism or the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register". 9 At the end of subsection 62P(3) Add: ; and (d) confirming, at least every 14 days, or any other period prescribed by the Opt-out Register rules, that the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register does not contain the contact details of any person to or by whom wagering advertising content would otherwise be delivered, or accessed, on the online content service provided by the online content service provider. 10 Paragraph 62S(1)(a) Omit "effective and easily accessible means", substitute "effective, prominent and easily accessible means (the provider opt-out mechanism)". 11 Paragraph 62S(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) display, in a way that is prominent to individuals using the service, information on the online content service about: (i) the provider opt-out mechanism; and (ii) after the Opt-out Register proclaimed start day—the Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register. The coalition approaches gambling reform from a clear set of principles. We believe in personal choice and personal responsibility. Millions of Australians have an occasional punt without gambling harm, and government must respect their choices. But we also believe there must be strong protections for children and vulnerable Australians, as well as tough action to prevent predatory conduct. Seriously addressing gambling harm is an issue of strong conviction for many Australians. There is a middle ground, and that is what these amendments seek to deliver. The government's legislation, as it stood, was riddled with deficiencies. Labor opposed a Senate inquiry. The inquiry proved exactly why scrutiny matters. It exposed the weaknesses with Labor's legislation, issues which the coalition have been clear and consistent about, on predatory inducements, on ads being served to children, on sport online and on advertising of illegal gambling. The government hoped that the public wouldn't notice, but the coalition is not here to carve. The bill is far from perfect, and gambling is taking a terrible toll on many Australian families. The coalition is pleased the government has accepted substantial repairs to its legislation. These amendments ensure stronger protection against the direct marketing of inducements to vulnerable Australians. There is an obvious distinction between an adult choosing to place a bet and adult being actively pursued by someone who knows they are vulnerable to keep them gambling. These amendments are targeted protections directed at foreseeable harm. The amendments ensure stronger protections for children. Unbelievably, Labor's original bill left open the prospect of gambling advertisements continuing to be shown during programming watched by children. The amendments stop that happening. The amendments strengthen protections around live sport broadcasts online. Sport time is family time, and it made no sense for a family watching the same game to receive weaker protections simply because they streamed it through an app rather than watching it on broadcast television. The amendments ensure that illegal and unlicensed gambling, which is increasingly promoted to Australians through social media, is strongly addressed by imposing strict prohibitions on publishers. If a gambling service is not lawful, digital platforms must not be promoting advertisements for it. These significant commonsense amendments will help protect vulnerable consumers from foreseeable gambling harm while preserving a lawful industry and pastime for many Australians. I commend them to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Warringah on a point of order? Ms Steggall 175696 I am only seeking to raise a procedural concern, Mr Speaker. These amendments weren't circulated, and one copy has been able to be provided. So we have no capacity. They haven't been read onto the record and they've not been circulated. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand they are available. Ms Steggall 175696 Just now. They have only just been made available. They were not circulated prior to being tabled. I've been able to obtain one copy. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand they have been available here during this debate, and it was the same for the government amendments as well. I'm unaware of the process for— Ms Steggall 175696 They're to be read and explained if they're not circulated in advance. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. They are available here at the table, as is required under the standing orders. I understand they may not have been circulated before, but they were available here during the debate. Ms Steggall 175696 They have to be explained in full during the debate. The suggestion that a substantial number of amendments can be tabled and given first opportunity to see them now with a five-minute speech without any reading into the record as to the detail of these amendments is procedurally incredibly unfair. We have no visibility on what the effect of these amendments are and, after five minutes of speech, we are being asked to vote on them. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand that the shadow minister has detailed her explanation for the amendments that she is moving in her name on behalf of the opposition. The minister has done the same. So I'll put the question that the amendments moved by the opposition be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

96 AYES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Buchholz, S. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Campbell, J. P. Chaffey, J. L. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Penfold, A. L. Phillips, F. E. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Small, B. J. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Witty, S. J. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 9 NOES Chaney, K. E. Conaghan, P. J. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:12 The SPEAKER 53517 We shall move to the next opposition member amendments. I just advise the House, following on from the member for Warringah, the set of amendments were available and circulated by the member to the House at the first available opportunity. I wanted to advise the House that the member for Lindsay had followed the correct process. 13:13 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2), circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 89 (lines 4 to 8), omit the item. (2) Schedule 4, item 11, page 92 (line 9), omit subparagraph 8D(2)(a)(iii). These amendments do one simple thing: they reinstate the exemption for foreign-matched lotteries. If they're not agreed to, there are 50 people in my electorate whose jobs are about to disappear, not because they broke the law and not because their employer broke the law, but because this parliament is about to change the rules beneath them. Those 50 people work for the lottery office in Robina, in my electorate. I've spoken to the government. I've spoken to the minister. I've asked this House to reconsider. I'm standing here again because my job is to stand up for the people who sent me here. Behind schedule 4 are not just clauses and definitions; there are people. Rachel has worked at the lottery office for five years. She's a single mother of two school-aged children. Her income helps provide for her children and pay her mortgage. Losing her job, she says, would cause significant financial hardship. Cher has worked there for four years. She raised two children on her own. She fears that, because of her age, finding another job will be difficult, and she says that losing her job could mean she and her daughter have to leave the Gold Coast. Amanda relies on her job to support her young family and pay her mortgage. She says that losing it could mean her family has to sell or lose their home. She said, 'This is more than just a job. This is the very livelihood we rely on.' Next week, if this bill passes, I will have to go to Robina. I'll have to walk through the doors of the lottery office. I'll have to sit down with those 50 workers. I'll have to look them in the eye and I'll have to tell them that their parliament has decided that their jobs should no longer exist. I'll have to tell Rachel that the job that supports her family has gone. I'll have to tell Cher that parliament's decision could force her and her daughter to leave the Gold Coast. I'll have to tell Amanda that we have taken away the livelihood that her family relies upon. I ask this government: please don't make me have to make that decision and have to do that. These people did not break the law. They did not write this bill. They did not design the regulatory framework. They simply went to work, and now they're being asked to carry the consequences of a decision that was made here in Canberra. That is not fair. I support responsible gambling reform. I support strong consumer protections. But if there's a problem, regulate it. If there's a consumer protection gap, close it. If there's a compliance issue, enforce the rules. The government's own review said that the harms associated with foreign match lotteries were not well understood, that there was insufficient data to establish a different harm profile and that further research was needed. So I ask again: What changed? What new evidence emerged? Why should 50 Australians lose their jobs before those questions have been answered? These are not transient jobs. People have built careers there. One employee has worked there for 24 years, another for 21 years and another for 19 years. Kyra is 24 and in the final year of her design degree. Her job gives her financial independence while she studies and valuable professional experience as she builds her career. She says that, without stable employment, she does not know how she will manage her obligations or begin building a secure future. Steven has worked there for 13 years. He has two young children and a significant mortgage. He says jobs in his field are scarce on the Gold Coast and his family genuinely risks losing their home if he loses his income. This is what a decision made in this chamber looks like when it reaches an Australian family: a mother worrying about her mortgage, a father worrying about his children, a young person worrying about their future and a family wondering whether they will lose their home. That is why I'm asking the government to stop, put aside the politics, look at the people, look at the workers, look at the families and remove the prohibition. Do the evidence based work that your own department said was necessary, strengthen the regulation where it's needed, protect consumers where they need protection, but don't destroy 50 people's livelihoods first and ask questions later. I know the government has the numbers, and this may well be defeated, but without this amendment the bill isn't just gambling reform; it's a Labor protection job. Roger Cook, the Premier of WA, has asked Canberra to effectively kill off a legal Gold Coast competitor to shield WA's state owned lottery. The Prime Minister and the minister, through this legislation, are simply rolling over to support their Labor mates, so I make this appeal one final time directly to the minister. Next week I may have to walk into that workplace and tell 50 Australians that their parliament has taken away their jobs. That's not a job that the minister has to do; that's a job that the minister is forcing me to do. Give these people the chance to keep going to work, give their families the security of a job, and give this parliament the chance to get this decision right, because this is not about a line in a schedule; it's about 50 Australians, their families, their homes, their futures. I commend this amendment to the House. 13:18 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for his amendment. As I said in my second reading speech, we have significant concerns about the appropriateness of this model. When in government, the coalition also took action to ban what was then the principal form of access to foreign lotteries, and they did that in 2018. I also understand that, while the business that the member is concerned about does offer foreign lotteries, which will no longer be permitted, it also offers Australian lotteries, and those domestic lotteries will be unaffected by the changes that we are making. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for McPherson be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.

13:26 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I move amendments (1) to (39) on the sheet revised on 12 August 2026, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (lines 7 and 8), omit ", datacast, or included in online content, during live coverage of sporting events", substitute "or datacast during live coverage of sporting events". (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (lines 13 to 17), omit the paragraph beginning "Wagering advertising content must not be included in online content unless reasonable steps" in section 62A, substitute: Wagering advertising content must not be included in online content. (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (lines 25 and 26), omit "programs, channels and online services dedicated to racing", substitute "programs and channels dedicated to racing". (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 13 (line 11 to 15), omit the definition of account in section 62B. (6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 13 (lines 28 to 29), omit "channel, program or online content service", substitute "channel or program". (7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (line 11 to 13), omit the definition of online simulcast service in section 62B. (8) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (line 26), omit the definition of restricted user in section 62B. (9) Schedule 1, item 18, page 19 (line 7) to page 20 (line 26), omit section 62E, substitute: 62E Meaning of dedicated racing or wagering channels or programs Basic definition — dedicated racing channels etc. (1) For the purposes of this Part, a channel or program is taken to be dedicated to racing if the content provided on the channel or program wholly or principally relates to racing. Note: For the meaning of channel, program and racing, see section 62B. Dedicated racing channels etc. may be determined (2) If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a specified channel or program, or a specified kind of channel or program, is taken to be dedicatedto racing for the purposes of this Part. Racing channels etc. may be excluded (3)If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that: (a) a specified channel or program; or (b) a specified kind of channel or program; is taken not to be dedicatedto racing for the purposes of this Part. Basic definition — dedicated wagering channels etc. (4) For the purposes of this Part, a channel or program is taken to be dedicated to wagering if the content provided on the channel or program wholly or principally relates to wagering services. Note: For the meaning of wagering service, see section 4. Dedicated wagering channels etc. may be determined (5) If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a specified channel or program, or a specified kind of channel or program, is taken to be dedicatedto wagering for the purposes of this Part. Wagering channels etc. may be excluded (6)If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that: (a) a specified channel or program; or (b) a specified kind of channel or program; is taken not to be dedicatedto wagering for the purposes of this Part. ACMA may give advice (7) The ACMA may provide advice to the Minister on any matter relevant to a determination under subsection (2), (3), (5) or (6). (10) Schedule 1, item 18, page 21 (line 28) to page 22 (line 7), omit section 62H. (11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 31 (line 7) to page 32 (line 18), omit subsections 62P(2) to (6). (12) Schedule 1, item 18, page 32 (line 26) to page 33 (line 10), omit subsections 62P(8) and (9). (13) Schedule 1, item 18, page 33 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsections 62P(11) and (12). (14) Schedule 1, item 18, page 33 (line 22) to page 35 (line 26), omit section 62Q. (15) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (lines 2 and 3), omit "sections 62P and 62Q", substitute "section 62P". (16) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (lines 9 to 26), omit section 62S. (17) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (line 27) to page 40 (line 12), omit Division 4. (18) Schedule 1, item 18, page 41 (lines 22 to 26), omit paragraph 62W(2)(a), substitute: (a) wagering advertising content to be broadcast or datacast in Australia; and (19) Schedule 1, item 18, page 42 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph 62W(3)(b), substitute: (b) is or will be broadcast or datacast on a dedicated racing program or channel. (20) Schedule 1, item 18, page 42 (lines 13 to 14), omit "For when an online content service is dedicated to racing or wagering, see section 62E.". (21) Schedule 1, item 18, page 43 (lines 15 and 16), omit "broadcasting, datacasting or providing content on online content service", substitute "broadcasting or datacasting content". (22) Schedule 1, item 18, page 43 (lines 18 to 26), omit paragraphs 62Y(1)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia; and (b) the broadcast or datacast is in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event; and (23) Schedule 1, item 18, page 44 (lines 4 and 5), omit "broadcasting, datacasting or provision of content on online content service", substitute "broadcasting or datacasting of content". (24) Schedule 1, item 18, page 44 (lines 7 and 8), omit "broadcast, datacast or included in content provided on an online content service,", substitute "broadcast or datacast". (25) Schedule 1, item 18, page 44 (lines 14 and 15), omit "broadcasting, datacasting or providing content on online content service", substitute "broadcasting or datacasting content". (26) Schedule 1, item 18, page 44 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph 62Z(1)(a), substitute: (a) the person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia; and (27) Schedule 1, item 18, page 45 (lines 5 and 6), omit "broadcasting, datacasting or provision of content on online content service", substitute "broadcasting or datacasting of content". (28) Schedule 1, item 18, page 45 (lines 8 and 9), omit "broadcast, datacast or included in content provided on an online content service,", substitute "broadcast or datacast". (29) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraphs 64A(xj) and (xk). (30) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 15), omit paragraph 64A(xn). (31) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraphs 64C(1)(xj) and (xk). (32) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (line 13), omit paragraph 64C(1)(xn). (33) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraphs 64D(1)(xj) and (xk). (34) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (line 11), omit paragraph 64D(1)(xn). (35) Schedule 1, item 46, page 57 (line 26), omit "Divisions 3 and 4", substitute "Division 3". (36) Schedule 1, item 47, page 58 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item. (37) Page 73 (after line 23), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A — Reporting on revenue from gambling sources Interactive Gambling Act 2001 1 Before section 62 Insert: Division 1 — Enforcement 2 At the end of section 64A Add: ; or (y) subsection 64HB(2). 3 At the end of subsection 64C(1) (before the note) Add: ; (y) subsection 64HB(2). 4 At the end of subsection 64D(1) (before the note) Add: ; (y) subsection 64HB(2). 5 After section 64G Insert: Division 2 — Reporting on revenue from gambling sources 64H Definitions for this Division In this Division: annual turnover has the same meaning as the Corporations Act 2001. constitutional corporation means a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies. income year has the same meaning as in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. reporting entity has the meaning given by section 64HA. 64HA Reporting entities — sporting, cultural and recreational entities that are exempt from income tax For the purposes of this Division, an entity is a reporting entity if: (a) it is a constitutional corporation; and (b) it is an exempt entity (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) because it is covered by the table in section 50-45 of that Act (which covers entities whose activities are in the areas of sports, culture and recreation). Note: Exempt entities (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) are entities some or all of whose ordinary income or statutory income is exempt from income tax. 64HB Reporting obligations of reporting entities (1) This section applies to a reporting entity in relation to an income year (the reporting year) if the reporting entity's annual turnover for the income year is greater than $50 million. (2) The reporting entity must provide to the ACMA, within 6 months after the end of the reporting year, a written report setting out: (a) the total amount of revenue (including gifts or donations) received by the reporting entity from gambling sources during the year; and (b) any other information prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), revenue received by a reporting entity is revenue from a gambling source if: (a) it is revenue from the operation by the reporting entity of a gambling service; or (b) it is payment for advertising a gambling service (whether or not the payment is made by the provider of a gambling service); (c) it is revenue received from the provider of a gambling service, including but not limited to: (i) commissions or other fees; and (ii) gifts, donations or sponsorship; or (d) it is revenue prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph. 64HC ACMA must publish reports (1) If the ACMA receives a report from a reporting entity under section 64HB, the ACMA must publish the report on the ACMA's website as soon as is practicable. (2) The report must remain available on the ACMA's website for a period of not less than 5 years from the date on which it is first published on the website. 6 Before section 65 Insert: Division 3 — Other matters 7 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to income years starting on or after the commencement of this Part. (38) Schedule 5, item 3, page 93 (lines 27 to 29), omit subitem (3). (39) Schedule 5, item 7, page 95 (lines 12 to 15), omit subitem (1). Governments are meant to represent their communities and make decisions in their best interests. Today's collusion between Labor and the Liberals shows yet again that the major political parties in this country care more about the media interests, sporting codes and gambling companies than they do about their constituents. This cynical gamble, like most bets, will not pay off. The Murphy report called for a comprehensive prohibition of all advertising of online gambling products on social media and online platforms. We've waited for more than a thousand days for this half-hearted, friendless legislative response. It's a thousand days in which this country has lost over $100 billion and we've lost hundreds of lives. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 will allow wagering advertising content to remain online if reasonable steps are taken to exclude children and those who have opted out. The minister has offered us flimsy, feckless live sport and children's programming restrictions to online streaming. We know and the government knows that partial bans do not work, but the government doesn't care. The opt-out register announced yesterday acts only to shift responsibility from the gambling industry onto individuals: to parents and users. This government is still refusing to take responsibility for the problem itself. The Murphy inquiry heard heartbreaking evidence about the harms caused by gambling advertising. It's headline recommendation was a total and comprehensive ban. This bill doesn't deliver that, but my amendments (1) to (36) do. My further amendments draw attention to the extraordinary relationships between Australia's largest sporting organisations and the gambling industry. The AFL receives more than $40 million a year from betting agencies, and the NRL about $50 million, and these organisations alongside Cricket Australia, Racing Australia and other major sporting codes, pay zero tax on this income. They're tax exempt under section 50.45 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. That tax concession exists because sporting organisations operate for public benefit. But commercial dealings with predatory gambling companies are not public benefit, and Australians have no picture of how much gambling revenue these sporting organisations receive. My amendments (37) to (39) introduce reporting obligations for professional sporting organisations with a turnover over $50 million. They'll capture not only the AFL but AFL clubs as well, five of which are still sponsored by gambling companies. Those entities should be required to report annually on revenue that they derive from gambling sources. This will include gambling sponsorships, wagering partnerships, integrity agreements, gambling advertising, product and data fees, electronic gambling machines and other gambling related commercial arrangements. To enable transparency about the tens of millions— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 38 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Middle East 38 13:30 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Here are the words Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's minister for national security from yesterday: 'I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat—there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn't live. They're not even people.' How can a Labor politician hear this and still fail to recognise that a genocide is unfolding? Minister Wong has told us that it's difficult to judge from afar. Is this too difficult to judge? How can Labor hear an Israeli government minister make this statement and make the calculation that we will still sell weapons parts to Israel? How can the government see the civilian death toll, see the footage of children being starved and make the calculation that we maintain intelligence arrangements and diplomatic relations with Israel? This calculation—because that's what it is—is very revealing. It shows that Labor politicians ultimately are more loyal to their good standing with Israel and the US than they are to Australia's basic humanity, our belief in the fair go for everyone. There is no fair go in Gaza, and Labor doesn't care. EMILY's List Australia 39 13:31 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle This year marks the 30th anniversary of EMILY's List Australia, an extraordinary organisation that was founded on a simple but powerful belief: equality does not happen by accident. Today we celebrate three decades of raising money, mentoring and supporting progressive Labor women to get elected. When EMILY's LIST was first established in 1996, just 160 of the 800 elected representatives in Australia across all our parliaments were women. That was never going to be good enough for us. But, since its inception, EMILY's List has supported 651 Labor women, with 315 going on to serve in Australian parliaments. Behind those numbers are extraordinary women like Australia's first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, our first Aboriginal woman elected to the house, Linda Burney and the longest-serving woman in the Australian parliament, Tanya Plibersek. Today I particularly want to acknowledge the EMILY's List Australia founder Leonie Morgan. She joins us in the chamber today. It's important to always remember those women that came before us, and for decades she and women alongside her have driven EMILY's list. Today she and Anne Kennedy of Queensland continue to mentor and support women going forward. Thirty years on, we can proud of where we've come from, not just in representation but in women's influence in government. Women now make up a majority of the Labor caucus and the cabinet, and we put a gendered lens over every piece of legislation in this parliament. Tasmania: Gender and Sexual Orientation 39 13:33 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Recently, the federal government announced $8.1 million in project grants under the LGBTIQA+ Health Program. While increased funding to promote the health and wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ Australians is clearly welcome, missing from this round were any grants to projects based in my home state of Tasmania, which is mind-boggling when Tasmania has the highest rate of LGBTIQA+ mental health risk and suicide ideation in the country, high rates of housing and income insecurity and the most recent legacy of criminalisation. These factors alone should ensure Tasmania remains a priority not only based on equitable distribution but because the need is there. To add salt to the wound, this comes as the state government continues to scale back many vital community services to fund its stadium vanity project. Yes, I acknowledge that some national projects were funded in this grant round, but their per capita spend in Tasmania will be very little, and this leaves LGBTIQA+ Tasmanians at a disadvantage. Remember, these Tasmanians matter just as much as those on the mainland, and they shouldn't be overlooked and forgotten. So I call on the government to review the funding and to ensure that this and future rounds are instead truly national and support projects and people in every Australian state and territory. Werriwa Electorate: Soccer 39 13:35 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Soccer is a sport that brings the community together at local, state and country levels. There are over 20,000 players in south-west Sydney, and I thank all volunteers, coaches, managers and administrators, especially from southern districts, and the Macarthur Rams for their hard work. Southern District Raiders secured a historic win last week against A-League side Macarthur FC in the Hahn Australia Cup, in the round of 16. The Hahn Australia Cup is a national knockout competition that includes teams from association and state levels and the National Premier Leagues right through to the A-League. Over 700 clubs play in the feeder competitions run by the states and territories. The A-League club joined at the round of 32 alongside 22 clubs who progressed from the ranks of the semi-professional and amateur leagues. SD Raiders now advance and will play tonight in the quarterfinals for the first time in the club's history. The second great success of the Raiders for our community is the SD Raiders' women's team. They've successfully secured a monumental promotion to the top-tier NPL NSW women's competition for the 2027 season. I congratulate that team, SD Raiders and my friend Catherine Cannuli, head of football for the women's program, for her amazing dedication and work in building the club's foundations from the ground up. Good luck for tonight's game. Fraud 39 13:36 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield Your phone rings; the caller claims to be from the Chinese police force. Their number matches the official number online. They have official-looking documents to prove that you're guilty of fraud. They pass you between different callers, each person more 'official' and more intimidating. You panic, you get scared and you start complying with their demands. You hand over money. And then it all turns out to be fake. Authority scams like these led to $12 million being lost in 2025, and the ACCC received 1,294 reports, with a median loss of $55,000. Scammers use sophisticated techniques mimicking real-life authorities and fabricating documents. Put simply, they're very convincing. Bradfield is so multicultural. We're blessed to be home to people from China, India, Armenia, Korea, South Africa—so it's so disturbing to see scammers preying on our culturally and linguistically diverse communities like this. Scams are devastating. They exploit people's instincts to be trustful, and they weaponise people's vulnerabilities as non-first-language-English speakers—but they target everyone, no matter whether their English-speaking ability can learn to defend against scams—and it's why I'm holding an event on 27 August to upskill our diverse community. You'll be hearing from NSW Police and Services Australia and about real-life experiences from members of the Chinese community in Bradfield. Vietnam Veterans' Day 40 13:38 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Today is Vietnam Veterans' Day and the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, in which Australian soldiers showed great valour in holding out against incredible odds. Eighteen Australians died and 24 were wounded at Long Tan, in what was Australia's most costly engagement in the war. On this day, we honour and thank all of the Australians who served in Vietnam, something we failed to do as a nation when those service members returned to Australia. In the Makin electorate, a commemorative service was held this morning at Henderson Square in Montague Farm Estate in Pooraka, as it has been every year since 1993 when the Hon. Tim Fischer AC opened Henderson Square as a dedicated Vietnam veterans memorial site. Henderson Square was named after Warrant Officer Malcolm Henderson, who was fatally wounded in Phuoc Tuy Province, South Vietnam, in December of 1967. On the initiative of Fred Pritchard, who had served in Vietnam, the entire Montague Farm Estate is a living memorial to the war, with each of the 43 streets and several of the reserves in the estate named after one of the 58 South Australians who died in Vietnam. By the end of the war, 524 Australians had lost their lives due to their service in Vietnam. Today we honour them and the 60,000 Australians who served in Vietnam by dedicating 18 August each year to their service. Lest we forget. Housing 40 13:39 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Labor has a housing problem, and Australians are paying the price. Fewer houses are being built, rents are high and confidence in the market has crashed, particularly in my electorate of La Trobe, which is one of the fastest growing growth corridors in Australia. Government spending has increased, debt is approaching $1 trillion, and Australians are dealing with sustained pressure on their living standards and household budgets. Labor's budget forecasts that its tax changes will result in around 35,000 fewer homes being built. That's their own budget figures. Westpac mortgage applications have fallen by 20 per cent since Labor's May budget, a warning sign that buyers and investors are losing confidence. We're also hearing that first home buyers out there are very concerned about getting into the market, as they're seeing prices drop. What they don't want to do is to get into the market now and then have negative equity. You cannot fix a housing shortage by making housing investment less attractive and making it harder to build new homes. Under Labor, migration has been a huge issue. The coalition would cap net overseas migration each year at below the number of new homes completed—around 173,000. When it comes to migration and housing, Labor has made a complete mess of this, especially for new home buyers. Vietnam Veterans' Day 40 13:41 Mr NG 316052 Menzies Today is Vietnam Veterans' Day, when we reflect upon, pay tribute to and honour those who served in the Vietnam War. Today also marks the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan—60 years since Australian soldiers found themselves facing overwhelming odds in a rubber plantation in Long Tan and showed great valour and courage. Eighteen soldiers gave their lives—the most casualties of any engagement in the Vietnam War. Events such as today allow us to tell their story and ensure it is never lost to time. Sadly, at the time, many veterans returning from Vietnam were not given the respect they deserved. I'm glad that we can now honour them in a way that properly recognises the sacrifices they made for this country. Today in my community, Box Hill RSL is holding a commemoration service at Box Hill cenotaph to honour those who served and sacrificed. Earlier this year, Box Hill RSL opened a permanent exhibition of the Battle of Long Tan. I'd like to acknowledge John Haward, president of Box Hill RSL, for his service not just to our veteran community but to our wider community as well. I'd also like to acknowledge Doncaster RSL for holding a commemoration a few weeks ago, which I was honoured to attend. Thank you to President Derek Baskerville and Secretary Jane Baskerville for organising this touching ceremony. Thank you again to our Vietnam veterans and their families for your service and sacrifice for our nation. Lest we forget. Taxation 41 13:42 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It's been 98 days since Labor announced its cruel widows tax. It's been 98 days since they created this mess. It's been 98 days since they were warned. Labor were warned repeatedly about this horrific tax. It's been 98 days, and the Australian public is still waiting for Labor to fix this cruel mess. But while the government delays, the damage is happening to widows now. Banks and financial institutions are already making decisions based on this law. Every day Labor creates more uncertainty for more Australian families. But who can this tax hit? Who is affected the most? It's women—a woman who's just lost her husband, a woman who's going through a divorce, a woman who's trying to escape a violent relationship. At the very moment that Australians need certainty and compassion, Labor sends them a tax bill. This is why the coalition has introduced legislation to repeal the widows tax, and we've gained the support of the crossbenchers. The solution is simple: fix the harm first. Pass our bill. Repeal the widows tax. Prime Minister, you've had 98 days. This is no longer an oversight; this is a choice. It's a choice which is hurting Australians. Labor, stop the political games. Repeal the widows tax now. This is a cruel tax. Vietnam Veterans' Day 41 13:44 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Today is Vietnam Veterans' Day, the day when we honour the more than 60,000 Australians who served during the Vietnam War and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. My dad, John Gosling, served in Vietnam, and today I'm thinking of him, all his mates and all who served with them—in particular, Private Robert 'Jock' Buchan, whose name is on the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. This year also marks 60 years since the Battle of Long Tan. On 18 August 1966, Australian and New Zealand soldiers fought a fierce battle in the Long Tan rubber plantation. I've been there. It's a very sacred place, and I thank the Vietnamese government for respecting that place where 18 Australians were killed and 24 were wounded. In the Northern Territory, we remember Corporal Reg Hillier of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, who was 26 when he was killed in Vietnam. He was the only Territorian to lose his life in that war. We remember those who never came home, those who returned forever changed and the families who carried the burden of service alongside them. We honour our Vietnam veterans for their service and for everything they have contributed to our country in the decades since then. Lest we forget. Taxation 41 13:45 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls One has to wonder what those opposite were thinking when they drafted the budget. Did they draft it knowing what they were doing? Did they think about the consequences? Did they consider the impact on people already experiencing the loss of a partner, the end of a relationship or, worse, fleeing domestic violence? At best, the inclusion of a widows tax was unthinking and terrible policy. At worst, it was a calculated grab for cash from people at their most vulnerable. Right now, banks and financial institutions are already making decisions based on this law, and every day of delay is adding more uncertainty for the people who are already under enormous pressure. At a time when certainty, fairness and support is what they need, they get an unfair tax. The government's had 98 days to fix this. The coalition has put forward a bill to repeal the terrible widow tax, and parliament can fix it right now, if the government chooses to join us in what would be a refreshing common sense approach. It's time to repeal the widow tax but, in doing so, also maybe reflect on how something so ridiculous found its way into the budget in the first place. Vietnam Veterans' Day 41 13:47 Mr MONCRIEFF 316540 Hughes Today is Vietnam Veterans' Day. Today, 60 years ago, 105 soldiers from Delta Company, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment fought a ferocious battle against 2,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. For 3½ hours in a rubber plantation outside the village of Long Tan, these soldiers faced overwhelming odds in a fierce contest mired in mud, rain and shrapnel. In the battle, 17 Australians were killed in action and 25 were wounded. One of the wounded would later succumb to his afflictions. The Australian taskforce had established its base at nearby Nui Dat a few months prior. The Battle of Long Tan was the single deadliest operation since that point. The Vietnam War claimed the lives of 524 Australians. Around 3,000 Australians were physically wounded, and many more bear the deep psychological scars of service. Those Australians who served often returned home to a country that didn't always give them the hero's welcome that was given to their predecessors after the world wars. They often struggled with the adjustment to civilian life. Today is a day to reflect and commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who served between 1962 and 1975. I particularly want to acknowledge the significant work of RSL subbranches, such as the subbranches from Bundeena and Engadine to Ingleburn in my electorate of Hughes, supporting veteran communities by providing assistance, charity, friendship and commemorative services, including the service held in Engadine this morning. Today we honour all veterans who gave their lives or returned home ill or wounded. Lest we forget. Taxation 42 13:48 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook This budget is attacking what it means to be Australian. It's hollowing out our middle class. How is it doing that? If you haven't yet had the opportunity to get wealth or assets, you're kept down here. You're kept down here because you're paying higher income tax than anyone's ever paid, you're paying in some cases more than double the CGT you would have paid before, and you can no longer negatively gear. If you've already made your wealth, it's entrenched. You're grandfathered, you're protected. You've used the CGT discount. You are, unless you're a widow, a divorcee or someone fleeing domestic violence. If you're one of those people or you've recently divorced and you've spent 15 years building a modest investment for your retirement and you're trying to refinance it as part of a divorce—this is a real case going on right now. What happened to this woman? Her preapproval for this investment was withdrawn. Three lenders knocked her back, and suddenly she was being faced with selling an asset that she'd spent 15 years building. This isn't hypothetical. This is a woman right now in Australia because this government did not think through its budget. While they were busily hollowing out the middle class of Australia, creating a country of haves and have-nots, they didn't think about divorcees, widows or people fleeing domestic violence. We will fix this. Workplace Relations 42 13:50 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Fairness demands that our workplace laws keep pace with the way Australians actually work. Back home in Hasluck and across the country, people are earning a living through app based platforms and other forms of gig work. They deliver meals, they transport passengers and they provide essential services that we are all using every day. But, for too long, too many of these workers have faced uncertainty, with little bargaining power and inadequate protections when things go wrong—and they do. For 10 years, those opposite did nothing for these workers. I am proud of the Albanese Labor government's fair work reforms. Through our closing loophole laws, we have taken steps to ensure gig workers can access minimum standards and stronger protections against unfair treatment. On this side, the basic principle that new technology is not an excuse for a new form of exploitation is something we accept. Australian unions have been saying this for years. Every worker deserves dignity, respect and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The TWU has consistently advocated that workplace laws must respond to insecure work, unpredictable hours and the growing pressures facing workers in a changing, online economy. This is what these reforms are about. It's what the TWU has fought for, it's what people like my good friends Senators Glenn Sterle and Tony Sheldon in the other place have fought for, and it's what Labor will continue to deliver for working people. Taxation 42 13:51 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Coercive control is designed to convince a woman she has no choice. Government policy should never make that trap harder to escape. But, under Labor's tax changes, a woman leaving an abusive partner could be hit with a tax penalty just for separating their finances. That's Labor's tax on widows and divorcees. The Albanese government was warned about the harm this could cause, and 98 days later Australians are still waiting for Labor to fix it. Women escaping violence already face enormous financial barriers just to reach safety. The cost of leaving a violent relationship has risen 71 per cent in the past decade. Women are going through so much trying to leave their partner. It's costing over $7,000 for an escape. Seven thousand dollars does not buy a fresh start. It barely buys a shot at one. Labor's support for women leaving violent relationships falls more than $2,000 short. For many women who do leave, the financial damage follows them out the door. Seven in 10 women who flee leave behind property and assets. Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers says Labor is prepared to fast-track a fix. Being prepared to fix it is not good enough. Australians want a date. They want it done and they want it done now. When will Labor finally clean up the widows tax mess it created? No woman should escape her abuser only to find the Albanese government's taxes standing between her and safety. If the government won't fix it, the coalition will certainly step in and offer help, because that's what Australians want. Workplace Relations 42 13:53 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan What makes Australia Australia? One of the things is that waiters and waitresses don't have to live off tips, and that's the way that it should be for hospo workers. But has this been the case for food delivery drivers and Uber drivers? It hasn't. But you know what? The Labor Party changed that this week. It's fundamentally about whether these drivers had access to fair pay, whether they had access to minimum wage and whether they had access to basic protections or even accident insurance. We have done this. The question that I have for my caucus is: should gig workers have basic protections? Absolutely. Should gig workers have a proper wage? Absolutely. Should gig workers have access to accident insurance policies? Absolutely. Guess what? Now these drivers will have a fair wage, a minimum of $31 an hour. This is where I'll say, 'Did those opposite support these changes?' They did not. For basic protections for drivers, they said no. For a fair wage, they said no. To accident insurance, they said no. It's absolutely outrageous! The Labor Party is the party for workers. We will always back workers. Gig workers, all workers—we are the party for workers. We love workers. Vietnam Veterans' Day 43 13:55 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Today is Vietnam Veterans' Day. On this day 60 years ago, in a rubber plantation at Phuoc Tuy province in South Vietnam, 108 of our bravest diggers, showing the spirit of the Anzac—showing that great pride, that long line of khaki which stretches from Gallipoli to right now—took on somewhere in the order of 2½ thousand enemy. Eighteen of them fell with their faces to the foe. Our Australians were led by the late, great Harry Smith. You wouldn't think that the greatest battles in front of our veterans would be after they gave up their military uniform and after they re-entered civilian life, yet, sadly, in 2026 this is the case. What the government can do to rectify this is take away the shame— Mr McCORMACK 219646 There's no need to interject, Minister, when I am speaking about our veterans. Seriously! Our veterans deserve better from this government. But that is typical of this government, which has put an allied health cap on our veterans of $5,000, which doesn't enable our veterans to get the care they need—the psychological help, the physical help. It's on Labor's head that this is the case, and it should be rectified. It should be taken away, and Labor should do the right thing. Gambling 43 13:56 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley I firstly want to acknowledge and thank the many people and organisations across Dunkley and beyond who have advocated so strongly for gambling reform. Your determination has motivated me to keep pushing for meaningful action to reduce gambling harm. Gambling harm has a very real impact on individuals, families and communities across Dunkley and Australia. It is a public health challenge, and government has a responsibility to respond with coordinated, evidence based reform. Since my election in 2024, I have consistently raised the concerns of our community with government, including the Prime Minister and Minister for Communications. I have advocated for stronger restrictions on inducements, commissions and gambling advertising. Today, I welcome the government's 14 additional amendments to the gambling reform bill. These measures bring the total number of gambling harm initiatives implemented by this government to more than 30. The amendments include prohibiting direct marketing of inducements to people identified as at risk, banning commissions for referrals, restricting wagering advertising during children's programming, establishing a global advertising opt-out register and establishing a three-year review. These are the most significant gambling reforms by any federal government ever. Taxation 43 13:58 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume There will be no widows tax—not because Labor wanted it gone but because the coalition forced Labor to axe it. It's been 98 days since Labor announced its widows tax. For 98 days, the government has been warned about the harm it would cause, and they promised to fix it. For 98 days, Australians have been left waiting, and every day of delay has caused uncertainty for Australians who are facing the most difficult of circumstances. Yesterday I wrote to the PM and made our position crystal clear. We could not support the changes to the NDIS unless they axed the widows tax. He caved, cleaning up the mess of his treasurer, and, after 98 days of delay, a tax that should never have been introduced will be axed. Widows, divorcees and victims of domestic violence should not be forced to pay the financial penalty of a government that cannot control its spending. Widows, divorcees and victims of domestic violence shouldn't have to pay for Labor's incompetence, but that's what happens when you get a government that is addicted to spending. The widows tax is just one of a long list of toxic taxes. If Australians want them all axed, they need to axe this government. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 44 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Vietnam Veterans' Day 44 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—As we mark Vietnam Veterans' Day, we solemnly remember the 60,000 Australians who went to that war. Sixty years after the Battle of Long Tan, our bloodiest battle of the entire conflict, we honour all who fell and all who came home, including the many who struggled to free themselves of war's long shadow. As we do, we also acknowledge that it took us too long as a nation to come to terms with a fundamental truth: that we can disagree with the war without it ever diminishing the profound respect we feel for every single Australian who puts on our uniform and serves in our name. Our respect for the valour, camaraderie, integrity and character of our Vietnam War veterans is coupled with our recognition of the burden they have carried, as have so many of their families. To all who are still with us and in honour of the memories of those who are not, we say what we should have been saying from the very beginning. We honour you. We respect you. We thank you. Lest we forget. 14:01 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume on indulgence—South Vietnam, Phuoc Tuy province, 18 August 1966. D Company, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. A hundred men spread across three platoons. They enter a rubber plantation near the village of Long Tan at 3 pm. The Australians find themselves pinned down and outnumbered by well-armed, highly skilled enemies some 2,000 strong. They fight in a torrential downpour which hits the red earth and kicks up mud mist, reducing visibility. On the verge of being overrun, the Australians are saved by the guns of the New Zealand Artillery battery. And then, as ammunition runs low, two RAAF helicopters fly a daring mission in atrocious conditions and resupply D Company at the crucial moment. As the Viet Cong prepare for an all-in attack, hope appears on the horizon. Like a friendly cavalry coming over the hill, Australian armoured personnel carriers arrive carrying A Company. The enemy withdraws and the battle ends. At least 245 Viet Cong soldiers have been killed. The men of D Company have endured 3½ hours of hell against all odds—but not without cost. Seventeen Australians have fallen and 25 have been wounded. One would die of wounds just days later. The Battle of Long Tan reinforces the courage, the camaraderie and the composure that defines Anzacs in war, and it came to represent Australia's commitment to the Vietnam War. That's why every year on 18 August, this day, we commemorate Vietnam Veterans' Day. And today, on the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, we not only remember those who fought and fell in that fray; we also acknowledge the spirit, the suffering and the sacrifice of all of our Vietnam veterans. Between '62 and '73, some 60,000 Australians served in Vietnam, with 15,000 nashos, men's conscripted, who went to war without complaint and served as wholeheartedly as the regulars. The war saw 3,000 Australians wounded and 523 tragically killed, and, as we just heard from the Prime Minister, this country did take too long to recognise the sacrifice of our Vietnam veterans. To the war fighters, freedom fighters and heroes of Vietnam: on your day, Vietnam Veterans' Day, we remember you, we honour you, we thank you for your service, your suffering, your sacrifice. Lest we forget. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 44 14:04 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. After 98 days of denial and delay, the government has finally come to its senses. Because of pressure from the coalition, there will be no widow tax. Why did it take so long for the government to do the right thing? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer is warned. We're going to hear this. We're going to do it properly. The Leader of the Opposition is to do his question. People are going to interject, but I've got to hear the question. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question; I really do. We have had draft legislation on this measure out for weeks for consultation. Consultation was due to finish on Friday. We had, in that context, made it very clear that we would introduce legislation to deal with this issue. During the debate about the tax, those opposite complained about a lack of consultation up to this point. They've said that what we should have done was flag taxes before the budget, which would have, of course, like other tax measures that have an impact on the day that they're announced, meant that there was the potential— Mr Pasin interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Member for Barker! There's far too much interjection. Just as I asked for silence for the Leader of the Opposition, I'm asking for silence for the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 for windfall gains. What we were asked to do last night—and it took me a millisecond to say, 'Yes, we're up for that'—was to pass quicker our legislation that we had put out there for consultation. So I was more than happy to do that. The context here was the NDIS legislation that those opposite are going to vote for, to their credit. What it will do is make sure that the system is sustainable. They kicked that can down the road at a cost to the taxpayer because of a deal that they did in the Senate with the Greens. That is what occurred. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left, there's far too much noise. Workplace Relations 45 14:08 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering a better deal for gig workers, and why is this better than other approaches? 14:08 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Spence for that question and his many, many years of commitment in advocating for transport workers right around this country. This week we saw a historic outcome which has delivered a world-leading minimum standard for platform food delivery drivers enabled by the Albanese Labor government's workplace reforms. As of yesterday, tens of thousands of food delivery drivers will now have a minimum hourly pay and, for some, that will be a pay boost of up to 25 per cent. This outcome is a result of the Albanese government's world-leading workplace laws, which laid the foundation for gig workers to achieve a guaranteed minimum pay. Our government believes that these workers should not rely on tips to survive, and that's why, under our reforms, the Fair Work Commission has been able to determine a minimum pay and conditions for platform food delivery drivers. Starting this week, Fair Work's decision means that workers who deliver for services such as Uber Eats and DoorDash now have a minimum earning safety net of $31.30 an hour. These workers will now have critical protections such as accident insurance, dispute resolution processes and representation rights. Yesterday I met with some of these workers here in Parliament House alongside the Transport Workers' Union, who have fought tirelessly for these minimum standards. I met with Alexi who said she was getting paid as low as $15 an hour to rush on her bike from job to job on busy and unsafe roads just to make ends meet. Alexi said that these minimum standards mean she'll finally have certainty that she can pay the rent. I also met with food delivery driver Utsav, who sometimes works 80 hours a week just to make a living. He told me, 'There have been many times where I haven't been able to sleep because I worried about not earning a minimum wage, but that all changes now.' These minimum standards are a big step in delivering financial certainty for thousands of workers. It means food delivery workers like Alexi and Utsav will no longer have to trade flexibility for fair pay and safety. I'm asked about how this differs from other approaches, and, yes, it does. While our government took protecting these workers as a serious matter, the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation voted against these changes. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said that these laws were 'disastrous'. It is absolutely clear there's only one party on the side of Australian workers, and that's the Labor Party. (Time expired) Housing 45 14:11 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. The National Australia Bank has confirmed that Labor's toxic taxes will send rents soaring by 30 per cent. Will the Prime Minister guarantee rents will not go up by 30 per cent? 14:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Today NAB has clarified publicly, 'This was not a forecast, and it's important to note that we do not forecast rental yields.' I have a couple of points to make that those opposite seem to have missed. The budget made no changes for people who already negatively gear property, none whatsoever. Arrangements that were in place up to budget night remain grandfathered in, so how could it possibly be the case that you have this absurd justification? Going forward, of course, negative gearing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount can still be used for investment properties, on new builds, so that, when people are investing, they're not only investing in their future wealth and assets; they're investing in the future wealth and assets of the nation, and that is already making a difference. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Taylor 231027 On relevance, the question was on a very simple proposition that the National Australia Bank had put. It asked whether the Prime Minister was prepared to guarantee that rents won't go up by 30 per cent. The SPEAKER 53517 I think the difficulty with that point of order is that the Prime Minister directly dealt with that issue in— The SPEAKER 53517 Let me finish, Leader of the Opposition—that quote or comment that you moved. He dealt with that straightaway. He's got the remainder of his answer of one minute 45 seconds to remain directly relevant. He can't stray into other topics. His answer will have to remain directly relevant to the question he was asked. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about NAB, and I said exactly what NAB said today. I'm sure the Australian might clarify the position tomorrow. They might! But that is very clear from NAB, and you can't be clearer. There's a reason for that, of course. It's because the budget made no changes for people who already negatively gear property. And it's already making a difference. According to ABS data released on Friday last week, more investors are borrowing to build new homes than ever before. In the June quarter there was a 27 per cent increase in investor loans for new builds and a 20 per cent increase for construction loans—that is, more investors are borrowing for new builds and more new builds are being constructed by developers. That is happening, and that's precisely what the aim of the policy was. The aim of the policy was to assist with housing supply, because we know that housing supply is absolutely critical. The ultimate aspiration for any Australian is to own their own home, and backing that aspiration is what our reforms are about. Throughout all of this debate, I haven't heard one person—perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might be the one—who thinks that the housing system is working exactly right. None! It is a broken housing system that we inherited and we're fixing it to give young people a fair crack. (Time expired). Wages and Salaries 46 14:16 Ms JORDAN-BAIRD 316021 Gorton My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for working people, including those in the gig economy? Are there any alternative approaches that would undermine the wages and conditions of Australian workers? 14:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Gorton for her question. Yesterday, our world-leading protections for Australia's gig economy workers came into force—a source of great pride for those on this side of the House—delivering real change for thousands of working people. These are people who, by definition, don't have a lot of power in their workplaces. The people who are delivering food or delivering products to someone's door contribute to making life easier for Australians, but they don't have a great deal of industrial power. What it took was a government prepared to act on their behalf. Minimum standards and minimum wages—protecting the Australian way of a fair day's wage for a fair day's work—is something that Labor has fought for since 1891. The fact is that our economy has changed. There are great benefits for Australians in getting things delivered right to your door, and that flexibility is a good thing. But just because jobs and industries change and adapt, that doesn't mean that working people deserve less protection or lower wages, because, when change happens, it's up to us to shape it for the better. For too long, delivery drivers in the gig economy fell through the cracks—no fair pay, no sick leave, no basic protections—and that happened because of those loopholes. Put simply, at times, it not only wasn't fair; it was outright dangerous, because we know of examples of delivery drivers who've lost their lives because they're trying to get from A to B in 15 minutes for something that should take 25 or 30. Taking risks and literally losing their lives is what has occurred. That's why we passed this closing loopholes legislation—to make sure that every worker gets a fair go. Whilst we fought for and delivered that change, those opposite, the Liberals and the Nationals, did everything they could to stop it. They voted against the legislation. They argued against the decision. They said reforming the industry was just too complicated. They chose to ignore the problem, and then they argued against fairness. That is their playbook. Labor chooses a different path. We choose to act. We choose to back working people, and we choose to deliver real change. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 46 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 46 14:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Hon. David Janetzki MP, the Treasurer, Minister for Energy and Minister for Home Ownership in the Queensland parliament. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives of Youth Off The Streets, including CEO, Judy Barraclough; chairperson, Anne Fitzgerald; and ambassador, Tony Stewart, a former deputy speaker in the Legislative Assembly, as guests of the member for Blaxland. I see Graham Perrett, the former member for Moreton. Hopefully he'll stay for question time. I see members of the Mannum Lions Club from the member for Barker's electorate, including Barry Burdett OAM and Joy Burdett, Malcolm and Gloria Ramm and Brenton and Denise Forrest. Welcome to question time to you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Calare Electorate: Mitchell's Causeway 47 14:20 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Prime Minister. On 30 June I stood in this House and asked when we would see federal funding for more lanes over the closed Convict Bridge on the Great Western Highway and an ongoing business support package. Since that time, we've seen accidents, detours and road closures seemingly on a daily basis. In fact, I was at the Donnybrook Hotel just recently, and business is down by 60 per cent. Prime Minister, when will we see some federal funding for more lanes over the closed Convict Bridge and an ongoing business support package? 14:20 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Calare for his question and for his strong advocacy, together with the member for Macquarie. They have both been relentless in pursuing these issues. Of course, as the member for Macquarie is aware and I'm sure the member for Calare as well, we have had discussions with the NSW Government about these issues. I've raised it very directly with Premier Minns. Minister King, who I'll ask to respond further on this, has also been deeply involved with the local community in addressing these issues. 14:21 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thanks very much to the member for the question. I too acknowledge both your and the member for Macquarie's advocacy on this. I understand this has had a really huge impact on the businesses, and I, again, thank you for drawing the House's attention to that. I've been briefed regularly by New South Wales Minister Aitchison, as the NSW Government is managing the closure and the delivery of work. I can confirm that Minister Aitchinson has written directly to me seeking a Commonwealth funding contribution towards the project. We welcome the opportunity to partner with the NSW government, and I will have more to say very, very shortly. The NSW Government has announced they will enter into an alliance contract with Seymour Whyte to deliver a new and more durable crossing at Mitchell's Causeway. Construction on parts of that has already started, and the road is expected to reopen in the second quarter of next year. The NSW Government, I understand, on Friday announced an expanded package of support for local businesses affected by the closure, including increasing grants up to $25,000 for the most impacted businesses and expanding eligibility for assistance. I know they are acutely aware of the significance of the issue. These announcements are providing communities with some better certainty about what to expect in terms of the reopening. We do know that this is a very important issue for both of your electorates and the Blue Mountains community in particular, and we'll have more to say shortly. Labor Government 47 14:23 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change by helping people under pressure here and now while taking action to set Australia up for the future? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lingiari for her question and for her advocacy on behalf of that fantastic part of Australia in the Northern Territory. It was a pleasure to be with the member for Lingiari and the member for Solomon as well in the Tiwi Islands just a short time ago. We are dealing with the challenges that we face here and now and doing it in a way that sets Australia up for the future. This is how Labor governs—easing cost-of-living pressures, progressing real reform, delivering real change. That's what has driven our reforms to secure the National Disability Insurance Scheme for future generations. Making sure that the scheme is sustainable is absolutely essential for it to continue to have that life-changing impact for Australians who need it well into the future. That's why as well we're delivering the strongest ever reforms to tackle gambling harm, making it easier to switch off gambling ads online, breaking the connection between wagering and sport, minimising children's exposure to gambling ads and strengthening rules around inducements. I thank the parliament for coming together to deliver these reforms. People have engaged constructively right across the chamber, and that is a good thing. That is the way that the parliament should work. These important generational reforms are part of our broader agenda that is making a real difference. It is a fact that we still have today more fuel in Australia than we had on 28 February, when this crisis began with the war in the Middle East. That has been achieved by the government working with the private sector through the EFA reforms, and is an example of, with the announcement that we've made about a potential new fuel refinery and other measures as well on sustainable fuels, how we also deal with those longer term sustainability issues. Last week we hit the milestone of 500,000 cheaper home batteries installed. I was in the electorate of Mitchell last week—I was very pleased to be there—which is where, of course, most of these home batteries are going: in the outer suburbs and in the regions. In addition to the minimum standards and minimum wages for gig economy workers, we introduced our new legislation delivering wage justice for early childhood workers. And of course last week we found that the gender pay gap is at a new record low. This is what delivering real change looks like: helping people under pressure here and now while taking action to set Australia up for the future. Housing 48 14:26 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Housing. Yesterday, the minister said she was 'damn proud' of Labor's broken promises on capital gains tax and negative gearing. Is the minister damn proud of making millions of Australians pay more for rent? Ms Bell interjecting— A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Before the minister starts, the House is going to come to order. The member for Moncrieff was heard in silence when she asked her question. She started interjecting straightaway when she sat down, responding to ministers—I don't know who did it. Whoever's interjecting on this side—there's no point in pointing. I didn't hear; otherwise I would have warned that person as well. If everyone can just cool it, we'll hear from the minister. 14:26 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I really appreciate this question from the member for Moncrieff, because it's a broad one that allows me to go a little bit back to basics with the parliament about what's happened to housing in our country. We have got a housing crisis in our country that has been building for 40 years. This is a crisis today which is hurting literally millions of people who live in our country. We see that for renters, who are living with housing insecurity and rising rents in a way that should never be happening in a country like Australia. We see it for young people, who are desperate to get into their own home and who are doing all the right things in saving and working hard, yet watching that opportunity go further and further away from them. And, if we want to get to the absolutely worst aspect of this crisis, we see it everywhere in our streets of suburbs, where a rising number of Australians are literally without a roof over their head. Now, I have a pretty traditional view. We got into this parliament to solve the big problems facing our country, and there is not a single person behind me who looks at that situation and says, 'We're not going to do anything about that.' Speaker, I say this really clearly to you. This is a situation hurting millions of people. Those opposite are the only people in the country that cannot see we've got a broken housing market in this nation. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Parkes and the member for Page will cease interjecting. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I've talked to the parliament about some of the examples previously. We've had 400 per cent house price growth in this country in the last 25 years. Those opposite don't want to do anything about that. They just want to let that continue while we watch aspiration and ambition fade away for younger generations of Australians. We have got polling which shows us that 81 per cent of Gen Z— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The manager, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 The question was a little bit broad, but it was focused on rents, and we haven't heard rents mentioned once—not once. And I think it does— A government member interjecting— Mr Tehan 210911 No, I was being helpful by saying it was a little bit broad. But she can't mention the word 'rents', and it was about rents, because rents are going up. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager can be helpful by resuming his seat. Thank you. We don't need a lot of commentary with points of order, as the manager knows, but he's made his point. The Leader of the House on the point of order. Mr Burke DYW I'm not sure how much more I can add than what the manager gave up himself, but the first half of the question made everything from yesterday's question relevant by referring to yesterday's question. So that, of itself, completely broadens this out. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. The question contained 'yesterday the minister said', so that's going to be reflected in her answer. Speaker Wallace, on 24 November 2021, dealt with this issue, when the question was very open-ended; it talked about the Prime Minister's position. So we'll have to follow that example as well. I think everyone's been here long enough to realise that if you get a broad question there will be a fairly broad answer. But so far the minister is being directly relevant regarding what she was asked yesterday. She was asked about rents in terms of that question. So the manager's— The SPEAKER 53517 Leader of the Opposition, when I'm trying to deal with an issue, it is not helpful for you to continually to be interjecting on me— The SPEAKER 53517 as you're doing now. Don't interject while I'm speaking, because I'm trying to assist, just as the manager was, the running of the House. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Thank you so much, Speaker. I'd just say to those opposite that it helps, when you come to the dispatch box on questions like this, to have a leg to stand on. And I just remind those opposite that they had nine years in office. They did not raise Commonwealth Rent Assistance once in the time they were in office. They didn't do anything about rental standards. In fact, remember, they were so checked out of housing that for most of that nine years they didn't even have a Commonwealth housing minister. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Member for Page! Ms O'NEIL 140590 And I say very directly to the renters of this country: they have never fought for you for a single day that I've been in this parliament. We're addressing challenges in our housing market to help renters across this country get the thing they want most of all, and that is a real chance at homeownership. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm not happy with the level of interjection, particularly from the member for Page, who was yelling during that answer to the minister. You are now warned. If the member for Page interjects one more time, he will not remain here for question time and there will be consequences for his actions. Gambling Advertising 49 14:32 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government tackling gambling harms? And why is it important to strike a balanced package of reforms? 14:33 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Boothby for her question and for her conscientious leadership in this very complex policy area. Many times the Prime Minister or I have stood here and noted that no government has gone further to protect Australians from gambling harm, and today the government is pleased to note that we are going even further. That's because the Albanese Labor government is a government that listens and a government that delivers real change for Australians. As we have listened we have heard that for many Australians having a bet is a bit of fun, but for some it can become a trap from which they cannot escape. Many of us, in our electorate offices or in public, have heard that inducements can quickly turn toxic for someone when gambling is no longer just a bit of fun. Because of that, along with all my parliamentary colleagues here, I stood with delegates at our national conference to unanimously back more action to reduce the harm of inducements. Following productive discussions with the coalition today, both sides of the parliament have agreed to work together to bring additional amendments that make our reforms even stronger. The further amendments we have agreed to include banning inducements for 14 days after signing up with a gambling company, banning inducements on all red flag customers, banning inducements for three months after a person deregisters from BetStop, and banning commissions to staff or affiliates based on customer activity. Gambling companies know who to target to bet more. These amendments will require them to use that intelligence to identify and protect potentially vulnerable customers. On advertising, we will also be stepping up protections. We will enshrine current protections through the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice into law, and we will extend them to online streaming services. This means restrictions on gambling ads online will match those for broadcast, with the cap now starting at 5 am. The rules that are now in place for advertising during children's shows will also be enshrined in law. We will also extend the blackout of gambling ads before live sport from five to 15 minutes. Opposition members interjecting— Ms WELLS 264121 For services subject to the triple lock system, the opt-out choice must be displayed prominently so people can make an informed choice. We are also providing further choice for Australians by introducing a wagering advertising opt-out register, a single mechanism for people who choose not to see gambling ads to have it applied across all of their online services. This is a strong, comprehensive, balanced package, and I thank my colleagues, parliamentarians and stakeholders for their engagement throughout this process. These reforms will deliver real action to protect Australians from gambling harm whilst also ensuring we strike the right balance. I thank those who have walked with us to finalise this important, comprehensive package of reforms. I particularly thank the shadow communications minister in the other place, who has worked constructively with us. Politics often revolves around conflict, but days like these show us we can work together to deliver— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey has been interjecting too many times. For the House's benefit, I shall warn him as well. So the member for Page and the member for Casey are now on warnings. Housing 50 14:36 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Housing. On Labor's watch, median capital city rents have soared from $470 per week to $690 per week. Will the minister guarantee rents will not go up by 30 per cent because of Labor's toxic taxes? 14:37 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham With regard to the number that you've asserted there, I just point you in the direction of the PM's comments and the clarification from National Australia Bank today. Labor has a longstanding concern for Australian renters. Our passion for addressing the issues in Australia's housing market is really about them. This share of our population is in many ways bearing the brunt of 40 years of policy failures in housing. They're in a situation where they're insecure in many of their tenancies and rents are going up too fast and too frequently. Many of them live with that agonising experience of the thing they want most of all, which is homeownership, moving further and further away from them. That is why our government has the boldest and most comprehensive housing policy of a Commonwealth government in 70 years. What do renters of this country need? They need us to build more homes. They need help with Commonwealth rent assistance, which our government has lifted by 50 per cent, they need improved rental standards, which our prime minister has negotiated with every premier and territory leader, and they need a realistic pathway into homeownership. I might just really politely point out to the parliament that our government is doing all these things. Those opposite largely want to undo them all and create an unfair housing market for Australia's renters. Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 With regard to the impact of the tax changes on renters, the parliament is also very well versed in this. We talked about this in budget week. The Treasury has looked at the government's policy, and the advice is that there will be a negligible impact on rents. Why is that the case? You just heard it from the Prime Minister. I remind the parliament again that everyone who was a landlord on budget night continues to get access to negative gearing because of our decision to grandfather the arrangements. In fact, it goes broader than that. If you owned a property as at budget night, then you are able to continue to access these concessions. Our policies will also get more rental households out of the rental market and into homeownership—75,000 renters will get that opportunity—and we're also building more homes for renters. There's going to be a lot of politics about this debate. I think the fact that the Liberal Party of Australia is expecting us to believe that they care about renters is really telling us about the politics here. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. Order! Members on my left! The member for Parkes can leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Parkes then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 This continual, non-stop interjecting is just not acceptable for the House. There are norms that we all need to follow, and that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. The Manager of Opposition Business now has the call. Mr Tehan 210911 It goes to relevance. This was a much tighter question and it was asking about a guarantee: will you guarantee they won't go up by 30 per cent? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House on the point of order? Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the minister was comparing and contrasting briefly on the exact topic that was in the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, she is entitled to do some compare and contrast about the government's position, but that can't be the remainder of her answer, which I'm sure she will adhere to. She has 30 seconds, and she was asked a specific question, so I'll ask her to return to the question and be directly relevant. Ms O'NEIL 140590 There are going to be lots of political points made about the situation facing renters, and what I'd ask Australian renters to do is actually not listen to the politicians; listen to the people and organisations that exist only to protect the renters of this country. I want to read a quote for you from Everybody's Home. They say: Rents have been surging for years partly because investor tax breaks have been fuelling the housing crisis. The idea that we should be doing more of the same is an insult to the intelligence of renters across the country. (Time expired) National Disability Insurance Scheme 51 14:41 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. How is the Albanese Labor government securing the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Why is it important to protect the NDIS so that it will be there to support future generations of Australians? 14:41 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Speaker, I hope you don't mind me also giving a shout-out to my dad and fellow Vietnam veterans on this important day. Thank you to the member for Macarthur. He's an experienced paediatrician who I think knows more about childhood development and disability than anyone else in this building, and he knows that the NDIS is one of Australia's great modern reforms. In just 15 years it's gone from literally a dream of generations of activists to a cherished institution. It's transformed lives profoundly. It's made our country better and it's put Australia at the vanguard, with the NDIS genuinely the centrepiece of the most comprehensive suite of supports for people with disability you'll find anywhere on the planet. But it's grown too big, it's costing far too much, and it's become a soft target for shonks and crooks. For months now, I've said that this simply can't go on. More importantly, I've said that we simply can't afford for the NDIS to fail. I'm pleased to report that today the Senate will consider and, I'm confident, pass our plan to get the NDIS back on track and to set down the clearest possible path to a secure, sustainable future for the world's best disability insurance scheme. Now, I note this is hard reform, and I know it's causing anxiety in parts of the community, but it is essential, and I want to thank the many, many people who, through the inquiries and otherwise, have engaged in a frank and constructive way to make this bill the best possible version it can be. This House has already, with government support, passed 30 amendments to the bill, and today we'll be moving 33 additional amendments in the other place to clarify aspects of the package, to provide detail around the commitments we made from the start to ensure there were protections for participants with high support needs or who require 24/7 care, and to further tighten protections around fraud, integrity and inducements, which, frankly, have been too loose for far too long. I want to thank the shadow minister, the member for Lindsay, particularly for her engagement on those amendments around fraud and integrity, but more broadly for her firm but constructive approach to trying to reach a bipartisan position on these essential reforms. There will still be much to do even after this bill passes. This parliament should be deeply proud of everything the NDIS does every single day for hundreds of thousands of Australians, but these changes will ensure that it can provide that same security, dignity and support for decades to come. Veterans 51 14:44 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel. Yesterday, after repeated refusals, the minister finally agreed to meet with veterans over his cruel cap on their care. This morning, one of those veterans, former Air Force fighter jet pilot Dr Tim Nelson, spoke about the minister's behaviour in that meeting. He said: He walked into the room, refused to shake our hand, sat down with his arms crossed and rolled his eyes. Will the minister please apologise for disrespecting veterans by rolling his eyes at Australian heroes? 14:45 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for his question and I thank those veterans for meeting with me yesterday afternoon. I acknowledge that I got it wrong in not agreeing to meet with them last week when that initial request came in. I own that. I met with them and I heard them last night. When I came into that room and I met with them and they were sitting down, I said, 'Relax' and 'I want to hear what you want to tell me.' I was very clear about listening to them. I don't agree with the characterisation that you have just outlined. I shook the hands of those people who attended that meeting as we finished that meeting, to be clear, and I was grateful for the information that they imparted to me, given the diverse range of experience that they had both medically and as veterans. I take all of that feedback on board, as we will take on the feedback as part of our consultation process in making sure that this change to allied health services, which enables better payment and higher payments to providers so that there's better access for veterans, operates with no gap in care. As I said to them last night and as I've said to every veteran group that I've met with after this announcement, it has always been the government's intention to make sure there is no gap in service provision where it's clinically required, and we want to make sure that we get that right. I also said to them—and I've said this many times—that I understand there is a distrust of the DVA's capacity to deliver that. I get that. I stood at this dispatch box in one of the first speeches I gave as minister to apologise for the failures of DVA in the past, and we've been fixing that and making that better. We are not trying to make things worse. We want to make sure that, with a different approach but with no gap in service provision, we deliver a change that makes allied healthcare access easier for veterans. I was very happy to hear their thoughts on that, and we ask all veterans and service providers to engage in that consultation process to make sure that we get it right and to improve that standard of care for our veterans. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Riverina on a point of order? Mr McCormack 219646 I seek leave to table a transcript of a press conference this morning with the version of events from the veterans who outlined what they felt was disrespect in that meeting with the minister. Leave granted. Superannuation 52 14:47 Mr SOON 298618 Banks My question is to the Treasurer. Why and how is the Albanese government strengthening universal superannuation, and how does this compare to other approaches? 14:47 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Banks not just for his question but for his unwavering support for Australia's world-leading superannuation system. That's the difference in this parliament, because this side of the House is delivering real change to boost wages, cut taxes and boost retirement incomes by strengthening the superannuation system. Those opposite don't support the superannuation system as it stands, and that's because they don't support Australian workers. The thing that they have in common, whether they're Liberals, Nationals or One Nation, is that they don't support super, because they don't support workers. This side of the House, in delivering that real change, recognises the fundamental and essential role played by universal superannuation—especially preservation—when it comes to economic security and decent retirement incomes for millions of Australian workers. That's why we boosted the super guarantee to 12 per cent, why we're paying super on paid parental leave, why we're paying super on payday and why we legislated the objective of super. I think one of the most important things we've done in increasing the low-income super tax offset is boosting the superannuation and retirement incomes of 1.3 million Australian workers on the lowest incomes. And the reason I finish there is because when this parliament was given the opportunity to boost super for low-income workers in this country, those opposite voted against it. They voted for less super for more than a million Australian workers, and that's because they've got form when it comes to coming after workers, coming after wages, voting against tax cuts for Australian workers and undermining the superannuation that workers need and deserve in this country. Now, ever since the mid-1990s, when the current National President of the Liberal Party, a fellow by the name of Tony Abbott, described superannuation as a con job, that has been the prevailing view in the Liberal Party, the National Party and now One Nation as well. And that's why the next election will be a referendum on the superannuation system—on whether workers in this country can continue to benefit from universal superannuation with preservation at its core or whether we will see the end of four decades of super being an essential part of the retirement incomes of Australian workers, taking the pressure off the pension. The battle lines are drawn over superannuation. This side of the House is not just defending super from those opposite but strengthening it where we can to give the workers of this country the retirement incomes and the economic security that they need and deserve. Sport 52 14:51 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Sport and Minister for Communications. Much of Australia's regional sporting infrastructure is community owned, outdated and not fit for purpose. Given the gambling industry's enormous profits from sports betting, would the government consider legislating for gambling companies to finance a community benefit round to deliver much-needed sporting infrastructure in the regions? 14:51 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Mayo for her question. The federal sports ministry delivers just over $500 million worth of sport funding to various programs, grassroots through to high performance, across the country. Usually we work hand in hand with the minister for infrastructure through thriving suburbs or regional funding, where regional sport infrastructure is required. And I also work closely with our state sport ministers, who usually have carriage of both sport and sport infrastructure funding through, for example, the Queensland Gambling Community Benefits Fund to make sure that the priority projects across federal and state levels are funded appropriately. The $200 million Play Our Way program, which the Albanese government pioneered last term, was the most significant; in fact, it was double the amount of funding that had ever been provided to regional sporting community infrastructure. I note and agree with you that we had fivefold the number of requests that came in for the pot of money that we were able to give out within budget constraints. So let me agree with you that there is demand there. It's really important for social cohesion. We as governments, both state and federal, use sport as a mechanism to help lots of other policy areas, be it social cohesion through to things in the regions, and I will always continue to advocate for more funding to do great things in sport, from grassroots through to high performance. So stay tuned, because this will always be under consideration as we go through the usual budget processes. Superannuation 53 14:53 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change with a fairer, more equitable and more sustainable superannuation system for Australian workers? And are there any risks to this approach? 14:53 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I thank the member for Gellibrand for his question, and I acknowledge his time throughout his time in this place championing superannuation and supporting measures that will strengthen Labor's big reforms in that area. The Albanese Labor government is delivering real change to ensure that Australia's superannuation system is fairer, more equitable, more sustainable and works for the people it was designed to serve. We have boosted the Low Income Super Tax Offset to support low-income workers. These changes will benefit 1.3 million Australians. This benefits all workers with incomes between $28,000 and $45,000, with an average increase in the LISTO payment of $410. Those workers could receive a potential benefit at retirement of around $15,000, depending on their individual income over their career. These are real benefits. We have better targeted superannuation concessions to improve the sustainability of the system while preserving concessions that benefit millions of Australians. We are also closing loopholes to ensure superannuation serves its intended purpose and that the law does not work against victims-survivors. No perpetrator of family violence should benefit from their victim's superannuation death benefits. That is why this government has committed to reforms to prevent perpetrators accessing those benefits. Again, these are real reforms that will strengthen the system. Earlier this year, we legislated the survivors law to close a loophole that enabled convicted perpetrators of child sexual abuse to shield their assets in super. These are important reforms that strengthen the integrity of and confidence in the super system. But our work continues. Tomorrow, I will announce further reforms to strengthen consumer protections for Australians' retirement savings. These measures will improve protections for members and help ensure the super system delivers for those who really need it. Taken together, these reforms reflect a simple principle that superannuation should reward work, support retirement, protect the vulnerable and operate in the interests of members. In contrast, the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation have made it abundantly clear they don't support universal superannuation. Some of those opposite half-heartedly say they support it, but the shadow treasurer says it's idiocy and Senator Bragg says it's the worst decision since Federation. Well, if super has friends like that, who needs enemies? On this side of the House, we know that Australians work hard, they play by the rules and they deserve a fair go in retirement. Whether it's supporting low-income earners, better targeting tax concessions or closing loopholes, the Albanese Labor government are strengthening superannuation at every stage because we believe that, if Australians work hard, play by the rules and save for their future, they deserve the dignity, security and independence that comes with a good retirement. Veterans 54 14:56 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert To the veterans here today, I see you. My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Earlier this year, the minister had to be dragged kicking and screaming to restore funding to Doug and Kaye Baird, the parents of slain Victoria Cross recipient Cameron Baird, VC, MG. Yesterday, the minister had to be dragged kicking and screaming to meet with veterans about his cruel cuts to their allied health care. Will you now do the right thing, Minister, and scrap the $5,000 allied health cap? 14:57 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for his question, and I really look forward to him and members of the opposition, the veteran community, the allied health professional community and ex-service organisations engaging in the consultation around how we can ensure better access to allied health care. At the moment, we have a situation where people accessing allied health care have to continually go back for further referrals, and we want to make sure that we make that easier for our veterans. We also want to make sure that there continue to be practitioners across the allied health environment who will service our veterans, because we've continually had the complaint that the fees that we are paying to them have not been sufficient for them to keep servicing our veteran community. So we've been looking to address that as part of our measure. Mr Thompson 281826 Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being directly relevant to the question. He was talking about the issue that he was directly asked about. It's going to be difficult to raise a point of order when he's explaining his position on the question he was asked about. Member for Herbert? Mr Thompson 281826 Speaker, it is a point of order on relevance because he was talking about times to see allied health, not about a cap. The cap's the problem. It's not the same— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. As I said, I can compel the minister to be directly relevant. He was asked about a range of things before you got to the question about meeting veterans and the allied healthcare arrangements. So there was quite a bit in this question that he's entitled to be directly relevant to. He is being directly relevant. Mr KEOGH 249147 The government announced changes to allied health care in an effort to improve access to allied health care by ensuring that we are attracting more allied health professionals into providing those services to support our veterans. That means changing from a system of continual, regular referrals and GP visits to a $5,000 threshold. There'll be an alternative process for approval for all those veterans that have a clinical need that may be above that, recognising that the overwhelming majority of our veteran community go nowhere near that amount of use of allied health care. It also allows us to make sure that we're improving the nature of treatment and care for our veteran community. We've been clear about the way in which that process will operate for the smaller number of veterans who may use over that because they may have complex needs. We recognise that and we're engaging with them. We will be releasing a discussion paper shortly to fulfil that consultation process, engaging directly with veterans. I look forward to the shadow minister's feedback as well as that of veterans, our ESOs and our practitioners. Women's Economic Security 54 15:00 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australian women and families? What are the risks to this? 15:00 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank our whip, the member for Lalor, for her fantastic question. In her electorate, more than 2,600 parents benefited from paid parental leave just last year. On this side, we've always been for women being paid more when they're working and caring for their families and paid more in superannuation when they retire too. Of course, those opposite share a very different position. On this side, we back higher wages—we've got the lowest gender pay gap in Australian history—and we back women's retirement incomes. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M On retirement, we back the low-income super tax offset, we back payday super for earlier, more frequent employer contributions and, in the last year, we have been paying superannuation on paid parental leave. That has made an absolutely huge difference to women's retirement incomes. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M In the first year of paying super on paid parental leave, around 200,000 people have benefited. There's an estimated $285½ million extra in their superannuation because of that. A woman with a median superannuation balance will be around $5,400 better off in retirement because of this. A lot of people have more than one child. Let's take an example; let's call her Charlee-Sue. She has two children, when she's 30 and 33. Because of our changes to paid parental leave, when she retires, she will have an estimated $10,400 more in her superannuation. That's because of that change that we have made. On this side, we want people, mums in particular, to have more in their super. On that side, they're determined that people will get less superannuation. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Those opposite say that workers are lazy, that they should be paid less, that they should be easier to sack— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Goldstein has interjected nine times during this answer alone. This continual, non-stop interjecting during every answer is unacceptable. You'll leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). Don't act surprised if you're going to continually interject all throughout question time. The member for Goldstein then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I give people a fair go, but you cannot just continue to interject non-stop. It's not fair to the person answering the question, to the person asking the question or to anyone else in the chamber. The minister in continuation. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Those opposite keep saying people should be able to take more out of their super. Well, if someone aged 30 takes 20 grand out of their super, they're $93,000 worse off in retirement. That's their plan. Don't forget that, when they were last in government, the now deputy leader of the Liberal Party—whatever her title is—said people should take money out of their super to escape domestic violence. That was their proposal when they were last in government. We've made the leaving violence payment permanent and legislated 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. That's what we've done to help people who are leaving a violent situation. Those opposite say they should be using their superannuation to leave domestic violence. We back higher super; they're for cutting it. (Time expired) Aged Care 55 15:04 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. Last night, on Four Corners, Professor Kathy Eagar described the algorithm which determines home-care packages as fundamentally flawed and argued that the government should ditch it and start over. People regularly approach me with concerns about access to home care, and now people are concerned that the assessment tool is just wrong. Will the government establish a mandatory automated-decision-making framework, including human oversight, as recommended by the robodebt royal commission, to improve public confidence and trust? 15:05 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I thank the member for her question. I will firstly address some of those issues that she's raised around the integrated assessment tool. The integrated assessment tool is part of the single assessment system, which was a key recommendation of the royal commission. This is about delivering a system that is efficient, accurate and fair so that, no matter where in Australia someone lives or who does their assessment, they are always treated equitably. The IAT standardises the way that older Australians are assigned funding and a priority level for support at home through a classification system and a prioritisation system. It was developed using data from 20,000 assessments across diverse demographics and refined with direct input from our outstanding assessment workforce before going live. It supports assessors to make and record their subjective clinical judgement about the older person and their circumstances. The aged-care rules are then applied objectively and equally to those clinical inputs to determine the outcomes in a fair and consistent way. Now, this government has always said that we'd watch very closely as these reforms roll out. The royal commission found that the former government's priority was the minimum commitment that it could get away with, but ours is guided by the rights of older Australians and their ongoing lived experience of the system. That's why last month I announced our government's plan to establish a new legislated escalation pathway so that outcomes of the aged-care integrated assessment tool can be changed in extenuating circumstances. In the small number of cases where a person's complex circumstances are not fully captured by the assessment tool— Mr Chester IPZ You are delusional. The SPEAKER 53517 The leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr RAE 300122 under the new pathway, their assessment can be escalated to the system governor and adjusted, if necessary, so they get appropriate care. The SPEAKER 53517 The leader of the Nationals is going to cease with those interjections. Mr RAE 300122 Our escalation pathway will be the practical, responsible protection the system needs without compromising the care of older people. This change is in addition to the change we made earlier this year to amend the prioritisation systems queue rate in order to reduce the wait times of a person assessed as high priority from just over two months on average to just over one month and for our changes to ensure people with MND are automatically treated as urgent. Minister Butler and I have also directed the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to undertake a rapid review of the Support at Home prioritisation mechanism to make sure that the right people are being fast-tracked for the care that is desperately needed. While this work is occurring, importantly, the median wait time from request to completion of these assessments is consistently under one month. We promised older Australians that we would rebuild the aged-care system that we inherited in tatters, and that's exactly what our government is focused on doing. Avian Influenza 56 15:08 Ms URQUHART 231199 Braddon My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government working with state and territory governments and with industry in order to support the response to the detection of H5 bird flu in Australia? 15:08 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I do want to thank our fabulous member for Braddon. I know that the member for Braddon has been closely following the H5 bird flu outbreak, and she now obviously has some detections in her electorate—quite a number in Tasmania. I do want to reassure the House and the public that our response has been swift and coordinated, and that's because of the early investments that we made—the $113 million to making sure we are as prepared as we possibly can be and our response capability on the ground with the states and territories is what it should be. I'm pleased to update the house that the vaccine rollout that I announced last week is progressing as guided by an agreed national approach and the technical advice of the experts, with states and territories identifying the priority species for vaccination. Over the weekend, the New South Wales government has announced priority species identified for potential vaccinations in New South Wales. They include little penguins and regent honeyeaters. This builds on the announcements last week from the Western Australian government about its vaccination trial of threatened cockatoos at the Perth Zoo, including the Carnaby's, the Baudin's and the forest red-tailed black cockatoos. The Tasmanian government has indicated that it will prioritise the vaccination of the orange bellied parrots. And I'm pleased to give the House an update today that the Victorian government has now commenced the vaccination of little penguins at Phillip Island and will then do St Kilda. As I have said, the vaccinations are one part of Australia's bird flu response, but strong biosecurity remains our strongest line of defence. The technical advice that our government has received is that, as bird flu becomes more widespread in the wildlife, counting individual confirmed birds no longer gives us the clearest picture of where the disease is spreading. That's why our reporting of the bird flu detections has now evolved from individual cases to focus on H5 events. Over the weekend, our government launched a new national reporting dashboard on birdflu.gov.au. This dashboard collates the data provided by the states and territories. It shows where the disease is spreading, which species are affected and the number of events in each area. This allows people on the ground to easily understand and see where bird flu is in Australia. I can report that there have now been over 250 events in Australia of the H5 bird flu, and Australians can be assured that our government will continue to update the public as regularly as we can as things change. I want to again thank the Australian public for reporting sick birds. I can advise that we've now had over 22,000 calls to the national hotline. I want to reiterate that there remains no detection of bird flu in the poultry or agricultural systems and that the risk to human health remains low. If you see sick or dead birds, please do not touch them. Avoid contact, record what you see and go to birdflu.gov.au. 15:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I want to thank the minister for the extraordinary job that she's doing on this and thank the opposition because this is a bipartisan issue. This is a real challenge for our nation and for those people out there, whether they be farmers or people in the general public who are making these reports. This is truly a moment where the national interest is coming to the fore, and we are doing extraordinarily well under what are difficult circumstances. 15:12 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland on indulgence—I want to thank the Prime Minister for his kind words but also the minister, in particular, for last week organising a briefing for all members of parliament. Members and senators who attended were able to receive some up-to-date information which helped them pass on information to their constituents. There was one aspect of the briefing last week which I know the minister has taken on board. Many Australians are very passionate about our native wildlife, and the trauma associated with seeing these dead birds is an issue that we as a parliament are going to need to be cognisant of in the weeks and months ahead. It is traumatic for a lot of people who love the wildlife in their own communities, and we'll be doing everything we can to make sure we minimise the impact on Australians. In relation to our agricultural sector, I again agree with the minister that there is no reason for Australians to have any concerns about consuming Australian poultry and eggs. The agricultural sector and local authorities are working diligently to make sure we minimise the risk of any bird flu reaching the agricultural sector. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Presentation 57 15:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 57 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Privatisation 57 15:13 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ryan proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need to acknowledge that Australians are paying the price of privatisation, that privatisation has delivered nothing but pain for Australians through privatised profits, higher costs, and worse services, and that essential public services must return to public ownership. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:14 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I propose this MPI today because Australians are being ripped off, and we're in this mess because of decades of bipartisan agreement between Labor and the coalition on handing our essential services over to private corporations. Who else thinks that private energy retailers are pointless middlemen—scam artists, even, or ticket clippers? Origin, AGL, Alinta, Energy Australia—we have more than 40 electricity retailers in Australia, but they're all selling the same energy from the same grid. Private retailers are ripping us off, thanks to Labor's and the LNP's privatisation of electricity retail in the early 2000s. Since then, the real price of electricity bills has more than doubled. In the Queensland LNP government's latest budget they were spruiking cheaper power bills due to a lower default market offer. The problem: if you're in south-east Queensland, you've been forced to use private retailers who have not passed on the lower prices and instead hiked their fees. Only regional Queenslanders are guaranteed a price decrease, because they are serviced by government owned Ergon Energy. The Queensland government decided to send Origin, one of the retailers that has hiked their changes, a letter asking them kindly to stop hiking their fees. But guess what? They can only ask nicely; they have absolutely no power to force them—because we privatised electricity retail, remember? In 2024 AGL made $755 in profit per customer per year for household electricity. Origin made around $600 in profit per customer per year. That's you, the consumers, paying not for the electricity you use but instead paying the price of privatisation. What an absurd system, where we have these for-profit middlemen between often publicly owned electricity generation and the customer, who just wants cheaper electricity bills. Essential services like electricity should be in public hands. You get high bills, poor service, outsourced call centres, and outages, and the CEOs get enormous pay packages. The Optus CEO is on more than $3 million a year. Telstra's CEO took home $6.8 million last year, an 11 per cent pay rise, despite scandals. The privatisation of telecommunications has been an absolute disaster for everyday Australians. We have retailers using the exact same infrastructure, just with different branding. Telstra and Optus both make billions each year in profit but cannot provide basic services properly. Optus doesn't even pay any tax. Across both networks, coverage is really poor, even in areas of my electorate less than 20 kays from the Brisbane CBD, in suburbs like Kenmore and Moggill. Telstra and Optus are among the least trusted companies in Australia—for good reason. Then there's the NBN—same nonsense. NBN is publicly owned, apparently. So why are there dozens of different internet providers who don't do anything but take advantage of you, rip you off, with different fake deals? The market means you have a choice. You get to choose between dozens of middlemen offering the same thing and creaming huge profits off the top. This might be starting to sound like an 'old woman yells at cloud' moment, but seriously: what kind of system is this? It's great for the CEOs but terrible for the rest of us. Its' time for essential services to be returned to public hands. And don't let politicians sell you fake solutions—a little bit of regulation here, a little subsidy there, a little tweak. It's all nonsense. It's all designed to distract and confuse, to make you feel like nothing can really be done, while companies still rake it in; they keep making record profits. But the solution is staring us in the face. We have to end 40 years of privatisation and corporate rule. For decades now we've had two major parties giving corporations a free ride. They sold off banking, energy, telecommunications, air travel, pharmaceuticals, public housing and employment services. They set up schemes where private corporations get cushy government contracts and charge the taxpayer exorbitant sums for subsidies rather than do the jobs themselves. And now we're all paying. This country has got to get real about ending this scam. We've got to get real about bringing essential services back into public hands and putting everyday people back in control. 15:19 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Labor believes in public services. Labor is the party that created Medicare. Labor is the party that expanded Medicare to deliver some 137 new Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia. It was Labor that legislated to ensure that the NBN stays in public hands. It was Labor that ensured that we have superannuation for all working Australians. It's in living memory of many in this place when it was just public servants and a few fortunate people in the private sector who had superannuation. Labor democratised it, and we made it available for everyone. We believe in serving the public, we believe in public services and we believe in Australia's public service. I will note that I've got a lot of colleagues here who dedicated themselves to delivering services to the Australian public prior to coming into this parliament. The member for Maribyrnong fought for wages for public servants at Royal Perth Hospital in my electorate. The member for Banks served as a public servant and diplomat, serving Australia overseas. The member for Sturt recognised that there are some things that non-government organisations do better. She served on the board of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, something that is rightly owned by the community at large but strongly supported through government funding. The member for Deakin did one of the most important jobs of all—and I know that the minister who's at the table here will agree with this—serving the public as a schoolteacher. I don't agree with the Greens that we should nationalise everything. I don't agree with that. I believe that parents should have choice of where they send their kids to school. I believe that people should have the choice of an industry super fund. I also remember the time not that long ago when the Greens party in Western Australia tried to set up their own bank. It wasn't a particularly good bank that the Greens party in Western Australia tried to run. They sent an email out to all of their party members saying, 'Lend us some money—and we'll pay you interest on that money—so we can fund our election campaign.' The problem was that the Greens party did not have a banking licence. It was sketchy as to whether they were complying with electoral rules. When the member said, in her short speech on her own MPI: … don't let politicians sell you fake solutions … she missed out a single word. Don't let Greens politicians sell you fake solutions. I've always been sceptical about a party that says it campaigns for housing and then comes into this place and votes against it time and time again. I reflected on that when I visited Perth Hub in my electorate, a Housing Australia Future Fund funded project. It was a project that was public investment in public housing, something that this side of the chamber championed. Those in the Greens party—and there were more in the Greens party who used to oppose this—opposed these houses being built, so it is a bit rich to have a lecture about public services from the Greens party that indeed opposed housing in my own electorate. That's not all. The member opposite did speak extensively about energy policy. I'll remind the member there's another grid in this country, the south-west integrated system. I proudly campaigned alongside my friends Mark McGowan and Roger Cook to make sure that we did not privatise Western Power, something that the Liberal Party had proposed. Again, Labor has a very proud history not just when it comes to protecting essential public assets. We also have a proud history of expanding them. But too often in this place we are fighting a fight where we have to ensure against those cuts and those attacks on public services that those particularly on the Liberal and National parts of the broader crossbench often propose. We remember the 900 cuts that the coalition proposed to Medicare. We remember they set up a Medicare privatisation taskforce. Again, I'll remind the member that was the coalition, not the Labor government. We remember the $170 million of taxpayer money that was pumped into the coalition's privatised cashless debit card, the stealth privatisation of the vocational education and training system, and attempts to outsource visa processing and privatise the visa system. We know that they wanted to privatise the NBN, and we proudly, in this government, passed legislation to stop that from happening. It's not just in those big, government owned enterprises but also in what we're doing in terms of reform to the Public Service. I draw the member's attention to the Australian Public Service Strategic Commissioning Framework. This was a complex piece of work that we did when we first came to government to look at, from a cost-benefit perspective, how we make sure that we don't have excessive outsourcing in the Public Service. That's now been in place for more than three years, and it has saved millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money and, at the same time, given better jobs to those who work in our Public Service. I draw the member's attention to Budget Paper No. 4. Let's start at page 6. Page 6 will tell you, when it comes to that strategic commissioning framework 2024-25, agencies have brought more than $542 million of core work back in house. That was work that, under those opposite, was outsourced to the private sector. It's now being done by Australian public servants because we believe that the core work of the Public Service should be done by the Public Service, but we've got runs on the board to prove that we've done something about it. In terms of the projections for the coming year, we expect another $438 million of work to be brought back in house again. Maybe it's not the most exciting, but it's realistic, it's achievable, and this government is doing it. I want to pay huge tribute to Senator Gallagher, who's led that work across the government, going agency by agency to make sure that we can bring more of that work back in house. Similarly, in the department I'm very honoured to assist the Prime Minister in, we have Australian Government Consulting, recognising that actually we don't have to be outsourcing all of this consulting work to a range of consultancy and accounting firms. The Public Service can do a lot of this stuff themselves. We just have to choose to do it, and this government chose to do it. We chose to set up Australian Government Consulting, and they have now delivered more than 40 projects and some 16 agencies across the public service, with a client satisfaction rate of 90 per cent. I don't think you'd find many people that, if they've outsourced to private consultants, have a satisfaction rate of 90 per cent. Maybe some would get that. They've done really important work in terms of making improvements in the trade and investment environment for Australian businesses, assisting with our household batteries program, something where this government is helping individuals have a little bit more say over their energy security by rolling out more than 500,000 community batteries. We anticipate that, when at full-scale, Australian Government Consulting will be able to deliver across the Public Service some 160 projects a year. We're really proud of that work. Similarly, we're proud of the investments we've made in Australia's Public Service to make sure that Australians get the services they deserve. We put out, through Services Australia, some $260 billion of payments a year. Some 27.5 million Australians rely on Services Australia through Medicare. What we knew is we didn't have quite enough public servants doing that core work of public service, so we put more people in there to make sure we could get better services to the Australian people. Here are the results for the member where we've chosen to invest. Aged-care customer claims used to take 51 days, but, because we invested in public services and public servants, it's now down to just 14 days. That's people getting payments faster. We saw, when it came to paid parental leave, it was taking up to a month, 31 days, for people to get their paid parental leave claims. Now it's taking just six days because our government has chosen to invest in public services. We've also ensured that we can get our disaster recovery payments out faster, which, in the last financial year, affected some 735,000 people. I'd refer all honourable members to read all of the budget papers, but particularly that—about how the benefits of our investments have helped the Australian public get the public services they rightly deserve. It's always a risk in this place when you say something like, 'Don't let politicians sell you fake solutions,' and I'd say to the Greens party, when it comes to fake solutions, if you want to set the bar a little higher for politics in the future, maybe don't preference One Nation in Western Australia. The Greens party at the last election had a real challenge. They couldn't bring themselves to put One Nation last in Bullwinkel. Even in Fremantle, the Greens party chose not to put One Nation last. I think we can set higher standards than that, and I encourage the member to show some leadership in her— (Time expired) 15:29 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Perth for giving us some prescribed bedtime reading and pointing out that the honourable member who proposed this MPI spoke for only a short period—and that's because that is the way we do it over on the crossbench; we share our opportunities to speak. So I thank her for that opportunity. Nationwide we rely on essential services such as health, utilities, banking and post in our day-to-day lives. They're not luxuries, but they allow us to live safely and they allow us to live with dignity. Unfortunately, the government doesn't always see these services as essential in the same way that I do and that rural and regional Australians do. Delivering essential services in regional Australia is more complex—it is—and more expensive than it is in major cities, and it requires different solutions. Populations are more dispersed. Services obviously must cover larger distances, often on poorly funded roads with poor telecommunications and no public transport. Too often, when funding and service delivery decisions are based on population or based on profits—because they have been put into the private sector—regional Australians miss out, time and time again. That burden falls hardest on older residents, on young families, on people with low incomes, on small businesses, on anyone for whom distance is truly a daily barrier. Over recent decades Australia has embraced privatisation, and successive governments sold public utilities and corporatised key government services. It was wonderful to hear about the electricity services in WA—a great example; if only it wasn't exclusive to WA. Successive governments sold government enterprises to private markets, and they sold these decisions to us with claims of betterment: 'We're all going to be better off.' They claimed that competition would drive efficiency, improve quality and reduce costs. Well, many of us have been sold a pup on that one. These market based models work best—if they work at all—where there's the population density to support competition, and in regional Australia these conditions rarely exist. For years, regional communities have watched services retreat. The NDIS, aged care and child care are dominated by private providers, but waitlists are long, if you can find a provider at all. It's the classic thin market problem. Post offices have closed, bank branches have completely disappeared in many communities, and it's hard to wind back the clock. But government has a responsibility to step in where markets fail, because some services, whether publicly or privately owned and operated, are simply too important to be treated as optional, as a 'nice to have'. Services like banking and post are essential to the functioning of regional communities. They just are—whether it's a small business sending and receiving goods, a country footy club handling match-day takings or an older person who is not confident doing banking online. This is a matter of necessity. It's a matter of human rights and equity, not a matter of convenience. Hundreds of towns that once had a bank now have none, and one third of regional bank branches closed in recent years. In my electorate, in places like Eildon and Taggerty, business owners are making 90-minute trips for routine banking. That means time away from their customers and time away from their employees. It's an absolute drain on their productivity. It's an additional cost at a time when rising costs are of paramount concern to all Australians. That's why I'm so disappointed by the government's response to the 2024 inquiry into regional banking closures. It's one of the many things that reinforces the failures and the perceptions—the reality actually, because it's not a perception; it's a reality—that regional Australians are being left behind. After allowing the report to sit on the shelf for two years, the government failed to accept a key recommendation to recognise financial services as—guess what?—an essential service. This sends the wrong message that access to banking is optional, when it should be guaranteed. A better response would be seriously considering the inquiry's recommendation for a regional community banking branch program. A community banking model has already proven its value in communities like Beechworth, Bright, Mount Beauty and Mansfield in my electorate, which have branches in which local people have ownership stakes, and profits are reinvested back into the community. These models are not private, not public; they demonstrate that commercial activity and community benefit go hand in hand. These are essential services: post offices, banks, health. 15:34 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong Before entering this place, I worked closely with those in sectors and services that had been outsourced, where contracting companies were competing in a race to the bottom on wages and conditions. I fought alongside these workers—school cleaners and security guards—to help raise the standards and bring about the reversal of this outsourcing, to bring about the insourcing of these essential services. Let's be clear about what privatisation can look like and those who are directly affected by it. There were school cleaning contracts in New South Wales under the former Liberal government there, where work plans gave one cleaner 10 minutes to clean 36 toilets. That's 17 seconds a toilet. The part I would ask this House to sit with is not that a company agreed to do it—of course they did—but that it was a Liberal government who allowed it to happen. This is an example of outsourcing where not just the work went out the door but the duty of care went with it. One of the cleaners working under these contracts was a single mum who was doing 14 classrooms and six toilets on her own. She was putting in an unpaid hour every time because it was the only way to finish the job. When you write a price that low, you've already decided who is going to absorb it. But whilst the member seeks to—I would argue—overpoliticise this issue, I'm proud to be a member of a government who has never been shy about public ownership. We legislated to keep the NBN in public hands when those opposite voted against it. We are building public early learning centres in the places the market has never bothered to go. This is not the only way a government takes responsibility for these workers or services. The trouble with a motion that treats it as the only way is that it fails to recognise the role of good, responsible governments who act where we must and who partner when it is good to do so. I'm proud to be a member of a government that recognises when to invest more in the public service, when to invest in the public good and when to partner with the private sector for community benefit. We should be clear that our government wants businesses to succeed and to succeed by competing fairly, innovating and delivering something worth buying, not by abusing market power and not by exploiting Australians. A company that wins a public contract by costing a toilet at 17 seconds to clean has not innovated anything; it has found someone they can underpay and has been rewarded for it. There are areas where government has to lead, and there are areas where partnership with business can deliver real results. But partnership is not who you hire; it is what you require of them and what you are still answerable for after you have signed. Good governments do not withdraw from their responsibilities, and Labor has never withdrawn from ours, whether it be here in Canberra or across the country. And look at what is being delivered. In my community, aged-care workers have had the value of their work recognised, and this government has paid for it. Wage theft is now a crime because we made it so. Where Labor governments across the country have taken work back inhouse, cleaners have gone on long service leave that they never had in their working lives been entitled to. Those are wage cases, public building, a law that did not exist until we made it so and work taken back inhouse across the country. People doing this work can't afford to wait for purity politics. Governments, businesses and workers each have a part to play. That is our position, and I would only add that the third one is the part that keeps getting left out of the sentence. In every contract I have described today, the worker was the part that was costed down. Our job is to set the rules, to protect the people relying on the service and to invest where the market will not. This government has done all three, and we've not let businesses off the hook—not at the check-out and not at the school gate. 15:39 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Essential services must serve the public first. Private involvement should only occur where there are clear public-interest tests, transparent KPIs, enforceable obligations and real accountability. Too often, governments have treated essential services as commercial transactions and assets and then see opportunities to sell off these assets to improve their bottom lines rather than focusing on the long-term public responsibility to ensure that they are there. Communities then pay the price through poorer services, less transparency and decisions driven by private return rather than public need, and the lesson is clear. Essential services and public assets must not be sold, outsourced or contracted away without clear and lasting public benefit and public interest tests. Whilst I hear the member for Indi around the serious concerns and impact in regional Australia around essential services, it happens everywhere. Clear examples in Warringah we have under this government include the live issue of the proposed partial divestment of HMAS Penguin, a Defence asset, public land held on trust by Defence for the Australian people, not to be sold off to improve this government's bottom line. I don't support the partial divestment of this site. It continues to deliver critical Navy capability, including clearance diver training and underwater medicine. The community deserves transparency about what is proposed, what capabilities may be moved and what the true cost benefit assessment shows. HMAS Penguin is a public asset for public benefit. That means protecting the Angophora bushland, retaining public ownership wherever possible and, if existing buildings are released, prioritising genuine social affordable housing, not luxury apartments. I've lodged Freedom of Information requests seeking that detail, but it's being objected to. The government cannot speak about rebuilding institutional trust while withholding environmental and cultural impact assessments under national security interest grounds. Worse still, they don't even look like they're undertaking such assessments until after the divestment of public land is announced. Another example is the Northern Beaches Hospital. Northern Beaches Hospital was a project of the former New South Wales Liberal government's public-private agreement and completely failed to deliver the integrated, high-quality public healthcare our community was promised. For years patients, families and staff raised serious concerns about safety, standards, integration with the broader health system and working conditions, and this tragically had devastating consequences for some families. The New South Wales Auditor-General confirmed that many of the concerns and the commercial imperatives should never have come ahead of patient safety, clinical outcomes or staff wellbeing. That's why the move to return the Northern Beaches Hospital to public ownership was so important. I acknowledge the strong advocacy of my independent colleagues at state government, Michael Regan, the member for Wakehurst, and Jacqui Scruby, the member for Pittwater, and the many community members who shared their difficult experiences. Public healthcare must be publicly accountable. Safe, high-quality healthcare should be designed around patients and staff, not around a private contract. Finally, transport—our bus service again was privatised. We see the same problem there in Warringah. The privatisation of the Northern Beaches bus network has not delivered the reliable service our community needs. It's not about unfairly blaming individual operators or drivers. Keolis Downer is dealing with real workforce pressures including driver shortages, but this is an essential service. Public transport has been contracted out, and now we have a question around that accountability. The NSW Government must be accountable for that outcome. Our community has dealt with cancelled services, unreliable timetables, road congestions, ageing infrastructure and limited public transport options for too long. We need more services, transport and drivers and a serious long-term plan to address the transport issues of the Northern Beaches. That includes workforce solutions to recruit and retain bus drivers and investment in road and public transport infrastructure, including upgrades identified through the Northern Beaches Network Review. Now that's a whole other topic when you think of all the tunnels and the transport infrastructure that's occurring in the Sydney area which is all privatised and is causing major issues. I've written to the minister for immigration in this place to request a dedicated specialist visa pathway designed specifically for bus drivers to help fill some of the workforce shortages so we can have some semblance of public transport on the lower North Shore where we have no rail transport. Public transport is an essential infrastructure, and the public interest should be coming first. The common thread is accountability. There has to be accountability and public interest, and they have to be put first where there is privatisation. 15:44 Mr SOON 298618 Banks The member for Ryan has put forward this discussion about privatisation and how to protect the interests of Australian consumers, and it is an important issue. The success of Australia's economy has never come from government alone. As a modern advanced economy, we rely on the contributions from the private sector, government and our workforce to create outcomes. Neither governments nor the private sector can do everything alone. Even the father of classical economics, Adam Smith, recognised that there are several areas where it is inappropriate for control to be held by an individual or private interest, including infrastructure, education, justice and defence, amongst others. At a fundamental level, the issue with many privatisation pushes is that they run contrary to the expectations of the majority of Australians about which services governments across the three levels ought to provide. It is important to recognise that privatisation should not be driven by an ideological fervour. When government pursues small government for small government's sake, it creates an environment where public interest is more likely to be lost. We can observe this most clearly in some overseas jurisdictions. In parts of the UK, for example, the supply of water is almost entirely privatised, with government having the power to set overarching standards. This, unfortunately, has led to higher prices, consolidation and devastating environmental outcomes, with up to 83 per cent of English rivers showing evidence of pollution as a result of sewage and agricultural run-off. There are also examples here at home. The privatisation of the Victorian state Electricity Commission in the 1990s led to higher prices for consumers and job losses that severely affected regional communities. The privatisation of ports in New South Wales has raised concerns about market power and protecting Australia's national interests. Good governments do not obfuscate their responsibilities. Governments must work across the public and private sector to create new investment and new opportunities and to build a more productive economy that benefits everyone. We also need to recognise that there are things that government can learn from the private sector, but this does not mean that government lets the private sector have free rein. One of the pitfalls of some privatisations is that instead of creating competition it entrenches monopolistic conditions in the marketplace. We want businesses to succeed, but we want them to do this by competing fairly, innovating, delivering for consumers and treating workers fairly and without abusing market power or exploiting communities. Australians act responsibly and with integrity, and they expect big business to do the same. This government is doing the hard work to ensure that big business is not let off the hook for anti-competitive behaviour or breaches of public trust. This Labor government has worked hard to strengthen competition laws with new legislation to protect shoppers against price gouging at the supermarket as well as cracking down on unfair trading practices, increasing penalties for misconduct and introducing the Scams Prevention Framework. When we talk about privatisations and the role of the private sector in service delivery, we also need to recognise that, too often, the justification for privatisation and outsourcing is created by cuts and neglect, driven over long periods of time, to our public services. When this Labor government came into office in 2022, we inherited a Public Service that had been hollowed out by a decade of outsourcing, cuts and underinvestment. It left key parts of our Public Service under-resourced, with a reduced capability, leading to longer wait times and poorer outcomes for Australians. This government is making sure that we have a strong Public Service that is capable of delivering the public services we need while also recognising that we need to work across the economy to create growth opportunities and an economy that is more productive for everyone. 15:49 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I want to take us back to the nineties, one of my favourite decades. Back in 1997, the Reserve Bank of Australia reported that increasing privatisation of the public sector was surpassing overseas trends. We had one of the larger privatisation programs in the OECD. What we saw in that decade and the decade that followed was that, whether it was financial services, electricity, gas, transport or communication, all of them were privatised. They were government, they were Australian, they were national assets, and we privatised them, and we did that for a quick hit to the bottom line, to make it look like we were not in so much debt. But, ultimately, we've paid a bigger price for it since. I'm talking about Telstra, Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, our state banks, our insurance offices and our airports. Our airports are privately owned. Everything has been sold off. In South Australia, we had the Electricity Trust of South Australia. If you needed a new connection, it was pretty reasonable to do; it was seen as a service delivered. Now it's all about profit. The ETSA sale has been criticised by South Australians for many, many years because, after the privatisation, we saw high consumer prices, a loss of public revenue and, importantly, a loss of service delivery—so much so that, if you live in the regions, it's near impossible to get an electricity connection now. You try and work out some sort of convoluted way of having solar panels and this and that, and we just don't deliver those services that we used to. Now I'd like to talk about employment services. When many of us in this place were young, we still had the CES; we had the Commonwealth Employment Service. Now—and successive governments have done this—we've put tender out to tender to ensure that employment services would fail. Ultimately, if you are a person who is long-term unemployed, your ability to connect into the employment market is very diminished. Why? That's because it's largely run now by—and the contracts are awarded to—for-profit companies. I think an American company had the biggest share in the last tender. What happens is that those companies are there to make a profit. They're not really there to service the individual or to service the community; they are there to make profit, and they're not ashamed to say that that's what they're there to do. What happens is that the individual misses out. So if you are a long-term unemployed person, the amount of service and support that you get to help you find a job, intensively working with you, is just not there, because they'll cherry-pick the people who are easiest to get in, the ones that they can very quickly get their return on investment on—because that's what it's all about. It's all about return on investment. It's not about delivering services for people. Again, if I go back to the nineties and I think of the South Australian government back then, they were the largest employer of apprentices. They had refrigeration apprentices. They had carpenters. They put so many young people through apprenticeships. And we wonder now why we don't have enough people doing apprenticeships. It's because we've largely, as a state, offshored that and sent that over to the private sector, saying: 'Well, you can train the young people, not us. We as a state government will not do that.' And so we have seen a massive drop in ability for the public, for example in public works. No matter what it is, it's diminished us all. All we've done is an immediate sugar hit to the budget, but we have paid for this decision for decades to come. I truly believe in that, when you are delivering services to vulnerable people, whether in disability, aged care, people looking for work or prisons. I think the Northern Territory is organising to build a private prison; that's their next prison plan. Ultimately, the most vulnerable individual misses out. It's not good public policy when you're dealing with vulnerable people; services should be delivered by the state. 15:54 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt The private sector is the engine room of our economy, and it supports the inclusive and sustainable productivity growth that is at the heart of our national agenda. It operates by promoting economic growth through investments, knowledge transfer and innovation. Without the private sector, new markets are not created, competition is not fostered and investments in critical national projects, perhaps through private equity or venture capital, are not made. Further, data sourced from the World Bank tells us that the private sector is the source of nearly 90 per cent of the world's jobs. This means direct employment, the provision of finance to many industrial sectors and geographic regions, acting to boost living standards and improve the availability and quality of goods and services, such as housing, infrastructure, health and education, often through public-private partnerships that allow for risk sharing so governments and the Australian taxpayer do not have to shoulder all of the financial and operational risk. This risk-sharing approach is particularly relevant when it comes to critical infrastructure. Equally, with its capacity to invest, innovate and commercialise, the private sector contributes environmentally friendly technologies which are valuable in the face of climate change and the transition to clean, renewable energy. This can positively impact many critical development goals, such as food security, health and water. Finally, the sector is also a reliable source of revenue for government operations through its contributions to taxes and royalties and its contribution to communities and social issues. Australians care about whether we are creating secure jobs, building the industries of the future and ensuring essential services deliver for the communities that rely on them. That's why I don't accept the proposition that the answer to every challenge is simply more public ownership and less private investment. Australia's success has never been built on government alone or the private sector alone. It has been built on partnership. Government, of course, has a critical role to play. We invest in essential services. We build infrastructure. We support education, research and skills development. We provide the strategic leadership that helps Australia prepare for the future. But we also recognise that innovation, entrepreneurship and investment are often driven by businesses willing to take risks, develop new technologies and create new industries. So the question is not whether something is public or private; the question is whether it delivers outcomes that benefit Australians. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the defence and low-carbon liquid fuels industries. We can see that approach at work in my home state of South Australia. Firstly, private company HAMR Energy is making a substantial $800 million investment in a drop-in sustainable aviation fuel facility, supported by conditional funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. When successful, it will establish Australia's first large-scale methanol-to-jet sustainable aviation fuel refinery, helping strengthen fuel security, support regional forestry industries, create jobs and reduce emissions from aviation. The lesson here is not that government should own the refinery, and it's not that government should simply step aside. The lesson is that government can help unlock investment, share risk and create the conditions for private capital to deliver public benefit. That is a practical, outcome focused approach. We see the same principle in our growing defence industry. Anduril, the private developer of the incredible Ghost Shark capability, made a substantial investment into this product and into commercialising it for the Australian market. This has resulted in a clear execution of speed to capability of critical deterrence and surveillance equipment for the benefit of the security of the Australian people. The role of government is not necessarily to own this company. The role of government is to be an active partner, supporting research, developing skills, providing procurement pathways and giving innovative Australian industries the confidence to invest and grow by rewarding risk with contractual certainty. 15:59 Ms LE 295676 Fowler We've heard members mention in this House, for instance, NBN. As of June 2025, NBN's co-audit accounts show net liabilities of $4,309 million. They basically owe more than they own. The parliament has spent about $50 billion of taxpayers' money to buy it back and to rebuild it. Telstra went from a public telecommunications provider to a fully privatised company. The Commonwealth Bank was sold in three tranches and fully privatised by 1996. Across the states, electricity networks, gas pipelines and major ports were sold or leased. In New South Wales, families pay tolls on motorways that used to be part of the public road network. Every one of those sales came with the same promise: more competition, more efficiency and cheaper and better services for the public. But when I talk to my constituents in Fowler they don't talk about cheaper energy or transport. They talk about power bills that keep going up. They talk about paying tolls just to get to work or take the kids to school. They talk about struggling with large telecommunications and banking corporations when something goes wrong, feeling like a number in a queue rather than a customer with rights. A constituent in Liverpool wrote to me recently. He lives alone in his own home, managing ongoing health challenges. He has almost no mobile phone reception in that home. He cannot reliably call his family, he cannot reliably ring his doctor and, if something goes wrong in the middle of the night, he cannot reliably call for an ambulance. This is not a remote area; this is Liverpool in the heart of south-west Sydney, in one of the fastest growing parts of this country and one of the most disadvantaged. The second story comes from Carramar, another suburb in my electorate of Fowler. I was doorknocking there recently, and residents told me that when flooding comes, they get cut off. The network is poor at the best of times. In a flash flood, when the water is rising and they need to call for help in an emergency, they cannot get through. These are not complaints about convenience. This is about whether someone can get help when their life depends on it. We sold the national telecommunications carrier. We did not sell the responsibility that came with it. That responsibility still sits in this place. The safety net we built was designed around a land line on the wall. It was not designed for a country where the phone in your pocket is how you can call for help. I'm not standing here to say we're going to buy it all back. I'm realistic—those assets are gone, and those contracts run for decades. But I'm sure that there are lessons in this for us. You can sell the asset; you cannot sell the responsibility. When the bill is too high, when the call does not connect, people do not ring a boardroom; they come to my office. I'm sure they come to many other members' offices as well. They sit in front of you, and they ask for help. They ask what are we going to do about it. That is where it lands. It lands with us, so let us protect what is left. That means a genuine public interest test, before any remaining public asset is sold or leased, measured against the people who will depend on it not just against the sale price. It means service obligations that reflect how people live today not how they lived 30 years ago. And it means real oversight and real consequences when providers let communities down, whether they are public or private, because when the lights go out and when the bills become unaffordable, people do not call the shareholders. When the water rises in Carramar, no-one rings a shareholder, they dial triple zero and hope it connects—and most of the time it doesn't. The government is still expected to deliver. If we are serious about the cost of living and serious about making sure no community is left behind, then we must be serious about who controls what we have left. We cannot afford to learn these lessons twice. 16:03 Mr GREGG 315154 Deakin Like the member for Fowler, I'm not recommending we go back to the 1990s. I don't think the Commonwealth government should be in the market for a copper network for telecommunications, buying back Telstra of old. I'd like to see cheese TV back, but that's not coming back either. Times have changed, and we must change with them. But we have learned from history, so the reacquisition of the NBN is a perfect lesson: we own a core piece of telecommunications infrastructure to ensure that there is access around the country and then allow a competitive market to operate where that is possible. That's because we know markets can't work everywhere either. You need to have effective competition. You need to have real choice among those who are deciding which product or service to acquire. You need to ensure that barriers to entry are appropriate and that the rules are fair. And you need to ensure the consumers aren't the ones who lose out at the end. We've always had a blend in Australia of a strong private sector and a public sector that is dedicated to providing the services that we know the market alone, in pursuit of a buck, cannot provide, because that doesn't work in every area. But we also believe, as, for example, through Medicare, that a blended approach is sometimes appropriate—that the state will fund an essential service but that there is a role for choice and differentiation as well so that people can choose a doctor of their own and then still pay for that service with their Medicare card. That involves both private and public sectors working together. We can be the market steward, getting involved where the market isn't able to achieve the desired goal, but, where the market is able in other areas, it can be involved. Again, it is a blended approach, and that works. We're not members of the Bavarian communist party; we're here to make sure that the right services are available and that we're delivering them in the fairest, most effective and most efficient way possible. That will involve the private and public sectors. But, more importantly, it will involve the community sector, which has not been mentioned enough in this debate. Important legal and health services are provided by the not-for-profit sector, because they can use their place based services and apply local expertise and insights to deliver services that are right for those communities to deal with their specific needs, and I think proper credit needs to be given to them. Again, government can play a really important role as a partner, ensuring there is an appropriate service mix for those areas. We know that competition alone won't do the trick. Having lived in the country for many years of my life, I can confirm that that is among the areas where we do need to have government heavily involved. At other times, we need to have universal access standards. We do that with telecommunications to ensure they're made available. If there are circumstances where that is failing, then we have to look at what appropriate interventions can be brought in. But the idea that we can suddenly go back to the 1990s is a Greens fever dream. It's not going to happen. It shouldn't happen. We learn from our mistakes. Of course, this parliament didn't sell the state electricity commission. That was a state decision. In regard to Telstra's move, yes, we might look at history through a different lens now. But, at the same time, you wouldn't buy back Telstra now either. That would be a completely foolish move. There are opportunity costs with making all of these decisions. If we were to buy back every privatised asset in history—go back and get Qantas again; go and buy the Commonwealth Bank—we wouldn't be doing a lot more as a government, because that's going to cost a whole lot of the budget, plus more. We have to make sensible decisions in the world we actually live in, not the past that we reminisce about. We have to make sure that we make the most responsible decisions possible to ensure that Australians have the services they need and deserve. Of course, on this side of the House, we realise the really important role of the Public Service. The nonsense economics that says you can just contract out and save money by adding the interested party from the shareholder or the partner is a dispelled myth. We know that having consultants do the job of APS employees is not a saving; it's a budget trick. In the longer term it is more expensive, and there are services that we can and need to deliver to ensure they're delivered by people whose job it is to focus on the public interest. That is central when we're delivering essential services, including social services, defence and in all those essential areas. As my colleague before alluded to, even Adam Smith recognised that there is a role for government to deliver some services sometimes. So we've always got to strike a balance, but we also want to make sure that we have a dynamic economy and a private sector that works in the interests of the Australian people and of workers, and that means we must write the right rules for the game and make sure the settings are in place to have a dynamic and successful competitive market economy while, at the same time, we deliver a great standard of living for the Australian people, because that's what we're here to do. We're here to make life tomorrow better than it was yesterday, to constantly improve the lives of the Australian people and to make sure that the system is working for Australians so that they can raise a family, confident that their kids are going to have opportunities that they themselves did not have and that their parents could only dream of. That means making the tough calls sometimes and making sure that we strike that balance, and that will always change, depending on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. So, no, we will not be going back and buying every single privatised asset, but we will always work in the interests of the Australian people. 16:08 Mr GEE 261393 Calare This topic of public importance that we are discussing in this House today regarding public assets and the ownership of public assets is an important one. This afternoon I wish to speak about a really important public asset in the electorate of Calare: the Great Western Highway. As we know, the Great Western Highway has been closed for many months at a bridge called the Convict Bridge, which was built by a convict chain gang in 1832. Surprise, surprise—about 200 years later, that bridge failed. There is negligence on the part of successive governments over this closure and over the long-term failure to deliver genuine high-speed access between the Central West of New South Wales and Sydney. As members of this House will know, for many months I have been advocating for federal funding for the fix on the Convict Bridge, for an ongoing business support package and also for a longer term solution for high-speed access in and out of the Central West. In fact, in question time today, I asked the Prime Minister if there would be federal funding for more lanes over the closed Convict Bridge on the Great Western Highway and an ongoing business support package, because we know that the pressure has been building on the state and federal governments over this issue. I was very surprised this afternoon when local media outlets started contacting me with respect to a media alert for tomorrow, when apparently an announcement is going to take place at Mount Victoria—not in the Calare electorate but in the electorate of Macquarie—regarding the Great Western Highway. I have to tell you it is very troubling that so much time and effort and advocacy could go into an issue and the government could then rush out this announcement, whatever it is, straight after I've asked a question on this in question time. It defies belief. I would ask the government: where is the professional respect and courtesy over this? Our electorate is being smashed to pieces by this closure. Our businesses are going broke. It's taking our kids hours to get to school. Yet, instead of engaging and telling us what's going on, you decide you're going to make an announcement through the media tomorrow. I find that very disappointing. Our communities are being put through hell because of this highway closure. I think the government is playing political games with it by holding back this announcement and just doing it in a Labor seat with only state and federal Labor members present. I think that that is pretty appalling. You well know the pain and suffering that our communities have been going through, yet you decide to rush out this announcement without one skerrick of consultation with the local members or with the communities who are living this. I think that's really poor form, and I would expect better from a government that has the means to actually help our communities, our businesses and also those people affected by the tens of thousands of extra traffic movements going through Lithgow that are making life hell. Mr GEE 261393 Yes, you can sit there and heckle, but you have no idea. Come out and see it for yourself. It's all very well for you to sit there and make jokes about it, but that is disgraceful. The fact— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Please direct your comments through the chair. Please stop interjecting. Let's try and have a respectful debate. Mr GEE 261393 And show some professional respect and courtesy, not only in this House but with the announcements that you are planning to make. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 We're referring to me now. Mr GEE 261393 I find it appalling. It's a total disrespect to our communities and the pain that people are experiencing west of the Great Dividing Range. We see billions and billions of dollars being dropped on projects on the eastern side of the sandstone curtain, and all we get are empty words and small change. Let's hope tomorrow's announcement brings something meaningful. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has concluded. BUSINESS 67 BUSINESS Rearrangement 67 16:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move the motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders to amend the resolution agreed on 17 August 2026 relating to the time and order of business for this sitting in the terms circulated to honourable members in the chamber: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolution relating to the time and order of business for Tuesday, 18 August 2026 agreed to on Monday, 17 August 2026 being amended by omitting paragraphs (4) to (6) and inserting the following: "(4) immediately following proceedings on the Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026, the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026 being called on and: (a) any second reading amendments circulated being treated as if they had been moved by the Member proposing them; (b) the questions being put immediately on any second reading amendments and on the second reading of the bill; (c) if required, the bill being considered in detail and taken as a whole, with any detail amendments circulated being treated as if they had been moved [together] by the Member proposing them, with: (i) one question being put immediately on any government amendments; (ii) one question being put immediately on any opposition amendments; (iii) separate questions being put immediately on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and (iv) a separate question being put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to; and (d) the question being put immediately on the third reading; (5) immediately following proceedings on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026, the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 being called on and a cognate debate taking place with the News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026, and proceedings on the bills having priority until 7.30 pm; (6) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted, and debate on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and four related bills having priority: (a) until the bills have proceeded through all stages; or (b) 10 pm; or (c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm; at which point, the House immediately adjourning until 9 am on Wednesday, 19 August; (7) standing order 133(b) (deferred divisions) being suspended until the third reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026; and (8) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister." I'll speak very briefly because otherwise I'll take time away from the discussion of the amendments. As was flagged earlier, this is to add the tax bill to the legislation to be considered later today. Question agreed to, with an absolute majority. BILLS 67 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 67

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026

Consideration in Detail 67 16:14 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to. 16:15 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Kooyong for moving these amendments. The government will not support the amendments. We do not support imposing new reporting obligations through this bill. These amendments would create a new regulatory reporting regime for sporting, cultural and recreational organisations with annual turnover above $50 million requiring disclosure of gambling related revenue and publication by ACMA. This proposal is outside the scope of the bill's aim to directly reduce harm from gambling and would impose additional compliance and administrative burdens without a demonstrated impact. The government agrees that more must be done to stop gambling advertising from proliferating online. The restrictions introduced by the government ban wagering advertising online by default, unless online content services implement the triple lock requirements—that is, users must be over 18 years of age, logged into an account and have not opted out of wagering advertising. The government takes seriously our responsibility to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from the harms of online gambling. The government has supported an amendment to establish a wagering advertising opt out register to provide individuals with a one stop shop to opt out of receiving all wagering advertising content. We have worked constructively with the opposition and the crossbench to consider practical amendments to this bill, and I'd like to thank my shadow counterpart, Senator Henderson, in the other place for working with me diligently over a number of weeks in order to get this ready for consideration today in the House. I thank you for your conscientious work, Senator Henderson, and I thank the House. Question negatived. 16:17 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I move: SHEET 1 (1) Clause 4, page 2 (line 21), after "Part 7C", insert "or 7D". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 to 8), omit the item, substitute: 1 Section 3 (after paragraph (f)) Insert: ; (g) licensed interactive wagering services must not be advertised. 1A Section 3 (note) Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". 1B At the end of section 3 Add: Note 2: Some of the prohibitions mentioned in paragraph (g) begin on 1 January 2027 (see Part 7C), and the remainder are phased-in over a period of 3 years starting on that date (see Part 7D). (3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (after line 7), after paragraph 16(e), insert: (f) Part 7D; (4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (after line 12), after subparagraph 21(1)(a)(v), insert: (vi) Part 7D; (5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (line 22), omit "or 7C", substitute ", 7C or 7D". (6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 9 (line 24), omit "or 7C", substitute ", 7C or 7D". (7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit the heading to Part 7C, substitute: Part 7C — Initial prohibitions on advertising etc. licensed interactive wagering services (8) Schedule 1, item 18, page 51 (after line 24), after Part 7C, insert: Part 7D — Expanded prohibitions on advertising etc. licensed interactive wagering services Note: See Division 8 for the phased implementation of this Part. Division 1 — Preliminary 62ZK Relationship between this Part and Part 7C To avoid doubt: (a) this Part applies in addition to Part 7C; and (b) this Part does not limit, and is not limited by, Part 7C. Division 2 — Interpretation: definitions 62ZKA Definitions Note: A number of expressions used in this Part are defined in section 4, including the following: (a) broadcasting service; (b) datacasting service; (c) online content service. In this Part: broadcast means transmit by means of a broadcasting service. datacast means transmit by means of a datacasting service. display includes continue to display. exempt library means: (a) a public library; or (b) a library of a tertiary educational institution; or (c) a library of an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. government or political matters means government or political matters relating to any level of government in Australia, and includes any of the following matters: (a) participation in, association with and communications in relation to any election or appointment to public office; (b) political views or public conduct relating to activities that have become the subject of political debate; (c) the performance, conduct, capacity or fitness for office of a person elected or appointed to, or seeking election or appointment to, any public office; (d) the actions or policies, or proposed actions or policies, of any government in Australia or any Australian political party. licensed interactive wagering service means a regulated interactive gambling service that: (a) is a wagering service (see section 4); and (b) has an Australian-customer link (see section 8); and (c) is not provided in contravention of subsection 15AA(3). licensed interactive wagering service advertisement has the meaning given by Division 3. licensed interactive wagering service provider means a person who provides a licensed interactive wagering service. periodical means an issue (however described) of a newspaper, magazine, journal, newsletter, or other similar publication, issues of which are published at regular or irregular intervals. program has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. public place means a place, or a part of a place, to which the public, or a section of the public, ordinarily has access, whether or not by payment or by invitation (including, for example, a shop, restaurant, hotel, cinema or club). publishes, in relation to a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement, has the meaning given by Division 4. section of the public includes: (a) the members of a particular club, society or organisation; and (b) a group consisting only of persons with a common workplace or a common employer. workplace means premises in which employees or contractors work, other than any part of such premises that is primarily used as a private dwelling. Division 3 — Interpretation: licensed interactive wagering service advertisement 62ZKB Basic meaning of licensed interactive wagering service advertisement (1) For the purposes of this Part, a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement is any writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image, or any audible message, or any combination of 2 or more of those things, that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote: (a) a licensed interactive wagering service; or (b) licensed interactive wagering services in general; or (c) the whole or part of a trade mark in respect of a licensed interactive wagering service; or (d) a domain name or URL that relates to a licensed interactive wagering service; or (e) any words that are closely associated with a licensed interactive wagering service (whether also closely associated with other kinds of services or products). (2) This section has effect subject to sections 62ZKC, 62ZKD, 62ZKE, 62ZKF, 62ZKG, 62ZKH and 62ZKI. 62ZKC Exception — political communication (1) To avoid doubt, if: (a) something (the advertisement) does not promote, and is not intended to promote, any particular licensed interactive wagering service or services; and (b) the advertisement relates solely to government or political matters; the advertisement is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part. (2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(a), the use in an advertisement of the whole name of a licensed interactive wagering service provider does not, of itself, constitute promotion of a licensed interactive wagering service or licensed interactive wagering services for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a). (3) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the use of a name referred to in that subsection in a way prohibited by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection. (4) Section 62ZKB does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any doctrine of implied freedom of political communication. 62ZKD Exception — websites etc. and business documents Words, signs or symbols that appear: (a) on the website of a licensed interactive wagering service that is provided to customers using an internet carriage service, or on or at an equivalent point of provision of any other licensed interactive wagering service; or (b) as part of the standard wording of an invoice, statement, order form, letterhead, business card, cheque, manual, or other document ordinarily used in the normal course of the business of a licensed interactive wagering service provider (whether or not the document is in electronic form); do not, when so appearing, constitute a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement (but this does not prevent a still or moving screen shot of a website or equivalent point of provision referred to in paragraph (a), or a still or moving picture or other visual image of a document referred to in paragraph (b), from being a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement). 62ZKE Exception — premises of providers Words, signs or symbols that appear in or on land or buildings occupied by a licensed interactive wagering service provider do not, when so appearing, constitute a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement (but this does not prevent a still or moving picture, or other visual image, of words, signs or symbols that so appear from being a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement). 62ZKF Exception — management advertisements etc. To avoid doubt, none of the following constitutes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement: (a) the doing of anything that is, or apart from this Part would be, required to be done by any other law of the Commonwealth or by any law of a State or Territory; (b) an advertisement (for example, an advertisement for staff or calling for tenders), relating to the internal management of the business of a licensed interactive wagering service provider, that does not promote a licensed interactive wagering service; (c) the taking of any action to prevent persons becoming victims of fraud or any other dishonest or unethical conduct. 62ZKG Exception — products or services having the same name as a licensed interactive wagering service (1) If: (a) apart from this section, something (the advertisement) that relates to a product, or a service, that is not a licensed interactive wagering service would, technically, be a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement because the name, or part of the name, of the product or service is the same as, or substantially similar to, the name, or part of the name, of: (i) a licensed interactive wagering service; or (ii) a licensed interactive wagering service provider; and (b) the manufacturer, distributor or retailer of the product, or the provider of the service, is not associated in any way with the licensed interactive wagering service provider concerned; then, despite section 62ZKB, the advertisement is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part. Related bodies corporate taken to be associated with each other (2) Without limiting the circumstances in which 2 persons would, apart from this subsection, be taken to be associated with each other for the purposes of subsection (1), 2 bodies corporate that are related to each other are taken to be associated with each other for the purposes of that subsection. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the question whether 2 bodies corporate are related to each other is to be determined in the same way as the question would be determined under the Corporations Act 2001. 62ZKH Exception — anti-gambling advertisements If: (a) apart from this section, something (the advertisement) would, technically, be a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement; and (b) it is clear from the advertisement that its sole or principal purpose is to discourage the use of gambling services or particular kinds of gambling services or to reduce harm caused by gambling services or particular kinds of gambling services; then, despite section 62ZKB, the advertisement is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part. 62ZKI Exception — advertisements of a kind specified in the regulations The regulations may provide that an advertisement of a kind specified in the regulations is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part. 62ZKJ Meaning of words In this Division: words includes abbreviations, initials and numbers. Division 4 — Interpretation: publication of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements 62ZKL Basic meaning of publishes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement (1) For the purposes of this Part, a person publishes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the person does any of the following things: (a) the person includes the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, on a website; (b) the person includes the advertisement in a document (including, for example, a newspaper, magazine, program, leaflet or ticket) that is available, or distributed, to the public or a section of the public; (c) the person includes the advertisement in a film, video, television program or radio program that is, or is intended to be, seen or heard by the public or a section of the public; (d) the person: (i) sells, hires or supplies the advertisement, or something containing the advertisement, to the public or a section of the public; or (ii) offers the advertisement, or something containing the advertisement, for sale or supply to, or hire by, the public or a section of the public; (e) the person displays, screens or plays the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, so that it can be seen or heard in or from: (i) a public place; or (ii) public transport; or (iii) a workplace; (f) the person otherwise: (i) brings the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, to the notice of; or (ii) disseminates the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, to; the public, or a section of the public, by any means (including, for example, by means of a film, video, computer disk or electronic medium). (2) This section has effect subject to sections 62ZKM, 62ZKN, 62ZKO, 62ZKP and 62ZKQ. 62ZKM Publish does not include broadcast or datacast For the purposes of this Part, the broadcasting or datacasting of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement by a person does not amount to the publication of the advertisement by the person. 62ZKN Exception — trade communications For the purposes of this Part, the communication of information that is or includes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to a group of people all of whom are involved in the provision of licensed interactive wagering services, does not, of itself, amount to a publication of the licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. 62ZKO Exception — advertisements in telephone directories (1) For the purposes of this Part, the publication of the name of a licensed interactive wagering service provider in a telephone directory does not, of itself, amount to the publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) the publication is on the internet; and (b) the entry for the provider contains a link to a website for the provider that relates to a licensed interactive wagering service. 62ZKP Exception — ordinary activities of exempt libraries Nothing that a person does for the purposes of the ordinary activities of an exempt library amounts, for the purposes of this Part, to a publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. 62ZKQ Exception — acknowledgements of assistance or support For the purposes of this Part, the publication of an acknowledgement of assistance or support does not amount to the publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if it complies with regulations made for the purposes of this section that permit the publication of such acknowledgements. Division 5 — Broadcasting or datacasting of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia 62ZKR Licensed interactive wagering service advertisements not to be broadcast or datacast in Australia (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person broadcasts or datacasts a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia; and (b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and (c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and (d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and (e) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV. Penalty: 120 penalty units. (2) A person must not broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia if: (a) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and (b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and (c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and (d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV. Civil penalty: 180 penalty units. (3) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person authorises or causes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be broadcast or datacast in Australia; and (b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and (c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and (d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and (e) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV. Penalty: 120 penalty units. (4) A person must not authorise or cause a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be broadcast or datacast in Australia if: (a) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and (b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and (c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and (d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV. Civil penalty for contravention of this subsection: 180 penalty units. 62ZKS Accidental or incidental broadcast or datacast permitted (1) A person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if: (a) the person broadcasts or datacasts the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the broadcasting or datacasting of other matter; and (b) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for broadcasting or datacasting the advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for broadcasting or datacasting the other matter). (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part. 62ZKT Broadcast or datacast of advertisements during flights of aircraft (1) A person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in an aircraft during a flight of the aircraft unless the flight begins at a place in Australia and is intended to end at another place in Australia. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), each sector of a flight of an aircraft is taken to be a separate flight. (3) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part. 62ZKU Broadcast or datacast of advertisements on dedicated racing channels A person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the sole or dominant purpose of the relevant broadcasting or datacasting service is to provide an excluded wagering service within the meaning of subsection 8A(1). Note: Such services relate to horse racing, harness racing and greyhound racing. 62ZKV Broadcast or datacast of advertisements on small community radio services In the 2 year period beginning when this Part commences, a person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the relevant broadcasting or datacasting service is a small community radio service. Division 6 — Publication of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia 62ZKW Licensed interactive wagering service advertisements not to be published in Australia (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person publishes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia; and (b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and (c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and (d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and (e) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL. Penalty: 120 penalty units. (2) A person must not publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia if: (a) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and (b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and (c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and (d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL. Civil penalty: 180 penalty units. (3) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person authorises or causes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be published in Australia; and (b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and (c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and (d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and (e) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL. Penalty: 120 penalty units. (4) A person must not authorise or cause a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be published in Australia if: (a) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and (b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and (c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and (d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL. Civil penalty: 180 penalty units. (5) For the purposes of this section, a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement that is included on a website is taken to be published in Australia if, and only if: (a) the website is accessed, or is available for access, by end-users in Australia; and (b) having regard to: (i) the content of the website; and (ii) the way the website is advertised or promoted; it would be concluded that it is likely that a majority of persons who access the website are physically present in Australia. 62ZKX Periodicals distributed outside Australia — acts of publication permitted (1) A person may do, with a periodical that contains a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement, something that amounts to publishing the advertisement if the periodical is not principally intended for distribution or use in Australia. (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part. 62ZKY Accidental or incidental publication permitted (1) A person may publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if: (a) the person publishes the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of other matter; and (b) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for publishing the other matter). (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part. 62ZKZ Publication by person not receiving any benefit permitted (1) A person may publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if: (a) the publication is not in the course of the provision of licensed interactive wagering services; and (b) the person publishes the advertisement on the person's own initiative; and (c) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the advertisement. (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part. 62ZL Publication of advertisements during flights of aircraft (1) A person may publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in an aircraft during a flight of the aircraft unless the flight begins at a place in Australia and is intended to end at another place in Australia. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), each sector of a flight of an aircraft is taken to be a separate flight. (3) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part. Division 7 — Miscellaneous 62ZLA Recommendations relating to compensation (1) The ACMA may make recommendations to the Minister in relation to compensation payable by the Commonwealth in respect of economic losses caused by the operation of this Part. (2) The Minister is not bound to follow any advice given under subsection (1). 62ZLB Failure to broadcast, datacast or publish advertisement not actionable if this Part would be contravened Civil proceedings do not lie against a person for refusing or failing to broadcast, datacast or publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the broadcast, datacast or publication is prohibited by this Part. 62ZLC Additional conditions for licences under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 Commercial television broadcasting licence (1) Each commercial television broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. Commercial radio broadcasting licence (2) Each commercial radio broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. Community broadcasting licence (3) Each community broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. Subscription television broadcasting licence (4) Each subscription television broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. Provision of a broadcasting service under a class licence (5) The provision by a person of a broadcasting service under a class licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. Datacasting licence (6) Each datacasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement. Definitions (7) In this section: class licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. commercial radio broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. commercial television broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. community broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. subscription television broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Division 8 — Phased implementation of this Part 62ZLE Phase 1 (1) In the 12 month period beginning when this Part commences: (a) Division 5 (broadcasting or datacasting of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia) has effect only to the extent that it prohibits: (i) broadcasting or datacasting of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement during news and current affairs programs; and (ii) broadcasting of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement on a commercial radio broadcasting service during the period beginning at 8:30 am and ending at 9:00 am and the period beginning at 3:30 pm and ending at 4:00 pm; and (b) Division 6 (publication of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia) has effect only to the extent that it prohibits publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement on a social media service or on an online content service. 62ZLF Phase 2 In the 12 month period beginning on the first anniversary of the commencement of this Part, Divisions 5 and 6 have effect (in addition to the effect as provided by section 62ZLE) only to the extent that they prohibit: (a) any licensed interactive wagering service advertisements during live coverage of a sporting event; and (b) any odds advertising or odds commentary from one hour before the start of the live coverage until one hour after the end of the live coverage; and (c) in-stadia advertising, including logos, marks or words relating to a licensed interactive wagering service appearing on players' uniforms or sports equipment, and any publication of the same. 62ZLG Phase 3 In the 12 month period beginning on the second anniversary of the commencement of this Part: (a) Division 5 has effect only to the extent that is provided by sections 62ZLE and 62ZLF and to the extent that it prohibits all broadcasting or datacasting of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm; and (b) Division 6 has effect only as provided by sections 62ZLE and 62ZLF. 62ZLH Phase 4 On and after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Part, this Part has effect according to its terms. (9) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 27), omit "62ZE(3).", substitute "62ZE(3);". (10) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 27), after paragraph 64A(xz), insert: (xza) subsection 62ZKR(2); or (xzb) subsection 62ZKR(4); or (xzc) subsection 62ZKW(2); or (xzd) subsection 62ZKW(4). (11) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (line 25), omit "62ZE(3).", substitute "62ZE(3);". (12) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 25), after paragraph 64C(1)(xz), insert: (xza) subsection 62ZKR(2); or (xzb) subsection 62ZKR(4); or (xzc) subsection 62ZKW(2); or (xzd) subsection 62ZKW(4). (13) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (line 23), omit "62ZE(3).", substitute "62ZE(3);". (14) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 23), after paragraph 64D(1)(xz), insert: (xza) subsection 62ZKR(2); or (xzb) subsection 62ZKR(4); or (xzc) subsection 62ZKW(2); or (xzd) subsection 62ZKW(4). _____ SHEET 2 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert: (2) Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 24), at the end of Division 6, add: 62ZJA Independent review of this Part (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Part. (2) Without limiting the requirement in subsection (1) that the review must be independent, the Minister must ensure that the person who conducts the review: (a) is not an APS employee; and (b) would be regarded by a reasonable person as being able to conduct the review without any real or apparent conflict of interest. (3) The review must commence soon as practicable after the end of the period of 2 years beginning on the day this Part commences. (4) The person conducting the review must complete the review, and must give the Minister a written report of the review, within the period of 12 months beginning on the day the review commences. (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. (3) Page 92 (after line 28), after Schedule 4, insert: Schedule 4A — Statutory duty of care Interactive Gambling Act 2001 1 Section 3 (before the paragraph beginning "The ACMA may, on its own initiative") Insert: A licensed interactive wagering service provider has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and minimise foreseeable harm to individuals arising from the use of the provider's services. 2 After Part 1 Insert: Part 1A — Statutory duty of care to prevent harm 14A Definitions for this Part In this Part: licensed interactive wagering service has the same meaning as in Part 7B. licensed interactive wagering service provider has the same meaning as in Part 7B. 14B Licensed interactive wagering service providers must take reasonable steps to prevent harm etc. (1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider must take reasonable steps to prevent and minimise foreseeable harm to individuals arising from the use by those individuals of a licensed interactive wagering service provided by the provider. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Harm arising from use of a service (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), and without limiting that subsection: (a) harm includes financial and psychological harm; and (b) harm may arise from the use of a licensed interactive wagering service because of the way that the service is designed or operated. Relevant matters (3) Without limiting subsection (1), in determining whether a licensed interactive wagering service provider has taken reasonable steps for the purposes of that subsection, regard may be had to the following matters: (a) whether the provider has systems in place to identify patterns of behaviour indicating risk of harm, including but not limited to rapid or escalating loss patterns, chasing losses, and extended session duration; (b) whether the provider intervenes when such patterns are identified, including by contacting the individual, imposing precommitment limits, or restricting access to the service; (c) whether the design of the service (including its interface, incentives, and promotional features) avoids features known to encourage compulsive or harmful use; (d) whether the provider provides individuals with accessible tools to set and enforce their own deposit, loss, and time limits; (e) whether the provider's staff are trained to identify and respond to signs of gambling harm. Necessary steps (4) A licensed interactive wagering service provider is taken to contravene subsection (1) if the provider does not take the steps (if any) specified by the ACMA, under subsection (5), for the purposes of this subsection. Note: A provider that takes the steps (if any) specified by the ACMA for the purposes of this subsection is not guaranteed to satisfy the requirement in subsection (1). Taking those steps is necessary, but not sufficient, for satisfying the requirement in subsection (1). (5) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, specify steps for the purposes of subsection (4). 3 Before paragraph 16(a) Insert: (aa) Part 1A; or 4 Before subparagraph 21(1)(a)(i) Insert: (ia) Part 1A; or 5 Subparagraph 22A(1)(a)(i) Omit "Part 2", substitute "Part 1A, 2". 6 Paragraph 22A(1)(o) Omit "Part 2", substitute "Part 1A, 2". 7 Before paragraph 64A(a) Insert: (aa) subsection 14B(1); or 8 Before paragraph 64C(1)(a) Insert: (aa) subsection 14B(1); 9 Before paragraph 64D(1)(a) Insert: ; (aa) subsection 14B(1); There have been lots of speeches in this House about the harm done by the gambling industry and the normalisation of gambling as part of sport, and it's been jarring to hear those same members profess to believe that this complicated bill full of loopholes will actually fix this problem. I don't think most of them actually believe it. The crossbench and the Greens have been pretty clear about the flaws in this bill. The coalition has been a bit all over the place, with some standing up to the gambling industry and others negotiating a package of amendments that bring to mind lipstick on a pig. A number of Labor members have spoken about the harm they or their loved ones have experienced from gambling. Many have spoken about honouring the legacy of Peta Murphy. Last week in their speeches about this gambling reform bill, I counted about 10 Labor members who effectively said that this is a step in the right direction but there's more reform to do. This is the equivalent of wild dissent in today's Labor Party, and the country is worse for it. There are many in this House who know that their communities want them to support a full gambling phase-out, but they're primarily answerable to their party bosses, so they obediently do what the gambling industry wants, and it breaks my heart. My first sheet of amendments would implement the flagship recommendation of the unanimous Murphy review, recommendation 26, which is a full phase-out over a three-year period of ads for online gambling. Australians should be able to expect that reform is based on evidence. Now, let me remind you about four pieces of evidence we have about the partial restrictions being proposed. Firstly, the evidence clearly shows partial restrictions don't work. After the 2017 media reforms which restricted gambling advertising around live sport, the total volume of gambling advertising in prime-time metro TV increased by 40 per cent. The Murphy report found that harmful industries have shown they will identify and capitalise on any gaps in marketing restrictions. Secondly, in relation to the proposed TV rules, there is no evidence to back up three ads per hour or the 8.30 pm watershed. Research shows that 83 per cent of children aged 11 to 16 continue watching sport after 8.30 pm, meaning the government's defined threshold does not achieve even its own stated purpose of protecting children. How can three ads per hour not have a normalisation effect? Thirdly, the evidence shows that the opt-out approach won't work for digital platforms, whether platform by platform or one off. One in 800 subscribers have used the opt-out function on SBS. That's the only evidence we have about the effectiveness of opt-out, and the government knew this when they decided that this was the way to go. The amendment agreed with the coalition so you only have to opt-out once is a small change. To be even mildly effective, it would need to be accompanied by a widespread public promotion campaign. And it raises more questions: what if I own the streaming subscription, but my family members have profiles and we want to make different decisions about opting out? Fourthly the department's impartial impact assessment showed that, compared to the partial restrictions being proposed, a full ban would have the lowest regulatory burden on industry, cost the least to implement and have a more significant positive impact on Australians, especially those experiencing gambling harm. That is what the evidence shows us. A full ban is supported not only by three-quarters of Australians but also by the AMA, the Alliance for Gambling Reform and all the academics. The next amendment I'm proposing here is a statutory duty of care. This is given effect to by amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2. Licensed interactive wagering providers should be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent and reduce gambling harm. They are so far from doing that. This is a predatory industry where profit is directly connected to harm. The last amendment I'm proposing here is a statutory review. This is given effect to by amendment (2) on sheet 2. I'm pleased to hear the government will now agree to a review of the operation of the ad restrictions, the inducements and the opt-out register. A review will leave the door open for a future braver government to actually deal with this problem. As each member of this House casts their vote on these amendments for a full ban, a duty of care and a two-year review, I encourage them to remember they were sent here to represent Australians and their communities, not to represent the gambling industry or primarily their political party. That is the choice now available to every single member of this House. 16:23 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Curtin, though I do so without enthusiasm because it shouldn't be necessary. Remember three years ago this parliament received the Murphy report, which was a landmark, thorough, evidence based inquiry unanimous across Labor, Liberal and crossbench members recommending a complete phased-in ban on gambling advertising. What's the government done with it? It's buried it, diluted it and dressed up the leftovers as 'the strongest reforms this country has ever seen'. But let's be clear. That's all patent nonsense because these reforms will do little to fix the problem. Indeed, since the Murphy report landed, Australians have lost more than $108 billion—not gambled but lost. Moreover, at least 400 people take their lives each year because of gambling addiction in this country, a figure likely chronically underreported. In other words, because of this government's inaction, well over a thousand Australians have been lost to suicide since the report was handed down. The member for Curtin's amendments and others from my crossbench colleagues do what this government has lacked the spine to do. They close the streaming loophole, ban the inducements and bonus bets that hook people and keep them hooked, flip the defaults so children are protected unless a parent opts in and set a binding timeline instead of yet another 'the pen is never down' promise from a minister who's hoping we'll all forget. I say this to the minister and to the Prime Minister: we will not forget, nor will the 79 per cent of Australians who support a full advertising ban. We are elected to serve Australians, not the vested interests who profit from this insidious industry, in particular the gambling companies, the media companies and the major sporting codes. They're the perpetrators directly responsible for this harm, and the government is complicit in letting it continue. Let's be honest about who this bill protects. It's not the person who's lost a loved one to suicide over gambling addiction, it's not the people who had $8 million stolen from them by their financial adviser and it's not the kids watching the footy at 8:31 pm, the very minute this bill decides they're fair game—no. This bill protects the broadcasters, the sporting codes and the gambling companies—companies which, as I've said in this place before, behave like jackals feeding on the carcases of gambling addicts. The government's bill lets them keep feeding. The amendments from the member for Curtin at least drag the carcases out of their reach. So I say to the government and to the opposition, which has also rolled over to have its tummy tickled: this fight is not over, not by a long way. 16:25 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Curtin for moving these amendments. The government will not be supporting these amendments. The government recognises the importance of harm minimisation and supports the argument that wagering-service providers have an obligation to uphold consumer protections. That's why the government is implementing its wagering advertising restrictions through this bill, which places the onus firmly on wagering-service providers to change the way they market their products. In line with the amendment from the member for Curtin, the bill introduces significant penalties for noncompliance. If a wagering-service provider breaches the new rules, they could face fines of up to $364,000 for an individual and $1.6 million for a corporation. The bill also strengthens BetStop, the national self-exclusion register, by: implementing the legislative recommendations made by the independent statutory review of BetStop, including enforcing mandatory information checks against the BetStop register to prevent circumvention, adding friction to the cancellation process to reduce early exits from self-exclusion; extending the minimum three-month exclusion period to all users, including those who have been on BetStop before, to reduce harm when users cycle on and off the register; expanding communications restrictions, minimising exposure to harmful or triggering messages; and requiring the linking of old and new wagering accounts to improve the use of data to detect harm. The bill will also be amended to require the minister to review the proposed restrictions on wagering advertising and inducements as well as the wagering advertising opt-out register to assess the operational impact of the reforms, ensuring that they remain effective and fit for purpose. This will be in addition to the continuous monitoring by ACMA following the commencement of these reforms. The bill already implements many of the measures moved by the member, including a live ban during sport across broadcast platforms, removal of wagering advertising from sporting venues and jerseys, and extension of the complaints investigations and enforcement framework. In fact, the bill also already provides for substantially larger penalties than the proposed amendments moved by the member for Curtin and gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority rigorous enforcement powers. It also introduces rules that would ban advertising on online platforms unless they are triple locked—that is, unless the person is over 18 years of age, is logged into an account and has not opted out of wagering advertising. That being said, I note your conscientious leadership and dedication in this space, Member for Curtin, and I would like to thank you for your work here. While I have the member for Cook, I would like to thank him for supporting our amendments, and to thank the whole shadow ministry. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:32]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Claydon)

12 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 58 NOES Abdo, B. J. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chesters, L. M. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:35 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I move amendments (2), (4), (6) and (8) as circulated in my name together: (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 51 (after line 24), after Part 7C, insert: Part 7D — Data rules 62ZJA Definitions for this Part In this Part: data rules means the rules (if any) made by the ACMA under subsection 62ZJB(1). 62ZJB Data rules for licensed interactive wagering service providers (1) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, make rules (the data rules) that require a licensed interactive wagering service provider to do any of the following: (a) collect information specified in the rules, in according with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules; (b) publish information specified the rules, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules; (c) provide information specified in the rules to the ACMA, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules; (d) otherwise deal with information specified in the rules in accordance with the requirements specified in the rules. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the data rules may require a licensed interactive wagering service provider to collect, publish, or provide to the ACMA, information about any of the following: (a) aggregate losses of customers of the provider; (b) actions taken by the provider to comply with the requirements of Part 7B (National Self-exclusion Register); (c) information about complaints made to or about the provider, including the volume of complaints and the outcome of the complaints. (3) Without limiting subsection (1), the data rules may make provision with respect to how a licensed interactive wagering service provider may or must collect, publish, provide or other deal with specified types of information, including: (a) personal information (within meaning the Privacy Act 1988); and (b) information that is commercial-in-confidence. 62ZJC Civil penalty provision — contravening the data rules A licensed interactive wagering service provider must comply with the data rules. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. 62ZJD Relationship with other provisions This Part does not limit, and is not limited by, any other provision of this Act that deals with: (a) the collection, publication or provision of information by a licensed interactive wagering service provider; or (b) how a licensed interactive wagering service provider otherwise deals with information. Note: For example, this Part does not limit, and is not limited by, Division 7 of Part 7B (which deals with the disclosure of information that is protected information for the purposes of that Part). (4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 27), omit paragraph 64A(xz), substitute: (xz) subsection 62ZE(3); or (xza) section 62ZJC. (6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (line 25), omit paragraph 64C(1)(xz), substitute: (xz) subsection 62ZE(3); (xza) section 62ZJC. (8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (line 23), omit paragraph 64D(1)(xz), substitute: (xz) subsection 62ZE(3); (xza) section 62ZJC. This bill obviously requires massively significant changes, and I'm not seeking to duplicate the arguments put by my crossbench colleagues to note that. Amendments put by my crossbench colleagues, I must say, were circulated well in advance as a courtesy to the House and to fellow members. Up until this point, some of the debate that has ensued on amendments has been confusing, to say the least, in trying to ascertain who was moving what from the government and the opposition. I initially circulated amendments directed at a blanket ban on television advertising during G-rated programming, for example. A similar idea was in fact ultimately, I believe, taken up by the opposition and agreed to by the government. So I'm not proceeding with that amendment that I had originally had. My remaining amendments would require gambling companies to collect and publicly report on harm indicators, including aggregate customer losses, self-exclusion requests and complaints. These indicators are well known and this is information that gambling companies, in fact, already have. In fact, the government has indicated it intends to rely exactly on this sort of information in identifying what are known as red-flag customers for the purposes of restricting inducements. In addition, I want to see that this collected information is published publicly on a regular basis in a single, consistent format. 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 the most limited improvements to industry practice then that data will be more important than ever when it comes to reviewing these laws in the years to come. In the interests of time and other people having a chance to speak, I will terminate my remarks at this point and move this relatively small improvement in good faith, an approach that is, sadly, not always shared by others in this place. I commend these amendments to the House. 16:39 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Indi for moving these amendments. The government will not support these amendments. The government shares the objective of reducing gambling harm and ensuring that Australians have access to transparent information about wagering services and their impacts. That is precisely why the government has brought forward this bill. The gambling reform bill introduces significant new restrictions on wagering advertising, strengthens ACMA's compliance and enforcement powers and expands the tools available to regulators to address the gambling harm. We have been clear we take seriously our responsibility to protect children from the harms of gambling. We have supported, like you mentioned, an amendment to ban wagering advertising content during any program principally directed at children and during programs classified as G or lower during times when children are likely to be watching. The bill delivers substantial reforms that will reduce gambling harm, strengthen consumer protections and improve regulatory oversight. Question negatived. 16:40 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move amendments (1) to (11) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 8), at the end of paragraph (3)(g), add: ; (h) wagering inducements must not be offered, provided or advertised to individuals in Australia. (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (after line 26), at the end of section 62A, add: Wagering inducements and incentives (including, but not limited to, sign-up bonuses, free bets, odds boosts, cashback offers, reload bonuses and VIP or loyalty incentives) must not be offered, provided or advertised to individuals in Australia. Serious contraventions of these prohibitions may attract higher penalties. The ACMA may publish details of contraventions (and in certain circumstances, alleged contraventions) of the wagering inducement prohibitions. (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (after line 6), after the definition of section of the public in section 62B, insert: serious contravention has the meaning given by subsection 62ZAG(1). (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (after line 13), after the definition of wagering advertising contentin section 62B, insert: wagering inducement has the meaning given by section 62ZAB. (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 45 (after line 18), after Division 5, insert: Division 5A — Prohibition on wagering inducements 62ZAA Simplified outline of this Division Licensed interactive wagering service providers must not offer, provide or otherwise communicate wagering inducements to individuals in Australia. Advertising or otherwise promoting the availability of a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia is also prohibited. Wagering inducements include sign-up bonuses, free bets, odds boosts, cashback offers, reload bonuses and VIP or loyalty incentives linked to wagering activity. The Minister may prescribe additional forms of inducement by legislative instrument. Serious contraventions of this Division (deliberate contraventions that are part of a systematic pattern of conduct) may attract a higher civil penalty. The ACMA may publish details of a person who is found to have contravened this Division or who pays an infringement notice that relates to an alleged contravention of this Division. The general exceptions to this Part that are set out in Division 6 (which include exceptions for certain conduct that is required by law or is accidental) may also apply in some cases in relation to the requirements in this Division. 62ZAB Meaning of wagering inducement Basic definition (1) A wagering inducement is any benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage that: (a) is offered, provided, or otherwise communicated to an individual in Australia; and (b) is contingent upon, or is intended to encourage, facilitate or reward, any of the following: (i) opening or maintaining a licensed interactive wagering service account; (ii) making one or more bets or wagers; (iii) increasing the frequency, volume or value of betting or wagering activity; (iv) remaining an active customer of a licensed interactive wagering service; (v) depositing funds into a licensed interactive wagering service account. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), each of the following is taken to be a wagering inducement if it is offered, provided or otherwise communicated to an individual in Australia: (a) a sign-up bonus (including any bonus credit, free bet or other benefit offered to a new customer); (b) a free bet (including a no-deposit bet, a matched bet or a risk-free bet); (c) an odds boost (including any enhancement, promotion or special price offered in relation to a bet); (d) a cashback offer (including any refund, rebate or return of funds contingent on betting activity); (e) a reload bonus (including any credit, promotion or incentive offered to an existing customer contingent on a deposit or betting activity); (f) a VIP or loyalty incentive (including any reward, benefit, preferential treatment or status linked to the volume, frequency or value of a customer's wagering activity); (g) a referral incentive (including any benefit offered to an existing customer contingent on referring another person to the service); (h) a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an instrument under subsection (3). (3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage for the purposes of paragraph (2)(h). Exclusions (4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), wagering inducement does not include any of the following that is offered, provided, or otherwise communicatedto an individual in Australia: (a) standard pricing (including odds for a sporting event or race published in the ordinary course of providing a licensed interactive wagering service); (b) a benefit that is offered to all customers of a licensed interactive wagering service on equivalent terms without regard to betting activity, deposit history or account status; (c) a winnings payment made to a customer in accordance with the outcome of a bet; (d) a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an instrument under subsection (5). (5) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage for the purposes of paragraph (4)(d). ACMA may give advice (6) The ACMA may provide advice to the Minister on any matter relevant to the making of an instrument under subsection (3) or (5). 62ZAC Prohibition on offering etc. wagering inducements Civil penalty provision — offering etc. wagering inducement (1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if the provider offers, provides or otherwise communicates a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia. Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Exception to subsection (1) (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) the wagering inducement was offered, provided or otherwise communicated as a result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; and (b) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the error, mistake or accident, the provider takes all reasonable steps to reverse or cancel the offer, provision or communication. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing a wagering inducement to be offered etc. (3) A person contravenes this subsection if the person: (a) offers, provides or otherwise communicates a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia, on behalf of a licensed interactive wagering service provider; or (b) authorises or causes a licensed interactive wagering service provider to offer, provide or otherwise communicate a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia. Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Exceptions to subsection (3) (4) Subsection (3) does not apply if: (a) the person's authorising of, or causing of, the licensed interactive wagering service provider to offer, provide or otherwise communicate a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia, as mentioned in subsection (3), was a result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; and (b) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the error, mistake or accident, the person takes all reasonable steps to get the licensed interactive wagering service provider to reverse or cancel the offer, provision or communication. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). (5) Subsection (3) does not apply if: (a) the person is an individual; and (b) the individual engages in the conduct mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) in the individual's personal capacity. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Example 1: An individual who is a customer of a licensed interactive wagering service provider is sent a wagering inducement by the provider, and forwards the wagering inducement to a friend, in return for the provider giving the individual a reduced subscription to the service. Since the individual is acting in their personal capacity, they do not contravene subsection (3). Example 2: An individual who is an employee of a licensed interactive wagering service provider, acting in the course of their employment, authorises another individual who is an employee of the provider to send, on behalf of the provider, a wagering inducement to a third individual in Australia. Neither employee is acting in their personal capacity, and so neither employee is covered by the exception in subsection (5). (6) For the purposes of paragraph (5)(b), an individual who engages in conduct mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) does not do so in the individual's personal capacity if the individual does so in the individual's capacity as an employee, director or officer of: (a) the licensed interactive wagering service; or (b) a contracted service provider in relation the licensed interactive wagering service provider; or (c) a related body corporate of the licensed interactive wagering service provider. (7) In subsection (6), director, officer and related body corporate have the same meanings as in the Corporation Act 2001. (8) Subsection (6) does not limit the circumstances in which an individual taken, for the purposes of paragraph (5)(b), not to engage in conduct in the individual's personal capacity. 62ZAD Prohibition on advertising etc. wagering inducements Civil penalty provision — advertising etc. on broadcasts, datacasts or online content services (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) either: (i) the person broadcasts or datacasts content in Australia; or (ii) the person is an online content service provider and content is provided in Australia on the online content service provided by the person; and (b) the content advertises, promotes or otherwise communicates the availability of a wagering inducement. Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — authorising or causing advertising etc. (2) A person must not authorise or cause content that advertises, promotes or otherwise communicates the availability of a wagering inducement to be: (a) broadcasted or datacasted in Australia; or (b) provided in Australia on an online content service. Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Civil penalty provision — direct communication of advertising etc. (3) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if: (a) the provider sends a direct communication, or causes a direction communication to be sent, to an individual in Australia (whether by electronic message, push notification, postal communication, telephone call or any other means); and (b) the direct communication advertises, promotes or otherwise communicates the availability of a wagering inducement. Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units. 62ZAE Prohibition on communicating wagering inducements to registered individuals Civil penalty provision (1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if: (a) the provider communicates a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia; and (b) the individual is a registered individual (within the meaning of section 61GB) at the time of the communication. Note: See also Division 5 of Part 7B, which deals with the marketing of licensed interactive wagering services to registered individuals. This section applies in addition to that Division. Civil Penalty: 4,000 penalty units. (2) To avoid doubt, in proceedings for a civil penalty order against a licensed interactive wagering service provider for a contravention of subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the provider knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that the individual was a registered individual at the time of the communication. Note: See also section 94 of the Regulatory Powers Act. Exception (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) the communication was made as a result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; and (b) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the error, mistake or accident, the licensed interactive wagering service provider takes all reasonable steps to reverse or cancel the communication. Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). 62ZAF Record keeping in relation to this Division Conduct covered by this section (1) This section applies to a licensed interactive wagering service provider if the provider engages in any of the following conduct: (a) offering, providing or otherwise communicating a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia (whether by means of a broadcast or datacast, or an online content service, or by any other means); (b) authorising or causing a licensed interactive wagering service provider to do a thing mentioned in paragraph (a); (c) advertising, promoting or otherwise communicating the availability of a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia (whether by means of a broadcast or datacast, or an online content service, or by any other means); (d) authorising or causing a person to do a thing mentioned in paragraph (c). Civil penalty provision — keeping records (2) The licensed interactive wagering service provider must keep and retain, for a period of 3 years after engaging in the conduct, sufficient records to enable it to be readily ascertained whether the conduct complies with this Division. Civil Penalty: 120 penalty units. ACMA may request records (3) The ACMA may, by written notice given to a licensed interactive wagering service provider, request the provider to make available to the ACMA a record that the provider is required to keep and retain under subsection (2). Civil penalty provision — making records available (4) If the ACMA makes a request under subsection (3) that a licensed interactive wagering service provider make a record available to the ACMA, the provider must comply with the request. Civil penalty: 120 penalty units. 62ZAG Serious contraventions of this Division Serious contraventions (1) A contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division by a person is a serious contravention if the conduct of the person that constituted the contravention was: (a) deliberate; and (b) part of a systematic pattern of conduct by the person. (2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(b), the matters may be taken to in account in determining whether the conduct of the person was part of a systematic pattern of conduct by the person include the following: (a) whether the person has committed more than one contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, and if the person has committed more than one such contravention: (a) the period of time over which the contraventions occurred; and (b) the number of individuals affected by the contraventions; (b) if the person has received a complaint in relation to conduct of the person that constituted a contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division—how the person responded to the complaint. Application for order in relation to a serious contravention (3) If a person applies for a civil penalty order in relation to an alleged serious contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, the application must specify the alleged serious contravention. Increased penalty for serious contraventions (4) If, in proceedings for a civil penalty order in relation to an alleged serious contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, a relevant court is satisfied that the person has committed a serious contravention of the provision then, for the purposes of making a civil penalty order against the person in relation to the contravention, the pecuniary penalty specified for provision is 5 times the pecuniary penalty that would, apart from this subsection, be specified for the provision. Note: Under subsection 85(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty specified for a civil penalty provision of this Division is the maximum amount that a relevant court may order a person who is not a body corporate to pay for a contravention of the provision (and the maximum amount for a contravention by a body corporate is 5 times the maximum amount for a contravention by a person who is not a body corporate). Alternative orders (5) If, in proceedings for a civil penalty order in relation to an alleged serious contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, a relevant court: (a) is not satisfied that the person has committed a serious contravention of that provision; but (b) is satisfied that the person has contravened that provision; then: (c) the court may make a civil penalty order against the person for the contravention; and (d) to avoid doubt, subsection (4) does not apply for the purposes of making that order. 62ZAH Publishing information about contraventions and alleged contraventions of this Division Scope of this section (1) This section applies if: (a) a relevant court makes a civil penalty order against a person for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division; or (b) a person pays an amount stated in an infringement notice given to the person in relation to an alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division. Publication (2) The ACMA may publish on its website any or all of the following: (a) the name of the person; (b) a description of the conduct constituting the contravention or alleged contravention; (c) the provision of this Division contravened or alleged to have been contravened; (d) the amount of the pecuniary penalty ordered by the court, or stated in the infringement notice, as the case may be; (e) any other matter the ACMA considers relevant to public understanding of the contravention or alleged contravention. Opportunity to comment (3) Before publishing information about a person under subsection (2), the ACMA must: (a) give the person written notice of the information the ACMA proposes to publish; and (b) give the person a period of not less than 14 days to make a submission to the ACMA about the proposed publication; and (c) have regard to any submission made by the person within that period. Duration of publication (4) Information published under subsection (2) must remain published for a period of not less than 2 years, unless the ACMA is satisfied that it is no longer in the public interest for the information to remain published. No admission of liability etc. (5) To avoid doubt, if the ACMA publishes information under subsection (2) about a person who has paid an amount stated in an infringement notice that relates to an alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision, that publication does not constitute: (a) a finding that the person has contravened the civil penalty provision; or (b) an admission by the person of guilt or liability for the alleged contravention. No limit on other publication powers (6) This section does not limit any power that the ACMA has apart from this section to publish information, including in an annual report or in the exercise of any of the ACMA's other reporting functions. (6) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 23), after paragraph 64A(xv), insert: (xva) subsection 62ZAC(1); or (xvb) subsection 62ZAC(3); or (xvc) subsection 62ZAD(1); or (xvd) subsection 62ZAD(2); or (xve) subsection 62ZAD(3); or (xvf) subsection 62ZAE(1); or (xvg) subsection 62ZAF(2); or (xvh) subsection 62ZAF(4); or (7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 52 (before line 33), before paragraph 64C(1)(x), insert: (wa) subsection 62ZAC(1); (wb) subsection 62ZAC(3); (wc) subsection 62ZAD(1); (wd) subsection 62ZAD(2); (we) subsection 62ZAD(3); (wf) subsection 62ZAE(1); (wg) subsection 62ZAF(2); (wh) subsection 62ZAF(4); (8) Schedule 1, item 22, page 52 (line 33), omit "; (x)", substitute "(x)". (9) Schedule 1, item 24, page 53 (before line 31), before paragraph 64D(1)(x), insert: (wa) subsection 62ZAC(1); (wb) subsection 62ZAC(3); (wc) subsection 62ZAD(1); (wd) subsection 62ZAD(2); (we) subsection 62ZAD(3); (wf) subsection 62ZAE(1); (wg) subsection 62ZAF(2); (wh) subsection 62ZAF(4); (10) Schedule 1, item 24, page 53 (line 31), omit "; (x)", substitute "(x)". (11) Schedule 5, page 95 (after line 5), after item 5, insert: 5A Application provision — wagering inducements (1) Section 62ZAC of the new IGA Act applies in relation to conduct occurring on or after the commencement day. (2) Section 62ZAD of the new IGA Act applies in relation to the following: (a) a broadcast or datacast that occurs on or after the commencement day; (b) content is that provided on an online content service on or after the commencement day; (c) a direct communication that occurs on or after the commencement day. (3) Section 62ZAE of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a communication that occurs on or after the commencement day. (4) Section 62ZAF of the new IGA applies in relation to conduct mentioned in subsection 62ZAF(1) of that Act that occurs on or after the commencement day. (5) Section 62ZAG of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subsection 62ZAG(1) of that Act that occurs on or after the commencement day (whether the systematic pattern of conduct mentioned in paragraph 62ZAG(1)(b) of that Act began before, on or after the commencement day). (6) Section 62ZAH of the new IGA Act applies in relation to the following: (a) a civil penalty order for a contravention of a civil penalty provision, if the contravention occurred on or after the commencement day; (b) an infringement notice that relates to an alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision, if the contravention was alleged to have occurred on or after the commencement day. The amendments that I have moved today go to inducements. They actually go to recommendation 16 of the Murphy review, which says: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prohibit all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising, and that it do so without delay. I can't say that the government has followed this recommendation. The delay has been exhaustive. It took over a thousand days for the government to even respond to the Murphy review. It turns out that, now that the government has decided to act, we can't even have a full debate on the gambling advertising legislation and changes they're putting forward, because that apparently has to pass through without delay. I want to note that this is a bad way of managing complex legislation that matters to the Australian people. This is a deal between both the major parties, who have agreed to these amendments, which they have given to people without any notice at all. It's just a bad way to run this parliament and shows a deep lack of respect for the people who sent us to this place to address these issues. I want to talk about why inducements are important. The government has said, 'We are trying to address gambling harm.' Well, if you're trying to address gambling harm, there is no better place than to ban inducements. I want to quote some research by Professor Samantha Thomas. These are some words that some young people have used to describe inducements: 'It did encourage me to place more bets than I usually would, because it felt like I wasn't using my own money. When I didn't bet for a while, I was sent bonus bet texts. This influenced me, as it prompted me to go back.' Inducements appeal to young adults because they make gambling feel easier, cheaper or more exciting. Promotions encourage people to bet more than they normally would, and that's exactly what they do. Inducements create urgency, reduce the perception of risk and make people feel like they're not gambling with their own money. This is what creates the problem-gamblers that we have in this country. This is what creates the harm that we have in this country, driven by gambling. I recognise the government has put forward a number of amendments in relation to inducements, and I support those amendments for what they are. Honestly, though, this is not what the Murphy review requested, and I am sceptical about the impact of these minor amendments that the government and opposition have agreed to and about whether they will genuinely make the difference that they're intended to make. There's a cooling-off period of 14 days and a ban for those people who've been red flagged by the government's metrics, though we're not quite sure how that's going to work. There are also some bans for people who have put themselves forward with BetStop. This is a situation where we are literally providing the pathway for people to become problem-gamblers and for people's lives to be ruined by gambling and then saying, 'By the time you get there, we'll see if we can do anything to make this a little bit easier for you.' The government has an option. The opposition has an option. It could just go out there and ban inducements altogether. It has failed to do this, and this is deeply disappointing. It is deeply disappointing to all the people who came and gave their time and effort to all the inquiries that we have had about gambling. We could be making Australians safer right now and we have chosen not to. That is a decision that has been made by the major parties. 16:44 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Wentworth for moving these amendments. The government will not be supporting these amendments. The amendments we are making to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 relating to the direct marketing of inducements align with the government's overarching policy intent, which is to balance the protection of children and vulnerable Australians without limiting legitimate consumer choices. I would also note that some bans on inducements mentioned in the member's amendments, such as banning inducements relating to opening and closing an account, are already legislated by states and territories under the national consumer protection framework. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:49]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)

12 AYES Boele, N. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 61 NOES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:52 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield I move amendments (1) to (7) as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (line 17), omit "and to allow users to opt out of receiving such content", substitute ", and to ensure that users who have opted in to receiving such content can withdraw that opt-in at any time. (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 22 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph 62H(d), substitute: (d) has not opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service in accordance with section 62S. (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 22 (after line 7), at the end of section 62H, add: Note: An online content service provider must not provide incentives for an individual in Australia to opt in (see section 62SA). (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 31 (7 to 20), omit subsection 62P(2) (not including the notes), substitute: Exception — reasonable steps taken (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the online content service provider takes reasonable steps, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in a determination under subsection (4) of this section, to: (a) prevent restricted users from accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and (b) ensure that individuals in Australia accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service are doing so using a registered account in relation to the service; and (c) ensure that any individual who has, in accordance with section 62S, opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service, is provided with a clear, simple, effective and easily accessible means by which they can withdraw that opt-in at any time. (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 34 (line 5 to 6), omit "section 62S and". (6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (lines 9 to 26), omit section 62S, substitute: 62S Requirements for opting in to accessing etc. wagering advertising content (1) For the purposes of paragraph 62H(d), an individual (the chooser)has opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service only if: (a) the online content service provider has provided a means by which an individual may opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and (b) the method requires an individual to take clear, affirmative action in order to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and (c) the chooser has, using the means mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section, taken clear, affirmative action to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and (d) any requirements determined under subsection (2) of this section are satisfied. Note: Under paragraph 62H(d), an individual is a restricted user in relation to an online content service if they have not, in accordance with this section, opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service. (2) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument determine requirements for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d). (3) Without limiting subsection (2): (a) the AMCA may, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (implementation requirements) that must be satisfied in order for a condition set out in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) to be met; and (b) if the ACMA determines such an implementation requirement in relation to a condition in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c), then the condition is taken to be met only if the implementation requirement is satisfied. (7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (after line 26), at the end of Division 3, add: 62SA Prohibition on providing incentives to opt in A person contravenes this section if: (a) the person is an online content service provider; and (b) the person provides incentives for an individual in Australia to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service (for example by offers of discounted subscriptions to the service). Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. The Murphy review made it very clear that we need a complete ban on gambling advertising, and the government's made it clear that it isn't willing to do this. As I outlined in my second reading speech, this is immensely disappointing. It's disappointing for all the people affected by gambling harm. It's disappointing for their families and for their loved ones, and it's disappointing for our children, who are going to continue to grow up surrounded by gambling ads that they just don't need or want to see. The government has refused to implement a full ban, but there are still ways to improve this bill. These amendments that I move today do one simple thing: they flip the online gambling advertising model from opt out to opt in. Under the bill as drafted, Australians using online content services will be shown wagering ads by default unless they take active steps to opt out. My amendments reverse that so no-one will see wagering advertising unless they actively choose to receive it. This is the very least that the government should do, given how far short the bill falls of the Murphy report recommendations. Why does the default option matter so much? It's because we know that, from real-world evidence, the defaults are sticky. When SBS introduced an opt-out function for gambling ads on its streaming service, it was reported that only 0.2 per cent of active subscribers used it over two years. That doesn't mean that 99.8 per cent of people wanted gambling ads; it means that people don't go looking for settings menus. They don't know the option exists and they don't know how to use it. Most people, understandably, are not thinking about their exposure to wagering advertising while they're trying to watch the football with the kids—and they shouldn't have to. As gambling harm prevention expert Samantha Thomas told the Senate inquiry into this bill: Young people and parents should not be expected to navigate sophisticated commercial marketing systems to continuously identify and block novel gambling promotions. But an opt-out model asks them to do exactly that. An opt-in model puts the burden back where it belongs—on the industry—to earn permission to advertise to someone rather than assuming that right by default. To repeat myself, a full ban is best. That's what we all want. But, if the government continues to refuse to do that, it can make this simple and small change and dramatically improve the impact of this bill for the best. I commend the amendments to the House. 16:54 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Bradfield for moving this amendment. The government will not support this amendment. The government supports the principle that Australians should have meaningful control over whether they see wagering advertising online. The bill is clear on the prominence of the opt-out mechanism. It must be clear, simple, effective and easily accessible. Online platforms must also display information about the means to opt out in a way that is prominent to individuals using the service. If platforms can't do this, then they can't show gambling ads. The government has supported an amendment to establish a wagering advertising opt-out register to provide individuals with a one-stop shop to opt out of receiving all wagering advertising content. This amendment gives effect to the government's policy intent by giving consumers the opportunity to easily reduce the targeting and saturation of wagering advertising across online content service providers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:00]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)

12 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 58 NOES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:05 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I move amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 9), before item 2, insert: 1C After section 3 Insert: 3A Administration of this Act (1) The Health Minister has the general administration of this Act. (2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) has effect despite anything in: (a) an Administrative Arrangements Order; or (b) a substituted reference order made under section 19B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Note: Subsection (2) of this section does not prevent an order mentioned in that subsection from being used for the purposes of determining which Minister is the Health Minister. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 18), after the definition of court/tribunal proceedings in section 4, insert: Health Minister means the Minister administering the National Health Act 1953. (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (line 29), omit "8:30 pm", substitute "10:30 pm". (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 25 (line 11), omit "5 minutes", substitute "1 hour". (5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 25 (line 13), omit "5 minutes", substitute "1 hour". (6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 26 (line 6), omit "8:30 pm", substitute "10:30 pm". (7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 27 (lines 4 to 8), omit the example, substitute: Example: Broadcasting of live coverage of a sporting event that is scheduled to start at 7 pm and ends at 11.30 pm is subject to both: (a) the restrictions under section 62K between 6 pm and 10:30 pm (the restrictions start 1 hour before the scheduled start of the sporting event because of the operation of subsection 62K(2)); and (b) the restrictions under this section between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. (8) Schedule 1, item 18, page 27 (line 34), omit "8:30 pm", substitute "10:30 pm". To be clear, to protect the wellbeing of Australians, particularly young Australians, what's needed is a full ban on gambling advertising phased in over three years, exactly as recommended in the You win some, you lose more report that had unanimous and multipartisan support from all involved in that parliamentary inquiry. However, my amendments respond to the bill before me. My first amendment would strengthen protections for children, protecting them from regularly seeing gambling advertising in the evenings as they watch footy. Currently, the unamended bill would ban gambling ads during live sports coverage on broadcast, datacasting and online content services between 5 am and 8.30 pm. My amendment would extend this blackout for gambling ads during sports broadcasts by extending that restricted period from 8.30 pm to 10.30 pm. After 8.30 pm, the government's bill would allow unlimited gambling advertising during live sports in both scheduled and unscheduled breaks, including half-time and rain delays. This undermines efforts to break the link between sport and gambling, and we know many children just do not go to bed at 8.30 in the middle of a match. The government has stated that the reforms will protect children. They will not. The Australian Gambling Research Centre notes that, while child viewership drops after 8.30 pm, around half of children watching peak-time television are still watching at 9 pm and a quarter remain at 10 pm. Worse still, the bill actually weakens existing protections. The Alliance for Gambling Reform and the Monash Addiction Research Centre note that gambling ads are currently banned during live sport regardless of the time of day. Under the government's proposed bill, those protections would be removed after 8.30 pm. In the absence of a full ban, my amendment to extend the restriction period to 10.30 pm creates a more realistic and child-protective threshold that better reflects the evidence and real-life viewing habits. Gambling advertising is harmful not only during the match itself but during the build-up and aftermath, when excitement is high and betting odds are being promoted. So my first amendment also extends the buffer period before and after live sporting events from what was five and now is 15 minutes. My amendment would extend that to one hour before and after the event. To my second amendment, treating gambling as a public health issue was a core recommendation of the Murphy report. Gambling has serious and harmful effects on Australians' health and wellbeing. It causes over 400 deaths by suicide every year, and this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gambling related harms. The Australian Medical Association has consistently argued that gambling is a public health issue and gambling harm affects mental health, physical health and community wellbeing. Doctors and health professionals see the consequences: anxiety, depression, substance use, family breakdown, domestic violence, financial distress and social isolation. However, currently gambling is not primarily dealt with by the Minister for Health and Ageing or the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. Instead, gambling is the responsibility of the Minister for Communications. This is a serious flaw. Gambling is far more than a communications issue. We treat tobacco and alcohol as public health issues. Gambling, also highly addictive and potentially harmful, should be no different. Indeed, the government's own explanatory memorandum to this bill describes gambling harm as 'a significant public health concern'. It's common sense that a public health concern should sit within a public health framework, under the responsibility of the minister for health. Moving responsibility for the act to the health minister would send a clear message that this government is serious about safeguarding the health and wellbeing of Australians and protecting our children from the predatory gambling companies who target our most vulnerable relentlessly. Instead of protecting the profits of gambling companies, the government should be protecting the health and wellbeing of Australians, especially our children. Gambling is a highly addictive pursuit that causes untold harm to the health and wellbeing of Australians, and it needs a health led response. I want to thank Professor Samantha Thomas, the public health specialist, for her tireless work to reframe gambling as a public health issue. These amendments would put gambling harm where it belongs—as a public health issue within the health portfolio—and would extend protections for children and young people watching live sport in the evening with their families. I urge all in parliament, in the House, to support these commonsense amendments. 17:10 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Mackellar for moving these amendments. The government will not support these amendments. The government shares the objective of reducing gambling harm and limiting exposure to wagering advertising, particularly for children and young people. The gambling reform bill takes strong action to limit exposure to wagering advertising from the times and places that children are watching. It bans wagering advertising during live sports, it sets a frequency cap to ensure audiences aren't saturated with wagering advertising, and it makes a family trip to the footy a wagering ad free space by banning ads on sporting uniforms and at sporting venues. The frequency cap and live sport restrictions are in place until 8.30 pm, which reflects the data mentioned that shows child audiences drop significantly after this time. In response to calls for more distance between wagering ads and sport events, the government has moved an amendment to extend the blackout period before a live sporting event to 15 minutes. This amendment, along with the measures I have just outlined, will break the link between wagering and sport. With regard to the amendment prescribing the health minister as the general administrator of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, I would note that it is not convention for legislation to prescribe which portfolios should have responsibility for specific acts. Machinery of government arrangements have long been decided by the Prime Minister as the head of government through established processes. Question negatived. 17:11 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I move amendment (1) on sheet 1 and amendments (1) to (8) on sheet two together: SHEET 1 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: _____ SHEET 2 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (before line 19), before section 62K, insert: 62KA Information about opting out must accompany any broadcast or datacast of wagering advertising content If a person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia, then the person must ensure that: (a) the broadcast or datacast of the wagering advertising content must be immediately preceded by a broadcast or datacast, on the same service, of content (the opt out content) explaining how a person can opt out of receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and (b) the broadcast or datacast of the opt out content must satisfy any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 30 (before line 26), before section 62P, insert: 62PA Information about opting out must accompany any provision of wagering advertising content on online content service If: (a) a person is an online content service provider; and (b) wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online content service; then the person must ensure that: (c) the provision of the wagering advertising content on the online content service must be immediately preceded by the provision, on the service, of content (the opt out content) explaining how a person can opt out of receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and (d) the provision of the opt out content on the service must satisfy any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (3) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 1), omit paragraph 64A(x), substitute: ; or (xaa) section 62KA; or (x) subsection 62K(1); or (4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 8), after paragraph 64A(xg), insert: (xga) subsection 62PA; or (5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 52 (line 33), omit paragraph 64C(1)(x), substitute: ; (xaa) section 62KA; (x) subsection 62K(1); (6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 6), after paragraph 64C(1)(xg), insert: (xga) subsection 62PA; (7) Schedule 1, item 24, page 53 (line 31), omit paragraph 64D(1)(x), substitute: ; (xaa) section 62KA; (x) subsection 62K(1); (8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 4), after paragraph 64D(1)(xg), insert: (xga) subsection 62PA; I move the amendments circulated because these are clear fundamental gaps in this government's proposal. I want to be really clear. The four fundamental gaps in this bill are still requiring the establishment of a national online gambling regulator, requiring the establishment of a national online gambling ombudsman, prohibiting payments and the referral of individual customers and requiring information about the advertising opt-out scheme to be presented before gambling advertising is aired, regardless of the platform. This should be paid for out of the time and by the gambling companies. These are not radical proposals. They are in fact mostly—other than the opt-out one—reforms that were drawn directly from the unanimous recommendations of the Murphy inquiry report, You win some, you lose more. I note that it's rather concerning to see that there are members who voted in support of these recommendations on the report who are voting against these very amendments that give effect to the recommendations of the report. I call hypocrisy in that setting. The government has described this bill as landmark reform, but a bill that permits up to three ads per hour during prime time and ending that at 8.30 is not an advertising ban. A bill that asks Australians to opt out of gambling advertising while allowing the advertising to reach them by default does not put public health first, and a bill that leaves Australia without a national regulator or ombudsman does not provide a national system recommended by the Murphy review. The bill just doesn't pass the pub test, no matter how much grandstanding we see from members of government in this place. The amendments here from many members of the crossbench would start to try and improve this legislation and bring it somewhere near what was recommended in the review. First, the amendments would require the minister to take all reasonable steps to establish a national online gambling regulator within two years. Online gambling is inherently national. A person can place a bet from anywhere in Australia through a company licensed in another jurisdiction, using a platform operating across every state and territory. The Murphy report recommended a national regulation and a national online gambling regulator with the sole purpose of reducing harm. Such a regulator can have the responsibility for licensing, compliance, enforcement, data collection and the development and enforcement of national standards. My amendment gives effect to that and gives the government two years to do it. Then, within six months of its establishment, the minister should report back in relation to the relevant recommendations and explain why they've been left out. The second amendment is in relation to taking all reasonable steps to establish a national online gambling ombudsman within two years. I can't begin to describe how complex are some of the amendments in this legislation that have been proposed and how much responsibility has been put on the customer, on the users, yet they have no ombudsman to whom they can complain about the lack of compliance by gambling companies or online companies when it comes to the opt-out system. Somehow, without any ombudsman, they're supposed to have some avenue to say, 'Hey, in the system you are claiming is going to be so effective, there's nowhere for me to complain about it.' It is a maze for consumers to complain around online advertising and gambling. At the moment, you could have a dispute about delayed or withheld withdrawal, failure to honour self-exclusion, relentless direct marketing, inappropriate inducement, closure or suspension of account, or a provider's or failure to respond to clear signs of gambling harm, and you would you'd need to have a law degree to know—even then I don't think you would—where you could actually complain about it. A customer and a vulnerable person should not be bounced between the provider, a state licensing authority, a consumer affairs body and a Commonwealth agency, each dealing with only one part of the problem. It's a fundamental consumer protection: there should be an ombudsman. Finally, the government has included a cop-out in relation to an opt-out process when it comes to the advertising online and advertising. The final amendment is that, before any advertising in relation to gambling—whether it be online or free to air or on any platform—the gambling industry should have to pay for and promote upfront a warning and promote the opt-out register. They should pay to make sure a viewer is aware of this opt-out gambling register. It should not be the public that has to pay for such an ad campaign, and Australians should not be left at the mercy of having to go looking for where they can actually opt-out. This is makes sense that, prior to seeing damaging advertising, they should have a warning—and they should pay for letting people know about the opt-out. 17:17 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Warringah for moving this amendment. The government will not support these amendments. The government has heard the concerns raised at the Senate inquiry, related to the harms of inducements, and we are committed to protecting vulnerable people from gambling related harm. The government has moved an amendment to the gambling reform bill to prohibit wagering service providers from providing, offering or arranging any commissions to staff or any third party involved in the referral or provision of online gambling to an individual based on customer activity. This will remove incentives for employees and affiliates of wagering companies to keep their customers gambling. In relation to proposed amendments to establish a national regulator, the government has a longstanding, shared responsibility for the regulation of gambling with the states and territories. We will continue to work constructively with jurisdictions to address harms from online gambling. The gambling reform bill specifies that an opt-out for wagering advertising must be clear, simple, prominent, effective and easily accessible. Online platforms must also display information about the means to opt-out in a way that is prominent to individuals using that service. The amended bill has further strengthened this requirement by providing the ACMA powers to direct online content service providers to comply with the existing requirements in the bill to provide or display information about how individuals may opt-out of receiving wagering advertising. The ACMA may also issue written direction where they are not satisfied that an online content service provider is complying with opt-out prominence requirements. They may then issue a penalty where a provider has not complied with the written direction within 30 days. 17:18 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to speak in support of the member for Warringah's amendments. I find it extraordinary that the government isn't going for a national regulator here, and I want to talk a little bit about what we heard in the Murphy inquiry and what the committee found in relation to a national regulator. Recommendations 3 and 23 talked about the need for a national online gambling regulator and the broad suite of powers that they needed, and we heard evidence about a number of different areas that makes this the right thing to do. Firstly, we have weak and fragmented legislation. Australians lose the most to online gambling because we have a weak and fragmented regulatory framework, which places all the onus for reducing harm onto the person who gambles. That was the finding of the committee. The committee also made findings about the fragmented approach, with four Australian government ministers and at least seven state and territory ministers with some responsibility for online gambling regulation and harm reduction. We heard evidence and made findings about the inconsistency across states and territories and how that inconsistency and fragmentation has negatively impacted harm reduction efforts. We also heard that even the wagering companies agreed that this fragmentation doesn't work. Responsible Wagering Australia noted that providers are already accountable to 26 different regulatory bodies. There was really strong support for the Australian government to establish national regulation and a national regulator. Suicide Prevention Australia said that the problem is that gambling regulation operates in silos. The Alliance for Gambling Reform backed it as well. Tabcorp—and I quote from their submission—said: The internet and construct of the Australian Constitution mean that only the Federal Government has the levers and authority to effectively introduce nationally consistent regulations in line with consumer expectations and the betting environment. Effective enforcement is only possible if a single national betting regulator has the power to license and impose conditions on betting operators. So how about listening to the betting companies on that issue? We also heard evidence about regulatory capture, and concerns were raised about the regulatory capture of the Northern Territory Racing Commission. Financial Counselling Australia said the NTRC was set up to further the development of the racing and betting industry in the Northern Territory. This is our de facto national regulator. Another submission said that the NTRC is basically a business partner, not a regulator, and Professor Charles Livingstone said there was a much too cosy relationship between the regulator and the regulated. When asked about commission members, the NTRC said in their evidence: As you would imagine, some have an interest in the racing industry and sports, but those interests are declared as part of our regular commission meetings. It is so normalised they didn't see that there was a problem with it. The committee also heard that the gambling industry uses similar methods to the tobacco industry to minimise the impact of regulation. These tactics include lobbying, public relations, political donations and funding, and supporting research agendas as well. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:26]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)

11 AYES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 62 NOES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Briskey, J. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chesters, L. M. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:33 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:33]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)

102 AYES Abdo, B. J. Aldred, M. R. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Buchholz, S. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Campbell, J. P. Chaffey, J. L. Chesters, L. M. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Penfold, A. L. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Small, B. J. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Witty, S. J. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Third Reading 96 17:43 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question now is that the bill be read a third time.

The House divided. [17:44]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Georganas)

103 AYES Abdo, B. J. Aldred, M. R. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Buchholz, S. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Campbell, J. P. Chaffey, J. L. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Holzberger, R. A. V. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Kennedy, S. P. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Moncrieff, D. S. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Penfold, A. L. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Small, B. J. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Witty, S. J. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Boele, N. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. T. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 97

National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 97 17:47 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that this bill be now read a second time. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 17 August 2026, I will put the question immediately. That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 97 17:47 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026 97

Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026

Second Reading 97 17:48 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that this bill be read a second time. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 17 August 2026, I will put the question immediately. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 98 17:48 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026 98

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026

Second Reading 98 17:49 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 17 August 2026, as amended on 18 August 2026, I'll now put the question immediately. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 98 17:51 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) be agreed to. 17:51 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 98 17:52 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 98

News Journalism Payments Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

Second Reading 98 17:52 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to speak on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026. The coalition supports a strong, sustainable and independent Australian news media sector. Quality journalism is one of the foundations of our democracy. It informs public debate. It holds governments and institutions to account. It gives voice to communities that might otherwise go unheard. And it ensures Australians have access to accurate, reliable and diverse sources of information. This is especially important in regional Australia, where a local newspaper, radio station or digital outlet may be the only source of detailed reporting on issues that matter to local communities. The legislation before the parliament seeks to establish a new news media bargaining incentive scheme following the Albanese government's decision to abandon the coalition's news media bargaining code. As we consider these bills, it is important that we understand not only what is being proposed but also the history that brought us to this point. The reality is that Australia did not arrive at this debate by accident; it was the coalition that first recognised a growing imbalance between global digital platforms and Australian news publishers. It was the coalition that commissioned the ACCC to investigate that problem. And it was the coalition that delivered the world-leading news media bargaining code. In 2019, the former coalition government asked the ACCC to examine the growing market power of digital platforms and the implications for competition, journalism and the sustainability of Australian media businesses. The inquiry confirmed what many publishers already knew: digital platforms had become unavoidable gatekeepers between news organisations and their audiences. News businesses continued to carry the costs of producing journalism, employing reporters and maintaining editorial standards, yet an ever-growing share of advertising revenue was flowing to global technology companies. The market had fundamentally changed. The bargaining power between publishers and platforms had become deeply unequal. Initially, the coalition pursued a voluntary code. We wanted commercial agreements. We wanted the parties to negotiate in good faith. But, when that failed to produce meaningful outcomes, we acted. In 2021, the coalition delivered the mandatory news media bargaining code. The code was based on a straightforward principle: if digital platforms derive significant value from Australian news content and the audiences it attracts, they should contribute to the sustainability of Australian journalism. The code worked. It delivered more than 30 commercial agreements reportedly worth around $250 million annually to Australian news organisations. Importantly, those agreements were commercial agreements. Funding flowed directly between news businesses and digital platforms. Government was not in the middle. Government was not allocating funding. Government was not deciding who received support. The market was encouraged to correct a bargaining imbalance through negotiated commercial outcomes. The code became a global benchmark. Countries around the world looked to Australia as the pioneer of a new approach to supporting public-interest journalism in the digital age. That achievement should not be forgotten; nor should it be rewritten. The problem was not that the media code failed; the problem was that Meta chose to walk away from the table. In April 2024, Meta announced it would not renew its commercial agreements with Australian news publishers, and that created a significant challenge—nobody disputes that. But, faced with that challenge, Labor had an important choice to make. The government could have strengthened the existing framework. It could have explored ways to better enforce the intent of the code. It could have examined measures that ensured platforms could not evade their responsibilities simply by withdrawing from commercial negotiations. Instead, Labor chose a different path. It chose to dismantle the code and start again. The result is a news media bargaining incentive scheme, now before the parliament, following a two-year delay. Australian news organisations have paid a very heavy price. Under the new framework, major digital platforms with Australian digital advertising revenue exceeding $250 million will either enter into commercial agreements with Australian news publishers or pay a charge. The charge is set at 2.5 per cent of Australian digital advertising revenue. Platforms must enter into at least eight qualifying commercial agreements to fully utilise the offset arrangements. Expenditure on agreements with larger publishers attracts an offset of 150 per cent. Expenditure on agreements with small and medium publishers attracts an offset of 200 per cent. In practical terms, every dollar spent supporting a small or medium publisher counts as $2 against the platform's liability. Where commercial deals are not done, revenue collected through the charge will be redistributed through a statutory news journalism payment scheme. On its face, the objective is sensible. The coalition agrees that digital platforms should contribute to the sustainability of Australian journalism. The question is whether this framework achieves that objective more effectively than the coalition's code. It is a question that deserves really close scrutiny. The government's own estimates suggest the scheme will generate between $200 million and $250 million in support for Australian journalism through either commercial agreements or payments under the framework. Those figures invite an obvious question: what is actually better than the system that Labor abandoned? The coalition's code reportedly supported agreements worth around $250 million a year. After several years of consultation, extensive negotiations and an entirely new legislative framework, the government's own estimates suggest the Australian news media will actually go backwards. That is why the coalition wants to see the charge increased. This is why many media organisations have questioned whether Labor's changes represent an improvement at all. Australians are entitled to ask whether dismantling the existing framework was necessary if the result is a scheme that produces similar outcomes while introducing additional complexity. That question becomes even more important when we examine how the new scheme will operate. The effectiveness of the framework depends entirely on the accurate calculation of Australian digital advertising revenue, and that is a very critical point. The charge imposed on technology companies is calculated using their Australian digital advertising revenue. If that revenue is understated, liabilities are understated. If liabilities are understated, the support flowing to Australian journalism is diminished. If liabilities are understated, the incentive to negotiate meaningful commercial agreements is weakened. The entire framework relies on confidence that revenues are being properly measured and accurately reported, and that is why the coalition believes the Australian Taxation Office must have robust powers to access information and verify the revenue declarations made by digital platforms. Revenue can be allocated in complicated ways. The parliament must ensure that the integrity of the scheme is protected and that avoidance opportunities are minimised. Without confidence in the calculation of revenue, confidence in the scheme itself is undermined. The coalition also believes careful attention must be paid to the operation of the news journalism payments scheme. One of the most significant differences between Labor's framework and the coalition's code is the role of government. Under the coalition's code, the objective was to facilitate commercial agreements between publishers and platforms. Under this scheme, where charges are collected, substantial funding will be distributed through a government administered statutory process. Ninety per cent of any revenue collected will be distributed according to a statutory formula. The distribution is linked primarily to editorial journalistic staffing. Ten per cent will be reserved for grants, with five per cent specifically allocated to the Australian Associated Press. The coalition recognises the value of the AAP and the important role it plays in Australia's media ecosystem. We also recognise that many smaller publishers face genuine challenges. Regional publishers, local news organisations, community outlets and independent startups—these organisations often operate with limited resources while performing an invaluable public service. They deserve the opportunity to participate in the benefits generated by the scheme. However, any government administered funding arrangement must be transparent, accountable and subject to appropriate safeguards. There are serious questions about media and multicultural media grants. There's evidence that recipients have not been properly vetted, with funds going to groups which have platformed extremists and undermined social cohesion; that grants have been made to advertising agencies and soft media outlets that don't appear to produce core news or public-interest journalism; and that grants have been strategically used by government ministers at critical points of the electoral cycle in order to secure favourable coverage from media outlets. This is not acceptable. Public confidence in journalism depends not only on sustainable funding but on confidence that support is being provided fairly, transparently and independently. That principle matters. Australians want media organisations to scrutinise governments, not depend on them. They want journalists asking difficult questions, not feeling constrained by funding arrangements. That is why transparency and accountability must remain central considerations as the scheme is implemented. The coalition will continue to monitor the operation of these arrangements carefully. The coalition remains committed to ensuring that those who derive significant value from Australian news contribute fairly to its production. We remain committed to supporting sustainable journalism and strong regional media. We remain committed to preserving a diverse and independent media landscape. We remain committed to ensuring that policy in this area delivers practical outcomes, rather than simply creating new layers of complexity. While aspects of these bills warrant close scrutiny and, in our view, further improvement, the objective remains an important one. Australia needs a strong media sector. Australia needs independent journalism. Australia needs news organisations that can continue to serve their communities, hold power to account and strengthen our democracy. That objective is too important to get wrong. For those reasons, the coalition wants to see this bill strengthen in the best interests of Australian journalism, Australian consumers and our great democracy. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) acknowledges the Coalition's News Media Bargaining Code delivered significant commercial support for Australian journalism; (2) notes that Australian publishers have endured more than two years of delay and uncertainty while the government refused to designate social media companies under the Code; and (3) is unconvinced that the News Bargaining Incentive Scheme, as currently drafted, will provide more support for Australian journalists and publishers than was delivered under the Coalition's News Media Bargaining Code". The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the motion seconded? Mr McCormack 219646 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 18:06 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell I rise to make a contribution to the news bargaining incentive bills before the House. I often speak in this place about the importance of backing Aussie made, often in the context of Australian industry and manufacturing, as many of us do on this side of the House. But this principle that we hold isn't limited to just physical goods and components. It also applies to other things Australians consume such as the media and news that Australians depend on every day. Good quality journalism is the backbone of our vibrant and successful democracy. It plays a significant role in the work that all members of this parliament do every day. It not only keeps us accountable but also helps us inform and engage the community on the work that goes on in this place. Whilst that may come across as just an ordinary point that we might take as a given, the reality is that, in many places, access to good quality journalism is under increasing pressure. These bills recognise that good quality journalism also plays a vital role in keeping Australians connected to their local communities. Local and regional news outlets play a critical role in keeping Australians informed on the issues that are nearest to them and keeping them connected to events and activities happening in their communities. These local outlets help locals and communities across Australia stay informed on issues that impact their day-to-day lives—issues that may not be picked up by the larger outlets or, as is becoming increasingly prevalent, by their social media algorithms. Local media also plays an important role in keeping members of the community connected to one another. It does this by promoting community organisations, sporting organisations and community events. We know how important this is for regional communities, where regional and rural Australians are at greater risk of becoming isolated, but this also plays an important role in outer suburban communities like mine. My electorate of Calwell is a young and diverse community with many young families and new Australians. We recognise that good quality journalism is costly to produce and that the revenue media outlets traditionally depended on has declined, being replaced by a handful of global platforms. We know of many journalists who started off in local papers and went on to inform the landscape of larger media outlets, even across the world. Without reform we run the risk of local outlets no longer being able to provide the same opportunities going into the future, and local and regional news outlets are the most vulnerable to this change. Diversity in media matters to public interest journalism and to democratic oversight. The value of journalism is not simply in the stories that are published but in the diversity of voices and perspectives that are able to be heard. A strong and diverse media sector means Australians have access to different perspectives, different experiences and different ways of understanding the issues that affect their lives. That diversity is particularly important in a democracy. We should not want Australians relying on a small number of large platforms or algorithms to determine what news they see and what issues they understand and even influence the way things are understood in an increasingly narrow way. We need a media landscape where there is room for national outlets, independent journalists, local newspapers, regional broadcasters and community media, because each of them can provide something different. Local journalists in particular have a connection to their communities that larger national outlets simply cannot replicate. They know the local issues, they know the people involved and they understand what matters to the communities they serve. That is why protecting the sustainability of Australian journalism is so important. We are not just protecting businesses or newspapers. We are protecting the diversity of voices that Australians can access and ultimately the strength of Australia's democracy. We all know and understand that access to information has changed. The methods through which we consume our media have changed. In fact, our entire relationship with the media landscape has changed. The way Australians consume news today is vastly different than it was even a decade ago. For many Australians the morning newspaper has been replaced by a news notification on their phone, a social media feed or a story shared by a friend. We can access more information from more sources than ever before. But with that increased access come new challenges. The platforms Australians use to access news are increasingly controlled by large global technology companies. The way information is presented to us can be shaped by algorithms, commercial incentives and changes to the way these platforms operate. That means that the future of Australian journalism cannot simply be left to these devices and platforms, which offer accessibility in an increasingly narrow way. And, as we interact with new and emerging technologies—the full extent of which we do not yet know or appreciate—we need policies and legislation that can keep up with that pace of change. We need to make sure that, as technology changes, Australian journalism is not left behind. We need a regulatory framework that recognises the changing way Australians access information while continuing to support the journalists, newsrooms and media organisations that do the work of producing quality journalism in the first place, because, while the technology through which we consume news may change, the fundamental value of journalism does not. Australians still need journalists who can investigate issues, hold institutions to account, verify information and tell the stories of their communities. Our policies need to ensure that Australian journalism can continue to perform that role, regardless of how the technology or platforms through which we access that journalism may evolve. We know that quality journalism is costly to produce, while the commercial revenue that has traditionally supported news production has declined as digital advertising has shifted to a small number of global platforms. A small number of global digital platforms now capture significant digital advertising revenue, while many Australian news businesses remain under financial pressure. Without action, Australians risk losing local and regional news services, media diversity, public interest journalism and democratic accountability. This government recognises that public interest journalism is a public good and is taking action to help build a stronger local media presence in Australia, made here in Australia by Australians, and the bill before the House serves to do just that. The government's approach is practical and allows for a market based approach designed to support a sustainable, diverse and independent Australian news sector. The measures build on and strengthen the world-leading News Media Bargaining Code, which has been in place since March 2021, ensuring that it remains effective in a changing digital environment. And it will apply a 2.5 per cent charge to Australian digital advertising revenue earned by significant search and social media services. The government's clear preference, however, is for platforms and news businesses to reach commercial agreements rather than for platforms to pay the charge. If platforms derive value from Australian news they should help sustain it, either by investing directly through commercial agreements or by paying the incentive charge. Any revenue collected through the NBI will be returned in full to the Australian news industry through the News Journalism Payments scheme. Payments under the News Journalism Payments scheme will be allocated based on the size of the media outlet, including the number of journalists an organisation employs, including the freelancers, recognising that the more journalists employed, the greater the investment in public interest journalism. The eligible roles set to benefit include journalists, photojournalists, videographers, data and visual journalists, and editors and producers directly involved in producing core news content. Using journalists as the basis for payment recognises the essential work they do in investigating, analysing, reporting and producing the news Australians rely on each and every day. A 20 per cent uplift will apply for journalists employed in regional and remote Australia by small and medium news organisations and by news organisations serving diverse communities, including First Nations Australians and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Culturally and linguistically diverse news outlets play an important role in the settlement journey of new Australians. They also help keep Australians connected with the rest of the world. This feeds into our understanding and engagement with a changing world and, in doing so, helps strengthen Australia. Often the focus is on Australian news delivered in language so people can better understand and engage with the issues of the day. This is an important part of the exercise of democracy, ensuring that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds have access to information in a language they understand so they can participate fully in the public discussions around them that impact Australian society and public life. This recognises the additional challenges of employing journalists in regional and remote Australia and the financial pressures facing smaller and community focused publishers. Together, these bills strengthen the news media bargaining code, support commercial investment in Australian journalism, return any incentive revenue to the sector and help secure a sustainable, diverse and independent news industry for the future. Ultimately, this is about making sure that our policy settings keep pace with the world around us. Technology will continue to change the way Australians access, consume and engage with the news, and we cannot know exactly what that change will look like in the years ahead, but what we do know is that the need for quality, independent and diverse Australian journalism will not change. In fact, one could argue it will become even more important and crucial. Our government's response recognises that technological change should not come at the expense of the journalists and news organisations that keep Australians informed, hold institutions to account and connect our communities. By strengthening our regulatory framework and supporting investment in Australian journalism, we are ensuring that our media sector can adapt to technological change while continuing to serve the public interest. That is what these bills are ultimately about, making sure that, as technology changes, Australian journalism has a sustainable future and Australians continue to have access to the diverse and trusted news they need. 18:17 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I, too, rise to speak on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and the associated bills, which together establish the news bargaining initiative. I want to start somewhere very specific. In my electorate, there is a newspaper called the Shepparton News. It was founded in 1877, when a printing press was hauled up from Echuca by a bullock team, and it's been in the hands of the McPherson family since 1888. For most of the last century it was on the kitchen tables of the Goulburn Valley five days a week. Since the middle of last year, it has been printed two days a week, Tuesdays and Fridays. Forty minutes north, in Echuca, the Riverine Herald has been publishing since 1863. It has gone from three print editions a week to two. Why? It's because close to 80 per cent of those mastheads' readers now get their news on a phone. The company has invested in an app and in newsletters and in audio and video. It is doing what a sensible business does when the audience moves. But I would ask the House to sit with what change actually represents. A newspaper that came out five days a week and, for a short time, six days a week now has two print editions. The journalism hasn't stopped—the journalists are still there—but what has gone is the advertising revenue that used to pay for them, and it has gone to the digital platforms that are the subject of these bills. That's the whole argument in just a couple of regional mastheads. The coalition supports the objective of this legislation, and I want to put on the record why. It was a coalition government that asked the ACCC to develop a code in 2019, and it was a coalition government that made that code mandatory in 2021 when the voluntary approach went nowhere—and it worked. Two platforms were captured, more than 30 commercial agreements were struck and something in the order of $250 million a year began flowing into Australian media to support newsrooms. Some of that money came to my electorate. Country Press Australia collectively bargained on behalf of more than 80 rural and regional titles. Small publishers who could never have negotiated alone with a trillion company suddenly had a seat at the table. That was the point of the code, and on that measure it succeeded. But then, in 2024, Meta walked away. It announced it would not renew and made clear that, if it were designated, it would simply remove Australian news from its platforms altogether, which under the code as drafted meant there was no power to compel it to pay anything. The government had a choice at that moment, and the former chair of the ACCC Rod Sims argued for a straightforward fix: deem the platforms to have published Australian news so that switching news off didn't switch their obligation off. But instead the government spent the better part of two years dismantling the code and building a new one. So we come to these bills 18 months late. I want to acknowledge what has been achieved in that time, because a lot of it was achieved by people who do not have a lobbying budget, and Country Press Australia is an example. They asked for the regional loading in the distribution model to be lifted from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. Now it's 20 per cent. They argued that four commercial agreements was nowhere near enough to satisfy a diversity requirement and that six was still not enough. The bills now require us to have eight. They asked for stronger offset for deals with smaller publishers. The offset for small and medium publishers is now 200 per cent against the 150 per cent for the majors. A 25 per cent per-deal cap has been reinstated so that no single agreement can wipe out a platform's liability. These are meaningful wins, and they were won by regional publishers turning up with evidence again and again over two years. I had many discussions with them, and I want to thank them for it. But I still have some concerns, and I'll raise them now because I'd rather this scheme work than just pass. My first concern is what we mean by the word 'regional'. When the Public Interest Journalism Initiative built the national data set on the Australian news, it drew exactly this distinction. It classified professional local news outlets separately from community scale outlets, which is described as tending to be non-commercial, produced by volunteers, sometimes without journalistic training and covering hyperlocal matters. It applied professional ethical standards to the first category and did not apply them to the second, because they are different things doing different work. If this scheme is going to distribute money on a formula tied to the number of journalists employed, then the loading has to attach to organisations that employ journalists. That's not gatekeeping; it goes to the entire logic of this bill. Another issue is the lack of data. We are not quite legislating in the dark when it comes to regional journalism, but the light has dimmed. For five years this parliament has had access to something genuinely valuable: a monthly, publicly available record of what is happening to news production in this country. The Australian News Data Project tracked openings, closures, mergers, service reductions and the end of print editions town by town from January 2019. It told us there had been 519 market changes and 161 outlet closures between 2019 and 2024. It told us that roughly two-thirds of the contractions were in regional Australia. It told us that, as at the end of 2024, there were 1,222 news outlets in this country and that 1,061 of them were local. That project ceased on 31 December 2024, when its funding ended. The task passed to the Australian Communications and Media Authority. To be fair to ACMA, it hasn't dropped it. It published its first report on news media in Australia in 2025. It refreshed its interactive data reports in May this year. Its outlet register is current to March 2026. But the first report is also the only report, and the next one's not due until 2027. The monthly market-change tracking—that granular, closure-by-closure record of which towns are losing what—is not being maintained in the same form that it was. We are about to establish a scheme that redistributes money on the basis of where journalists are employed and we have no continuous national record of where newsrooms are opening and closing. The data is not there. I would ask the government to direct ACMA to maintain and publish a continuing regional news register, updated at least twice a year, with the market-change data restored. I want to close on why this matters. It's easy to present this as a subsidiary to an industry, but it is not that. Local journalism is not just a service that a community consumes; it is a piece of infrastructure that a community runs on. No-one knows that better than the member for Riverina, who was an editor of a regional newspaper before he came into parliament. It is the reason a council knows its planning decisions will be read out. It is the reason why a water authority can explain itself. It's the reason a hospital board's decisions are contested in a public space, rather than settled in private. It sits in the same category as roads, bridges and telecommunications—democratic infrastructure largely invisible until it fails and, when it fails, it costs money. Research published by the Journal of Financial Economics examined what happened to local government finances in the United States after a local newspaper closed. The finding was that municipal borrowing costs rose by between five and 11 basis points in the years following a closure. The authors were careful to establish that the effect was causal, not a reflection on the town's underlying economic decline. They also found higher government wages and larger deficits—sound familiar?—and a greater likelihood of costly refinancing arrangements. The effect was strongest in places that had the fewest newspapers to begin with. The conclusion was simple: local newspapers and other local media organisations hold local institutions accountable and, in doing so, they keep the cost of government down. And don't we need that? I support these bills. The coalition built the original code, and we want a scheme that works. But passing this legislation is not the achievement. Country Press Australia have put this well. The real test is whether it translates into genuine commercial agreements across a broad and diverse Australian news industry. If in two years time the platforms have done eight deals with the eight largest media companies in the country and the Shepparton News, the Riverine Herald, the Country News, the Seymour Telegraph, the Numurkah Leader and the Cobram Courier are in exactly the position they are in today then this parliament will have passed a law and changed nothing. So we owe it to them to make sure this legislation works in a way that saves local journalism and local news organisations and allows them to continue doing what they have done—holding governments to account, holding local institutions to account, telling the stories of the people who live in regional and rural Australia and facilitating the discussion that is going to move our beautiful parts of regional and rural Australia forward. 18:29 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam By introducing the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills, the Albanese Labor government is supporting local journalism and standing up for some key pillars of Australian values and society. We are protecting the news that matters, we are protecting Australian jobs, we are promoting fairness and we are supporting a healthy democracy. Local journalism in Australia faces a serious challenge. The problem is not that people have fewer stories to tell, or that the news is any less important—far from it. The problem is that the economics of journalism have become a whole lot tougher, especially if you are producing local content. The decline of traditional newspaper advertising, the migration of audiences to digital platforms and the financial pressures facing media organisations have reduced the resources available for vibrant newsrooms in many communities. Revenue from advertising that used to help pay for Australian journalists is now shifted to large global digital platforms. A small number of global digital platforms now capture significant digital advertising revenue, while many Australian news businesses remain under significant financial pressure. Some regional areas have become so-called news deserts, where there are few, if any, journalists regularly covering local affairs. With fewer journalists reporting on local issues, there are fewer journalists holding those in power to account. Into that vacuum enters social media. Social media can spread information quickly, but it does not replace quality professional journalism. A social media post can be valuable for a campaign or to distribute information, but often these posts are not fact-checked or referenced against multiple sources, which is the expectation we have of objective and ethical journalism. Misinformation becomes accepted fact, and anger and grievance can be unduly amplified. Without action, Australians risk losing local and regional news services, media diversity, public interest journalism and democratic accountability. This is a major concern for local news and local jobs and a concern for Australian democracy itself. By introducing this legislation, the Albanese Labor government is supporting local news organisations in my electorate of Whitlam and across the country. In short, we are protecting the news that matters. For example, when we saw an increase of domestic violence incidents in our local community, that was reported on by the local press. When there are issues around bed blocking in our local hospitals, this is covered by our local press. When there have been governance issues with our local university, this has been covered by our local press. When there are road closures due to upgrades of our roads, our local press reports the construction and the impact on nearby residents. When a new community mural was painted, promoting random acts of connection during Loneliness Awareness Week, our local press covered this story and promoted its message. When one of our local councils passed a resolution adopting a tiny homes pilot program, it was our local news that shared how this can affect and benefit our community. These are the stories that only local media outlets cover. These are the stories that affect the everyday lives of people in my electorate, strengthening local communities and enhancing local connections. And this is the news that matters. By introducing this bill, the Albanese Labor government is protecting the news that matters. This news becomes particularly important during a crisis. Australia has experienced devastating bushfires, floods, droughts and other emergencies. During such events, people need accurate information about roads, evacuation centres, warnings, weather and emergency services. Local news also strengthens social connections. Local journalism can report on community events, sporting clubs, cultural festivals, local achievements and the important work of volunteers. These stories may not appear significant from a national perspective, but they contribute enormously to a sense of belonging. Australians need journalism produced in their own communities by people who understand those communities while also being exposed to perspectives beyond their immediate concerns. Through this legislation, the Albanese Labor government is also protecting Australian workers, particularly those in regional areas such as my electorate of Whitlam, and these local jobs are critically important. Local journalists often have a deep knowledge of their communities and can communicate information in ways that are relevant to local audiences. Their reporting can help people understand not just what is happening nationally but what is happening in their own community. Diversity is equally important. Australia is a multicultural, multilingual and geographically diverse country. Where newsrooms include journalists with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, they ask questions that give voice to a more diverse range of issues. Diverse journalism can challenge assumptions about who matters, whose experience deserves attention and what constitutes an important story. This is especially significant for communities that have historically received limited news coverage. First Nations media, multicultural media and community based outlets can tell stories from perspectives that larger organisations might overlook. In Australia, where distance, cultural diversity and regional inequality can often separate people from one another, local journalism helps create the shared knowledge on which democratic participation depends. National reporting helps Australians understand the country. Local reporting helps them understand where they live. Diverse reporting helps them understand one another. Australians believe in fairness. When global digital platforms benefit from the work of Australian media organisations and journalists, we expect them to pay their fair share. Australians expect that, if you produce a piece of content, you should benefit from the proceeds. If your article is featured on a digital platform's website, you should receive some benefit from any revenue that results from your article being there. If platforms derive value from Australian news, they should help to sustain it. These bills work to fix just that. Through these bills, the Albanese Labor government is also supporting a healthy democracy, and a healthy democracy depends on more than just elections. It depends on citizens having access to reliable information, hearing a range of perspectives and being able to understand how and why decisions are being made and whether they are being made in the interests of their communities. For Australia, this makes diverse, locally made and locally focused news particularly important. From metropolitan newspapers and public broadcasters to regional newspapers, community radio, independent digital outlets and First Nations media, locally produced journalism helps Australians understand the issues that affect their lives and gives communities a voice in the democratic process. One of the most important roles of journalism in any democracy is to provide citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions. Australians vote for governments at a federal, state and local level, but political decisions can often seem distant or not grounded in everyday community experience. National news can explain major issues such as the economy, climate change, immigration or foreign policy, but it can't always show how these issues affect a particular town, suburb or region. But local journalists can. They can report on a council decision that will change a neighbourhood, a hospital facing funding pressures, a local school struggling to attract teachers or a regional community dealing with drought or flooding. This makes democracy tangible and relevant. People can see the connection between public decisions and their everyday lives. Democracy also relies on accountability, and politicians, councils, government departments and other powerful institutions are more likely to face scrutiny when journalists are present in the communities they serve. A local reporter can attend council meetings, speak regularly with residents and follow an issue for months or even years. This sustained attention can uncover problems that need to be exposed in order for better decisions to be made. Without local journalism, decisions affecting thousands of people can sometimes receive little or no independent scrutiny. Citizens need to know whether promises have been kept, whether public money is being spent appropriately and whether people in positions of authority are acting in the public interest. Local journalism can provide this oversight at a level where national media cannot always operate effectively. Good journalism informs people and challenges governments, corporations and popular assumptions. Its value lies in independent reporting, verification and a willingness to investigate matters that those in power may prefer to keep hidden. A strong democracy should not depend entirely on a small number of large media organisations deciding which stories deserve national attention. Ultimately, democracy works best when people can see themselves in the media, hear voices different from their own and obtain trustworthy information about the decisions shaping their lives. These bills establish the administrative framework for the news bargaining incentive. The purpose of this incentive is clear: we want platforms and news businesses to do commercial deals to help sustain our local journalism. These bills apply criteria to identify the largest digital platforms with significant search or social media services and substantial Australian digital advertising revenue. We will target those platforms with the greatest market power and the greatest capacity to contribute. This is not about raising revenue for government. Any revenue raised will be returned in full to the Australian news sector through the news journalism payments scheme. These bills ensure digital platforms that benefit from Australian news contribute to its long-term sustainability. The government's approach is practical, market based and designed to support a sustainable, diverse and independent Australian news sector. These measures build on and strengthen the world-leading news media bargaining code, which has been in place since March 2021, ensuring it remains effective in a changing digital environment. Public interest journalism is a public good, and addressing the bargaining imbalance between digital platforms and Australian news businesses is essential to sustaining quality Australian journalism. The news bargaining incentive, the NBI, applies a 2.5 per cent charge to Australian digital advertising revenue earned by significant search and social media services. The government's clear preference is for platforms and news businesses to reach commercial agreements rather than for platforms to pay the charge. Platforms can reduce their NBI liability through eligible commercial agreements, with offsets of 150 per cent or 200 per cent for agreements with small and medium news businesses. Platforms must have agreements with at least eight eligible news organisations to reduce their NBI liability to nil, with no single agreement accounting for more than 25 per cent of their total liability, supporting diversity across the sector. These bills recognise good-faith commercial agreements entered into since 1 January 2025 by allowing them to offset NBI liabilities, reflecting the government's clear commencement date for the NBI. Payments under the news journalism payments scheme will be allocated based on the number of journalists and organisation employees, including freelancers, recognising that the more journalists that are employed, the greater the investment in public interest journalism. Using journalists as the basis for payments recognises the essential work they do in investigating, analysing, reporting and producing the news that Australians rely on. Together, these bills strengthen the news media bargaining code, supporting commercial investment in Australian journalism, returning any incentive revenue to the sector and helping to secure a sustainable, diverse and independent news media industry for the future. 18:44 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee At its heart, this debate is not about tax settings, offsets or administrative frameworks; it's about whether Australia continues to have a diverse, independent and sustainable media landscape. A healthy democracy requires informed citizens, vigorous public debate and journalists who are willing to ask difficult questions. It requires a plurality of voices, not a concentration of information in the hands of a few powerful global actors. It requires local journalism, regional journalism and community journalism. It requires people who know their communities and tell their stories. That is why the coalition has always recognised the importance of supporting Australian journalism and defending media diversity. The House should remember how we arrived here. The news media bargaining code was not created by the Labor government. It was a coalition reform, starting in 2019, when we in government tasked the ACCC with addressing the imbalance between global digital platforms and Australian news publishers. The resulting voluntary negotiations failed, so the coalition stepped in with the world-leading news media bargaining code 2021. The code addressed the bargaining imbalance between major digital platforms and Australian news organisations. It delivered more than 30 commercial agreements, worth an estimated $250 million annually, to Australian news businesses. It demonstrated that governments do not have to accept a situation where Australian journalism carries the cost of producing news while multinational big tech companies capture much of the value. The coalition acted, we showed leadership and we delivered results. Meta's decision not to renew agreements in 2024 clearly exposed weaknesses in the framework and created uncertainty for publishers. Labor were not prepared for the fight in government. They didn't enforce the code and dismantled the framework instead. What followed were two years of drift from the Albanese government. The government announced its intention to replace the code in December 2024, yet the legislation was not introduced until this month, August 2026. That's two years of uncertainty for news organisations, two years during which publishers had no clarity about future arrangements and two years in which regional and independent publishers had every reason to worry about their long-term sustainability. If local journalism matters, governments should act with urgency. Instead, Labor spent two years developing a replacement for a coalition framework that was already delivering outcomes. The Nationals will not oppose this legislation, the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and cognate bills, in the House. We recognise the importance of securing ongoing support for Australian journalism. We recognise the need for a mechanism that encourages commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news journalism. We recognise that Australia's media sector continues to face significant economic pressures. Most importantly, we recognise that regional journalism cannot be left behind. But our lack of opposition does not mean a blank cheque. It does not mean pretending the legislation is perfect. It does not mean ignoring legitimate concerns about its operation. It means taking a constructive approach while continuing to fight for improvements. As the shadow minister for regional communications and as a resident of regional Australia, I know, and my Nationals colleagues know, that journalism is not merely another industry. It is civic infrastructure. Local journalists cover councils, courts, schools, hospitals, water policy, agriculture, sporting clubs and community events. They are also the first on the scene at natural disasters and major accidents and often know a lot more about what is happening on the ground than metropolitan or national media. Local newspapers, television stations and radio stations hold local institutions accountable. Local media celebrates local achievements. Local media strengthens community identity. Local media builds social cohesion. No metropolitan newsroom can properly replace local journalists embedded within their communities. Local media employs local people. It also remembers local history. Outside media might swan in for a flood or a bushfire, but then they go. Local media are there helping, holding governments to account for the delivery of recovery services after the spotlight is gone. Once a regional newsroom closes, the damage is huge and difficult to reverse. As I've said before, those who live in Sunraysia feel invisible to ourselves with no local television presence. WIN Television has established a service, and credit to them, but it's not yet got local journalists on the ground. That's the awful bind regional media outlets face—declining advertising revenues, a commitment to local news and fierce competition with offshore social media companies. Once local stories stop being told, a community's identity falls away. That is why provisions recognising regional journalists and smaller publishers are welcome in this bill. The increased weighting for regional journalists reflects an important truth: a diverse media landscape requires strong regional media. I flagged that we in the Nationals will be closely watching the outcomes of this scheme and its loading for small and medium publishers. While the formulas in the bill preference small to medium publishers, which publishers are they? What we cannot allow is metropolitan based publishers in already relatively saturated media markets to grow from this incentive as regional media fails. National stories inform us about Australia, but local stories connect us to our communities. They tell us who we are. They document our triumphs and our challenges. They preserve local history and local culture. They create belonging. This is particularly important in regional Australia, where local media often serves as the central thread connecting communities spread across vast distances. A democracy is stronger when local voices are heard. A democracy is stronger when communities can see themselves reflected in the media they consume. Media diversity is not simply about having more publishers; it's about preserving different perspectives, different experiences and different voices. Australia is like a diamond with many facets. The CBDs of Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane look very different to life in regional Australia. It is one reason we, the Nationals, exist—to show the real face of regional Australia, to be the voice of regional Australia to the rest of the nation. If Australians are glued to their phones, doomscrolling three-second videos from overseas, and if local stories are not told, we risk merging into some singular global zeitgeist. Local stories from regional Australia matter to our national identity. That's why the coalition's work on the news media bargaining code mattered so much to us in 2021 and why it is so important that we patch up the damage from Labor's two years of delay in ensuring the code delivers for all Australians. The coalition believes the government had settled on a 2.5 per cent charge rate on a digital platform's advertising revenue, which was too low. We have argued the levy should increase to 2.75 per cent. If this scheme is intended to incentivise commercial agreements then the incentive must be meaningful. The coalition does not believe big tech should be rewarded with a softer arrangement after delaying negotiation for years. We cannot reward Meta's behaviour, their stalling, which has saved them many millions of dollars with a rate that doesn't reflect the real impact of that delay. I note that the government estimates that this scheme will see about $200 million to $250 million in deals. That's less than what the coalition's code was achieving five years ago. We want stronger incentives for platforms to come to the table and support Australian journalism. The success of the scheme depends on one crucial question: how much Australian digital advertising revenue are these companies actually earning? If revenue is understated, liability is reduced. If liability is reduced, support for journalism falls. It's that simple. The coalition has therefore proposed stronger powers for the ATO to obtain information and estimate revenue where platforms fail to cooperate. We cannot have a system that relies on multinational corporations marking their own homework. Publishers need certainty. Newsrooms need certainty. Journalists need certainty. Local regional media outlets need certainty to pay the bills, including for staff, and to have revenue certainty. Only then can they invest and expand. The coalition has proposed requiring commercial agreements to be concluded before the start of each calendar year. News organisations should not spend months wondering whether funding arrangements will continue. Certainty encourages investment. Certainty supports employment. Certainty helps keep journalists in newsrooms. This debate also arrives at a remarkable moment in digital and technological history. Artificial intelligence is reshaping the way information is created, distributed and consumed. Increasingly, people receive summaries rather than reports, answers rather than investigation and conclusions rather than analysis. I mention AI because this incentive program will need to be agile to respond to the current reality that AI is accessing news stories behind paywalls already, and therefore news publishers are not getting revenue from their articles. With AI poised to supersede searching or googling for information in the very near future, we cannot let this incentive scheme become redundant as soon as the ink dries on the legislation. The more sophisticated technology becomes, the more vitally important critical thinking becomes. We cannot let Australians today accept that the media platform answer must be correct. The error rate will feed into our institutions and way of life, potentially with fatal consequences. We must ensure that journalism continues so that critical thinking survives. We must keep exercising the collective Australian brain or it will atrophy, and we will be pulled in the directions that AI—or foreign actors behind it—send us to achieve their priorities or purposes. Young Australians need to learn how to analyse evidence, how to compare competing claims, how to identify assumptions and how to develop their own conclusions. They need to learn how to think, not what to think. Strong journalism and strong critical thinking go hand in hand. One provides information; the other enables citizens to evaluate it. Together they form part of the foundation of a strong democracy. The coalition will not oppose these bills, but neither will we ignore their shortcomings. We are proud of the coalition's record in creating the original bargaining framework. We are disappointed that Labor took more than two years to replace it. We are determined to improve this legislation through practical amendments. Most importantly, we remain committed to preserving what really matters: a diverse media landscape, sustainable journalism, strong regional news services, thriving local voices and Australians equipped to think critically and engage actively in democratic life. Democracy depends on more than institutions. It depends on informed communities, it depends on local voices, and it depends on ensuring that Australian journalism continues to have a future. 18:59 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga A strong democracy depends on a strong and independent media. It depends on journalists who investigate, scrutinise and ask difficult questions. It depends on Australians having access to reliable information about their communities, their governments and the world around them. It depends on our ability to sustain professional journalism in an information environment that is increasingly fractured and under pressure. This is something that is very close to my heart. I began my working life as a journalist at community radio as well as at our national broadcasters, SBS and the ABC. So I know that a mountain of work goes into producing journalism that people can trust—the phone calls you make, checking sources, reading documents, challenging claims and making sure that what you put to air or to print can be backed up. That work matters. In our current information environment, misinformation and disinformation can spread around the world in seconds. Social media algorithms amplify the most provocative content, with no regard for accuracy, and at the moment artificial intelligence is making it increasingly easy to produce convincing false information, images, audio and video. In this environment we need to support journalism that helps Australians to distinguish fact from fiction. We need to fund journalism that helps Australians to distinguish fact from ideology. Over the past two decades in Australia, the business model that has traditionally funded our journalism has been fundamentally disrupted, as digital platforms—the majority of them run by giant companies from overseas who have scant regard for Australian communities or Australian democracy—have increasingly sucked our attention. So, too, have they sucked advertising revenue away from local news organisations. As these platforms have been growing and increasingly capturing advertising revenue, they have also used traditional Australian media outlets for content. They've taken, they've made our information environment poorer, and they've contributed to misinformation and disinformation in our communities. So it is entirely appropriate that these platforms make a genuine contribution to addressing those problems. Together these bills reinforce the News Media Bargaining Code and support the sustainability and diversity of Australian journalism. They establish a clear principle that, where significant digital platforms derive enormous value from the Australian digital advertising market, they should have a strong incentive to reach commercial agreements with the Australian news organisations that produce journalism. From 1 January 2025 the News Bargaining Incentive will apply a charge equivalent to 2.75 per cent of Australian digital advertising revenue earned by significant search and social media services. The purpose of the scheme is not just to collect that charge. This legislation is deliberately structured to encourage commercial agreements. Platforms can reduce their liability through eligible agreements with Australian news organisations, receiving offsets worth 150 per cent of these agreements. For agreements with small or medium news businesses, that offset increases to 200 per cent. To reduce their liability to nil, platforms must have eligible agreements with at least six different news organisations. That is important, because a healthy Australian media landscape cannot just mean a handful of large metropolitan organisations. We also need regional and local journalism. We need smaller and independent publishers. We need organisations that serve First Nations Australians. We need culturally and linguistically diverse media outlets. And we need journalists to be telling stories that might never make a national bulletin but are enormously important to the communities they serve. If, in this environment, a platform chooses to pay the charge rather than enter into commercial agreements, that money will still support Australian journalism. The News Journalism Payments Bill establishes the News Journalism Payments scheme to distribute any revenue raised through the news bargaining incentive to eligible Australian news organisations. It's also important that it puts journalists themselves at the centre of how these payments are calculated. Eligible organisations will receive payments based on the number of journalists they employ, including freelancers. That includes journalists, photojournalists, videographers, data and visual journalists, editors and producers—all those directly involved in producing core news content. The more journalists an organisation employs, the greater its payment. There is also a 20 per cent uplift for journalists working in regional and remote Australia and for organisations that serve diverse communities, including First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse Australians. And I want to reiterate that this is a really important feature of this scheme, because our government understands that local journalism matters and that diverse voices matter. Again, going back to my own firsthand experience—and a shout-out to community radio and Arts Alive, which is still going strong, and to all the folks at 2CUZ FM in Bourke, where I spent a number of months, and to the people in regional Victoria and Warrnambool, where I worked with the ABC—I understand how important local journalism and local voices are in all those communities. A local journalist is often the person who's sitting through the local council meeting, covering the community campaign, talking to the local sporting club or small business and asking questions about decisions that otherwise might receive no scrutiny at all. These journalists perform that role across vast parts of our country, and it is important for all of us that they get to stay. When those outlets and those journalists disappear, we lose more than just another job in the media industry. We lose knowledge, we lose scrutiny and we lose someone whose job it is to ask questions on behalf of their community. This scheme makes sure that the funding that's intended to support journalism actually supports journalism. Recipients will have obligations to maintain their journalist workforce in respect of the payments they receive across the relevant period. We've also allocated five per cent of any revenue raised through the News Bargaining Incentive to a separate grants program supporting small publishers and startups to build their businesses and produce news for their local communities. I'm sure this will continue to be a focus for government as we continue to support a diverse media environment. These reforms come at an incredibly important time for journalism and for our communities. We now have access to more information than we have had at any point in human history, but, too often, more information does not mean better information. A false claim can reach hundreds of thousands of people before a journalist has made a phone call, checked the facts, spoken to an expert or verified a source. The systems through which we currently receive our information too often reward what is provocative or divisive, not necessarily what is accurate. Many of the large platforms where we now receive our information drive based on reach and eyeballs, not on quality of information, and they have little regard for the consequences for our communities and our country of their spreading misinformation and disinformation. The algorithm is driven by maximising profit, and there is no thought to the consequences for our democracy. But democracy relies on people having access to reliable information. It relies on Australians being able to understand the decisions being made by governments and others, to scrutinise those decisions and to ultimately make an informed choice at the ballot box. It relies on us being able to have conversations as a community based on a shared understanding of what's going on, and professional journalism is one of the institutions that helps make that possible. Reputable news organisations are accountable for what they publish. That does not mean journalists always get everything right or that Australians should accept everything they read in a newspaper, hear on the radio or see on the television without question. A healthy democracy should have sceptical citizens and robust debate. But there is an enormous difference between disagreeing over ideas and being unable to find out the facts. We should be able to fiercely disagree about what's happening and what governments should do while still having confidence in the basic information that underpins that debate. That is why strong independent journalism is such an important part of our democratic infrastructure. I know it is something that people in my community understand and value, and I know they support quality journalism. They support a strong and independent ABC and a diverse media landscape. I have now experienced this environment from different sides—as a journalist asking questions and now as a member of parliament, being asked them and answering them. I firmly believe our democracy is stronger because of media scrutiny and media independence. That's why these bills matter. They're not about telling journalists how to do their job or how to write, they're not about protecting media companies from competition or technological change, and they're not about protecting governments from scrutiny. They're about making sure that we are providing a framework to support Australian journalism to continue as we enter this fractured information age, making sure we give Australians access to journalism that they can trust. I realise that protecting the right of Australians to know what's going on and to have access to basic facts isn't a value that is universally shared across this parliament. We have members who actively thrive on feeding misinformation and disinformation. Senator Hanson, the Leader of One Nation, puts herself out there for interviews with a far-right influencer who's mixed with Neo-Nazis and a far-right podcaster who was, in fact, jailed for stalking journalists. At the same time, One Nation bar the ABC and other media outlets from their press conferences. It's just another way that Senator Hanson treats Australian people with disdain. She doesn't even respect them enough to be subject to scrutiny and to stand up to mis- and disinformation, running on the politics of fear and division with no consideration of how we build our communities, how we share our stories and how we make sure that we all understand what's happening around us. This government recognises the value that journalism creates. We support local, regional, independent and diverse news organisations. We do want to make sure that we continue to have journalists in our communities, in our courts and in our parliaments, asking questions and establishing facts. Our democracy is precious. We protect it through strong institutions, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary and an engaged community. We also protect it through a strong, diverse and independent media. At a time when misinformation and disinformation are becoming easier to produce, faster to spread and harder to identify, that work is vital. These bills support the people who do that work and help ensure Australian journalism remains strong and sustainable into the future. 19:11 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills come at an important moment for the future of public-interest journalism in Australia. At a time of misinformation, disinformation and declining trust in institutions, robust public-interest reporting is more important than ever before. Every day, journalists provide the scrutiny, accountability and trusted information that keep our democracy strong. That work happens on the national stage but also across communities in Australia. Local papers cover council decisions, court proceedings, schools, local businesses, community events and emergencies. They give a voice to the multicultural and First Nations communities, to regional towns and suburban neighbourhoods—a voice that larger media organisations can't always reach. But the mastheads and the outlets doing this work are operating in a media environment that has dramatically changed in recent years. Journalism has been transformed by the rise of global digital media platforms. These platforms have become central to how Australians, especially young Australians, are accessing their news. They're capturing an increasing share of Australia's media landscape. But the business model that has traditionally funded journalism has not adapted to that change. Advertising revenue has shifted to digital platforms, which is putting growing financial pressure on news organisations and the journalism that they produce. This is not a new problem. The Morrison government's news bargaining code was an attempt to address this issue of the sustainability of public-interest journalism by using the bargaining power of digital platforms to support Australian journalism. The code generated between $200 million and $250 million a year through commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news businesses. But, critically, like many things produced by the Morrison government, that code didn't work. Tech companies were able to simply opt out of the code by removing news content from their platforms. This happened briefly in 2021, when Meta, then Facebook, responded to the bargaining arrangements by removing news content entirely from its platform. While this proved to be only a brief blip, in April 2024 Meta announced that it would not renew commercial deals with Australian news media companies. Those were deals worth an estimated $70 million a year. This resulted in the news tab being removed from Facebook. Thankfully, we didn't see the worst-case scenario of a full news blackout across all Meta platforms, but that code is still failing Australians. Platforms can still reduce or withdraw their support for Australian journalism simply by changing how they choose to distribute and present news. There could have been a much worse outcome in Australia under our current code. In Canada, the Online News Act came into effect in 2023. Meta subsequently blocked news from Facebook and Instagram in Canada, meaning that Canadians have now lost access to all news from publishers on those platforms. That remains a real risk with this legislation. To deny people access to news is to deny them immediate access to information about their country and about their democracy. For a generation that increasingly gets all of its news through social media, that would mean denying our young people access to the information that they need to actively participate in a democracy. In front of the House, we now have a proposal that recognises that news does have value and that the digital platforms benefiting from the provision of journalism should contribute to its sustainability, while creating a financial obligation the platforms can't simply avoid by removing news. These bills collectively introduce the news media incentive. Under the scheme, significant social media and search services will have an incentive to enter commercial agreements with eligible Australian news businesses. If platforms don't enter enough eligible agreements, they will instead be liable for a charge based on their Australian digital advertising revenue. In that case, the money raised through that charge will be distributed to support Australian news journalism through the news journalism payments scheme. I believe that what the government is proposing is better than what we've had previously. It will promote sustainability and diversity of the Australian news media sector, but, without further refinements, many small and medium-sized publishers will struggle to access commercial agreements with digital platforms. I'm glad to see that the Albanese government has backflipped on a carve-out for professional networking sites, bringing Microsoft owned LinkedIn within the scope of this incentive, but the government has still chosen not to include AI companies in the incentive, and that is a significant regulatory gap. AI is rapidly changing how Australians find and consume information. Generative AI enabled platforms can summarise journalism and other forms of content. They can answer questions and provide information without users visiting the publisher. As a result, news organisations are now facing a zero-click era in which AI is reducing traffic to the original journalistic sources, potentially, to zero. Nine Entertainment reported that disruptions from AI were the reason that 30 staff from theAge and theSydney Morning Herald were made redundant last month. It wasn't the first batch of redundancies, and it will not be the last. Excluding AI platforms from the incentive is a very significant missed opportunity for this government at the very moment that their market power and their impact on journalism is beginning to really accelerate. If the principle of this legislation is that digital platforms that benefit from Australian journalism should contribute to its sustainability, then that principle has to also extend to AI enabled platforms. I call on the government to address this regulatory gap so that the news media incentive covers all tech and search companies, including AI services, that profit from Australian journalism. But the question is not only who is required to contribute to the incentive but also who ultimately benefits from it. The intention of these reforms is to promote diversity in Australian journalism, so I'm pleased to see the government has made changes to broaden the number of news outlets that tech companies have to strike deals with in order to avoid the charge. The minimum number of deals required to fully offset the charge has increased from six to eight, a change designed to open more opportunities for smaller and regional publishers. Further, each financial year, a digital platform may not use eligible expenditure in relation to any one news business to offset more than a quarter, 25 per cent, of the incentive. To encourage deals with smaller publishers, the charge is offset by a 150 per cent uplift rate for agreements with large businesses and 200 per cent if the deal is with small or medium-sized businesses. These elements address the risk that the news media incentive could consolidate funding among a handful of large media organisations while leaving smaller publishers unfunded. This is to ensure that the incentive doesn't create what the industry has called 'news deserts', where metropolitan coverage is funded, but regional coverage is not. Despite these measures to broaden the beneficiaries of the incentive, the 25 per cent cap is still somewhat problematic. The cap limits the amount of incentive liability that can be offset through expenditure with any one news business, but it doesn't prevent a platform from concentrating its overall commercial expenditure within a small number of large media organisations. A platform could, in theory, allocate four companies 99 per cent of its money and split just one per cent among four additional companies. If the government's objective is genuine diversity, then the scheme should do more than prevent concentration in a single media organisation with that 25 per cent cap. It should actively foster the inclusion of larger numbers of smaller organisations within the platform's coverage. The charge itself also deserves scrutiny. Following the exposure draft, the government's proposal for the charge has changed. The news media incentive charge was initially based on the annual total revenue of in-scope technology companies, but the final legislation narrows the charge base to the annual digital advertising revenue of those platforms, with the charge set at 2.5 per cent. There's a rationale for this change. It means that revenue from unrelated products like workplace software or cloud services is not inadvertently captured by the scheme. But the change has narrowed the base of the charge. If digital platforms and search companies fail to strike enough deals, they'll be forced to pay a charge that'll be 2.5 per cent of their Australian digital advertising revenue. The government has compensated for the narrowing of the revenue base by moving a small increase in the charge from 2.25 per cent to 2.5 per cent, but it is a modest accommodation which may not entirely make up for that shortfall. Revenue collected from the charge will be distributed to eligible news organisations through the News Journalism Payment Scheme. These funds will support the production of core news content in Australia. Of the charge funds, 10 per cent will be set aside for grants which include five per cent to fund the Australian Associated Press in recognition of its public interest role and a further five per cent for small organisations that aren't eligible for funding from deals under this scheme. This charge distribution mechanism favours larger organisations again. To be included on the Australian Communications and Media Authority's register of eligible news businesses for charge distribution, an organisation has to generate more than $150,000 in annual revenue. Clearly this is going to exclude many small and independent outlets, so there is an ongoing equity concern here. For example, of the roughly 200 Local & Independent News Association members, 35 per cent will fall under this threshold. The five per cent grant for small organisations is promising, but it's not sufficient to support the diverse range of publishers operating in Australia, particularly in regional areas. It's been recommended that at least 25 per cent of deals should be made with small- and medium-sized businesses, and that grants should specifically address small newsrooms. I will support amendments to this bill to increase the grant stream under sections 94 and 95 of the payments bill from five per cent to 15 per cent of the collected revenue charge with that in mind. The final point that I'd like to address relates to how payments under the charge are calculated according to eligible editorial capacity. Essentially, this is the number of eligible editorial workers employed or engaged to produce news content. Given this focus, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance's submission on the exposure draft of this legislation stressed an important point—digital platform funding should support journalists' jobs. It shouldn't just flow through to shareholders or to executives. The purpose of this legislation is not to subsidise media companies for the sake of subsidising media companies. It is to sustain journalists and it's to support the journalists who are so vital to their work and who inform and engage us every day. That means that the government should consider stronger safeguards, requiring payments received under the scheme to support the employment of journalists and the production of public interest journalism. If this legislation is to succeed, it must do more than simply transfer money from the big digital platforms to the big media companies. It has to strengthen journalism that Australians actually receive and read and learn from in our cities, in our suburbs and in our regions. It must support diverse newsrooms, sustain local reporting and ensure that the benefits of this scheme reach the communities that need them most. I endorse the principle behind these reforms, but the parliament must ensure that the final scheme is broad enough to capture the platforms shaping our information environment, including AI services, that it is diverse enough to support more than the largest media organisations and that it is accountable enough to ensure that funding delivers more journalism, not simply more revenue. 19:25 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise to support the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and the associated bills. Politicians and journalists have a curious relationship. As a relatively new backbencher from Western Australia, I cannot claim to spend my days surrounded by the press gallery, but I certainly read what journalists write and say about politics, and I suspect they occasionally notice what people like me say and do. So it's less a relationship of constant physical proximity and more one conducted through articles, interviews, social media and the occasional phone call. Politicians sometimes think journalists only call when there is bad news. Journalists sometimes think politicians only answer when there is good news. And there is probably enough evidence on both sides to keep that argument going for another 100 years. But underneath all of that is something far more important: a strong democracy needs a strong and independent media—not a media that agrees with government, not a media that gives politicians an easy run and certainly not a media that writes the headlines we would have preferred to have written ourselves. If favourable coverage were the test for supporting journalism, I suspect most members in this House would develop very strong and rapidly changing views about which publications deserve support. Independent journalism exists in part to make people in positions of power uncomfortable. Journalists ask questions politicians would sometimes prefer not to answer. They examine government decisions and they investigate powerful institutions. Occasionally they even discover a politician has used 12 paragraphs to avoid answering a yes-or-no question. I am told this can happen! Journalism has a role in our democracy that goes well beyond another product being sold in the market. It helps Australians understand what governments are doing, what businesses are doing and what is happening in their communities. But the business model that paid for much of that journalism has changed. For decades, newspapers, television networks and other publishers could rely heavily on advertising revenue. People advertised houses in the paper. Businesses advertised on television and radio. Classified advertising helped support local newspapers. That revenue helped pay the journalists covering our parliament, courts and communities. And then the internet transformed the market. Advertising moved online and enormous global digital platforms became some of the biggest beneficiaries. The journalism remained valuable, but an increasing share of advertising revenue that once supported it went somewhere else. Between 2006 and 2022, commercial broadcasters' share of Australian advertising expenditure fell from 43 per cent to 17 per cent. That is a fundamental change in the economics of Australian media. Good journalism costs money. Someone has to employ the reporters who investigate and explain what is happening. Someone has to put journalists on the ground, in the courts, parliaments and communities, and someone has to edit, check and publish the work properly. A Facebook post written in 30 seconds is not a replacement for a journalist who has spent three days checking a story—although judging by some social media these days, plenty of people remain determined to test that proposition. Australia first responded to the imbalance between digital platforms and news businesses through the news media and digital platforms mandatory bargaining code in 2021. That framework helped produce commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian media companies, but it had a weakness: a platform could potentially reduce or avoid bargaining obligations by simply reducing or removing news from its service. These bills address that problem. The principle is straightforward: if very large digital platforms derive substantial advertising revenue from their Australian operations, they should make a reasonable contribution towards sustaining Australian journalism. Importantly, the government's preferred outcome is not collecting a charge. We want digital platforms and Australian news businesses to reach commercial deals. The charge exists to create an incentive. The news bargaining incentive applies only to very large social media and search services. A service group must have more than $250 million in relevant Australian digital advertising revenue. A social media service must have at least five million average monthly active Australian users, while a search service must have at least 10 million. So we are talking about some of the largest technology businesses operating in Australia. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 113 ADJOURNMENT Battle of Long Tan: 60th Anniversary 113 19:29 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Tonight I rise to mark a significant anniversary in our nation's history, the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. The Battle of Long Tan was one of the most defining engagements of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. Last weekend I had the privilege of attending a commemoration of this anniversary at Palm Beach RSL alongside Vietnam veterans, serving and former members of the Australian and allied defence forces, their families and members of our local community. I was honoured to hand out over 40 federal government certificates of appreciation to Vietnam veterans. I hope that this does a little to make up for the ill treatment that many veterans faced on their return from the Vietnam War. Doug McGrath, president of the 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment Association, addressed the gathering. Doug spoke of the experience of Australian soldiers in Vietnam and of the challenges that many faced when they returned home. He provided a deeply personal insight into the life of an infantry combat soldier, particularly that of a Nasho, the nickname for the young Australian men conscripted under the National Service Scheme during the Vietnam War era. His words were heartfelt, honest and profoundly moving. They reminded all of us that behind every military record, every medal and every anniversary are young Australians whose lives were forever changed by that war or cut short. I'd like to share some of Doug's words in the House today. He said: I am a third-generation military veteran, as are many Vietnam Veterans. We inherited from our forefathers the military traditions of courage, commitment, resilience, service, mateship and larrikinism which were forged in Gallipoli and the Western Front; cemented in Britain, the Middle East and the Pacific in WWII and then Korea, so these qualities were in our DNA when we deployed as soldiers to Vietnam. I am proud to acknowledge that these characteristics have been constantly demonstrated by the Vietnam Veterans. We have continued to serve our communities, care for our mates and their families, display resilience and courage, particularly when faced with serious medical challenges and there are still plenty of larrikins among us. I was only in the army for two years but have continued to serve the veteran and wider community for over fifty years. Service before self. Doug went on to speak about equality. He said: Our battalion was made up of men from all over Australia, sons of migrants from all the British countries, most European countries, Lebanon and more. We had aboriginals and men of diverse religious backgrounds, regular soldiers, national servicemen, original battalion members and others who joined us as during the tour as reinforcements. But as soldiers; we never cared about where they came from, what education they had, where they had trained, what their race or religion was. Everyone was treated equally. All we cared about as soldiers was that they would fit in and do their job to the best of their ability to keep us all alive. Doug finished by reflecting on the lesson he learnt, saying: I learnt a lot about myself and other men who I would never have met in normal circumstances. I learnt what can be achieved with courage, commitment to a cause and each other, resilience and good leadership. And that ordinary men—can achieve extra-ordinary things—in times of crisis and adversity. You can be proud of these ordinary men, who represented you with distinction, as soldiers in Vietnam. He also sent me a poem, and I'll read a little extract from that as well: We all miss our mates who didn't get back, Denied the chance to give life a crack. No wife, no kids, grandkids, career, Never a laugh, or to share a mate's beer. Their lives cut short at the hands of the Cong Fifty years later, the memory's still strong So much to live for, but gone in a flash In a distant jungle, the sound of a clash. I thank Doug McGrath for his generosity in sharing these reflections with our community. His words offered a powerful reminder of the realities faced by those who served in Vietnam and of why it remains so important that we continue to listen and learn from our veterans. Labor Government 114 19:34 Mr SOON 298618 Banks Over the winter recess, I had the opportunity to welcome a number of ministerial colleagues to my great electorate of Banks to meet with locals and see some of the amazing work going on in my community. Following the announcement that the government will be expanding the Commonwealth paid prac payment to 10 additional allied health professions, I was able to welcome the Minister for Health and Ageing to Enunciate Allied Health Services in Mortdale. The minister and I met with the founder and general manager, Chauntell, and some of her team, including speech pathologists and occupational therapists. While they all spoke about how valuable their placement experience was to their professional development, they also noted how hard it was to have to give up paid work to make it possible. Importantly, thanks to this Labor government, from 1 July next year, speech pathology and occupational therapy students along with those students training to be paramedics, pharmacists and more will be eligible for paid prac payment. This is a $158 million investment in our healthcare workforce, which provides much needed cost-of-living relief to 21,000 students each year while also ensuring that we can train local students for in-demand jobs to support our communities. The Labor government is committed to ensuring every student gets a high-quality education. It was my pleasure to welcome the Minister for Education to St Luke's Catholic Primary School in Revesby, near where I grew up on Beaconsfield Street. We had a chance to tour the school's grounds, observe the school's multitiered approach to reading and teaching instruction, as well as watch some musical performances by students. Thank you to the entire school community at St Luke's for welcoming us and to the principal, Justin Coupland, for helping facilitate our fantastic visit. While my time working in education policy focused on how we can make the education system better, so many solutions require our schools to be properly resourced in order to achieve a successful implementation. It is why I am so proud that this government is delivering the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement to fully fund every public school across our country. In mid-July, the Prime Minister announced a world-leading artificial intelligence framework that will allow Australia to capture the opportunities and share the benefits of AI while keeping Australians safe. Following this announcement, I was able to bring together community members, small-business owners and workers from my community for a discussion about the implications of artificial intelligence for small business alongside a panel featuring the member for Parramatta in his capacity as assistant minister and Tania Katsanis for Business Chamber South. This Labor government is setting the terms to ensure new technology benefits the Australian people, is aligned with our values and advances our interests. Thank you to everyone who came along to that event in the community as well as to the member for Parramatta and to Tania for that thoughtful discussion. I look forward to holding more similar events in the future to make sure we're hearing feedback from our community, as well as providing the most up-to-date information about what government is doing. Finally, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors to Yallambee Village in Revesby to show the incredible work that our local aged-care workforce does in caring for older people with complex care needs. The Labor government remains committed to providing older Australians with dignified quality care, no matter what their means are, and we're delivering this through a $3 billion investment. Older Australians deserve dignity in their care, and this government is doing the hard work to ensure the systemic neglect exposed by the royal commission is never allowed to persist again. It is always my pleasure to welcome colleagues to my community and to show them what we are doing as well as to hear from them about what the government's agenda is, and I look forward to continuing to do so well into the future. Gun Control 115 19:40 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes With much fanfare over the weekend, the Labor New South Wales and federal governments announced they had arrived at an agreed gun buyback scheme. Anthony Albanese and Chris Minns proudly stood before the press and confirmed that law-abiding gun owners in New South Wales will be their scapegoats. Months after rushing the new federal reform in, in early January this year, the first official agreement between the federal government and any state and territory was confirmed—and what a disaster this was. Close to one million law-abiding gun owners around the country, including farmers and sporting shooters and owners of firearm shops who watched their businesses evaporate, were presented with this very insulting scheme. There were months of confusion, months of inability to plan and months of uncertainty. The announcement was wrapped up with a bow, but it was no gift. It has already been widely criticised by sporting shooters, by farming organisations and by gun-shop owners. The NSW Farmers Association called it a disgrace that is punishing hardworking farmers who will not receive full and fair compensation for firearms, equipment or ammunition. The New South Wales branch of the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia said it raised more questions than gave answers. Even the Australian Jewish Association have slammed the government as being disgraceful for using the Bondi tragedy as an excuse to target lawful firearms owners. They all want these unfair gun laws repealed. The owners of firearm shops are waiting for the punchline. Some have losses climbing into the millions and have lost up to 90 per cent of their gun sales. They have items that were on order that will never, ever be picked up—guns, accessories and ammunition that can now not be sold—and customers who are confused about what they can legally buy. They're on their knees. The government's best offer is $25,000. That's $25,000 that does not even touch the sides of the hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, of losses. This is a program clearly devised by people who don't understand or simply don't care. Close to one million law-abiding gun owners are being punished for the actions of two extremist Islamic terrorists at Bondi Beach. There is plenty to show that none of these laws would have made a difference at all. They would not have saved those who were injured or the lives of those who died. They would not have stopped the two men who had already illegally acquired weapons. That is why the Nationals are challenging these unfair laws through legislation in this place. We're the only party to proudly do so. The Firearms Legislation Amendment (Repealing Unfair Gun Laws) Bill 2026 restores Commonwealth firearms and importation law to its position before the passage of Labor's combating antisemitism, hate and extremist firearms law and customs amendments of 2026. It will repeal these laws and abolish Labor's stalled national gun buyback scheme. New South Wales is the only state that has announced the buyback to this date, and we can already see how inadequate the measures really are. Many other states and territories have simply said, 'No deal, we don't want anything to do with it.' More than 71,000 Australians have signed the petition protesting against these crazy reforms. They were made without consultation. They were made without due consideration. They were made without a practical way forward to those one million who have been affected. We don't know how much this will cost, how it will work or how many firearms need to be surrendered. We don't know how deeply those whose livelihoods depend on the firearms will be impacted, although we're certainly starting to see what that looks like. We don't know how many jobs will go and what the overall impact on our economy will be. Where is the research? Where is the solid plan? And, once again, where is the consultation? This is about fairness, this is about evidence, and this is about getting the balance right. And it's not too late. There have been months of confusion, but it can be resolved. We should target terrorists and criminals and enforce the laws we already have. (Time expired) The Pyjama Foundation 116 19:45 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne As the parliament comes to a close, I've put on my pyjamas to highlight the great work of the Pyjama Foundation. Speaker, I want you to think of a 10-year-old child in your life. Maybe it's your child or a niece or nephew, or maybe you can think of yourself at that age. Life as a 10-year-old in Australia is really pretty great. There's nothing much to worry about except maybe who gets the front seat of the car or who's going to choose what to watch on family night. They are the kinds of problems children should have—the little frustrations that come with growing up in a safe and loving home. These kids know they are loved and that someone is there when they need it. For kids in out-of-home care, the reality is completely different. It's a childhood shaped not by petty sibling fights but by fear and uncertainty. That was the reality for a little boy that I had in my care. Let's call him Matt. Matt and his family were refugees. Instead of fighting with siblings, he witnessed war all around him. His mother finally got him out of that country and into Australia, believing it to be a safe place—a place where a kid could be just a kid. Then the unthinkable happened. One night, someone broke into their family home and violently attacked his mother right in front of him. After that night, due to her own trauma, Matt found himself in foster care. After experiencing all of this in his young life, how can we expect Matt to walk into a classroom and thrive? But that was Matt's reality. Matt came into my care when he was 10 years old. When he arrived, I didn't know his full story, but I knew he was a wonderful kid. At home he was kind and caring, but at school I heard a very different story. His teachers described a child who was disruptive and who was always getting into trouble, and it didn't make sense to me. So one day I sat down with Matt and asked him what was really happening. He told me that because he had moved school so many times due to different foster care placements, he had fallen far behind. He felt embarrassed, and he felt he wasn't smart enough. So he decided it was easier to become the naughty kid. He wasn't a bad kid; he was a traumatised child trying to protect himself. As with many kids experiencing trauma, often the behaviour we see on the outside is a reflection of the pain we cannot see on the inside. Children don't need to be labelled; they need to be understood. They need someone to believe in them. That's why I believe so deeply in the work of the Pyjama Foundation. The mission is beautifully simple: to give children in out-of-home care someone in their corner. Every week more than 1,200 children and young people across Australia are supported by Pyjama Angels. Since 2004, more than 19,000 children have been supported through more than 1.2 million hours of mentoring, with volunteers reading more than three million books alongside children in care. These aren't just impressive numbers; they represent children who have someone showing up for them. Matt was matched with a Pyjama Angel and received tutoring support. Things changed almost overnight. He grew confidence. His learning improved. His behaviour at school changed dramatically because he got the help he needed from someone who believed in him and helped him discover what he was capable of. One afternoon, when I was picking Matt up from school, his teacher called me over and made him stand next to me. She said, 'Matt, you don't know how lucky you are to have Sarah in your life.' The truth is, Matt wasn't lucky. There was nothing lucky about witnessing violence, nothing lucky about losing his family, and nothing lucky about carrying trauma that no child should ever experience. He deserves safety and stability. He deserved the chance to learn without fear, and every child deserves exactly the same. The statistics tell us why this work matters. Around 60 per cent of children in out-of-home care have developmental concerns. More than 60 per cent experience mental health concerns. Only 57 per cent complete year 12, compared to the usual 97 per cent of young Australians overall. In Victoria, more than 200 children are matched with a pyjama angel, but another 129 children are still waiting—waiting for someone to read with them, to encourage them, to believe in them. The volunteers of the Pyjama Foundation give their patience and encouragement to help children build confidence, develop a love of learning and see a future filled with possibilities. The Pyjama Foundation can't change what happened to these children, but it can change what happens next. Health Care 116 19:50 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland The Albanese government has declared war on older Australians and is treating the people who helped to build this great nation with complete contempt. The government's war on older Australians is hurting their health, it's hurting their finances and their retirement income in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and it's hurting the people they love. Families are being traumatised by a government which is failing its fundamental duty to keep Australians safe and then has the audacity to try to hide the facts from the nation with sneaky political tactics that are unworthy of a minister in the Parliament of Australia. Now, plenty has been said about Labor's broken promise on the private health insurance rebate for older Australians. By their very own admissions, the Labor Party knows that that decision will force older people to cancel private health insurance, place more pressure on public hospitals and undermine the viability of private hospitals, particularly in rural and regional areas. There's no doubt that it will add to waiting lists in public hospitals, and there's also no doubt that it will deliver poorer health outcomes for some of the most vulnerable people in the country. But tonight I'm going to focus more on aged care because we have an absolutely delusional minister who is clearly out of his depth and should be removed from his portfolio. Now, I don't say that lightly. In fact, in my whole time in this parliament, I don't think I've said that about any minister. But this minister is dealing with matters of life and death, and he is clearly completely and utterly out of his depth. We have a junior minister who has repeatedly demonstrated no empathy for older Australians and no urgency in fixing the problems with a system which is failing hundreds of thousands of people every year. In the last financial year, by the minister's own admission, 4,812 older Australians died waiting for a Support at Home Package. Keep in mind that in 2021 the Prime Minister said: The idea that you can have an approved aged care package and then die waiting to actually receive it, is just extraordinary. Well, wake up Minister; it's happening on your watch. The Albanese government has tried to hide the full extent of the problems being faced by older Australians. The government actually tried to bury the wait times report by releasing it in budget week. It's all about the spin with this government. They tried to hide the report by releasing it in budget week, because it showed that older Australians are waiting more than a year to receive their Support at Home packages. Last night on the ABC's Four Corners program, we learned even more about the extent of the problems. We heard from experts about the algorithms being used and the failures of the integrated assessment tool. But this could not have been news to the minister, because we've been raising our concerns on this side of the parliament for months and months and months now. The minister had the audacity to tell the ABC Four Corners program: Where there are individual cases where people are waiting an unnecessarily long period of time, I'm always happy to follow them up personally. This is deceptive at best from this minister. I have written to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors on behalf of more than 30 older Gippslanders more than 30 times since 1 November last year, and he hasn't responded to a single letter. Now, it's hard to believe, but we've written repeatedly about long delays for people with urgent needs and received no replies from this minister. Without any question of doubt, this is the worst-performing minister I have dealt with in my time in office. I don't know whether it's arrogance, incompetence or just the sheer workload of complaints coming to the minister's office, but it's simply not good enough to ignore genuine requests from older Gippslanders concerned about their Support at Home packages. As 96-year-old Audrey Staniland told the ABC last night They say they want to keep you in your home, but why are they making it so damned hard? That's what I don't understand. The consequences of these aged-care failures are impacting the entire health system. New South Wales Labor health minister Ryan Park says, 'Elderly Australians are effectively blocking hospital beds.' He said: The reality is the lack of aged-care places and the wait times for those places mean 800 people remain stranded in New South Wales hospitals … They and their families deserve better. Up to 3,000 beds per night in hospitals currently have older Australians who are waiting for the right level of care in a more appropriate setting. This is the crisis we are talking about, and this is the government's failure to care for the needs of older Australians. Labor Government 117 19:55 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I always want to be able to point to the difference our government is making in the lives of people in my community, because, for people in communities like mine, what we do here really matters. It is about whether your family can see a doctor when you need one, whether you can afford your power bill, whether you can get into your first home and whether your children can access quality child care and education, and this government is delivering real change to deliver for people in my community and across Australia every day. Bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare. We understand that Australians have the right to access health care—that's what drives this government—and to access it when they need it close to home without cost being a barrier. We are committed to universal health care. We want to see the investment translate into real results, and that's exactly what we're seeing across the country. The latest figures show the national GP bulk-billing rate has reached 81.9 per cent. That's up 4.6 percentage points in just a year. Lalor has 43 GP practices that are now bulk billing, and we've reached a 97 per cent bulk-billing rate. That's the highest rate in Victoria. It's something I'm really proud of. I've had the pleasure of meeting with local bulk-billing GP clinics over the past few months—out and about meeting with doctors. It's a really nice way to spend the day. They've told me first-hand about the difference these changes are making. When I meet with them, they thank me for the government's investment in bulk-billing, and I thank them. I thank them for continuing to put their patients ahead of their bottom line. Now these practices have greater confidence to continue bulk-billing their patients. That is what Medicare is for. It's what it provides—primary, preventive health care. We're also helping families take control of their energy bills. The government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program has now supported hundreds and thousands of households, small businesses and community organisations to install batteries. More than 500,000, in fact, have installed discounted home batteries. In Lalor, more than 3,000 solar batteries have now been installed, and, as we heard from Minister Bowen last week, we've also got the highest uptake of EVs across the country. These households are reducing their energy bills whilst helping build a cleaner, more reliable energy system, and they're transforming our roads as well. We're now home to over 2,000 electric vehicles. The suburbs of Tarneit and Werribee rank first and second nationally for electric vehicle uptake through the electric car discount. We're also helping more Australians achieve the dream of homeownership. For too many young Australians, saving a 20 per cent deposit has meant years of renting and paying someone else's mortgage. Our expanded 5 per cent deposit scheme is changing that. More than 230,000 Australians have already bought their first home with the support of this scheme, and in my community that scheme has benefited almost 6½ thousand first home buyers already. This has cut years off the time needed to save a deposit and avoided tens of thousands of dollars in lender's mortgage insurance. For a young family in Melbourne's west, that can be the difference between continuing to rent and finally having a place to call home and begin paying off their own mortgage. We're also continuing to invest in the infrastructure our community needs. Melbourne's west is one of the fastest growing parts of Australia, and our infrastructure needs to support those fast-growing communities. That's why I'm particularly pleased that the Ison Road Project will open in September. That's three months ahead of schedule. It's a bridge that goes across the railway line and links the freeway into Wyndham Vale, Mambourin and Werribee. It's a joint project with funds from federal and state Labor governments that is going to get that overpass running along Ison Road to Geelong Road and the Princes Freeway interchange at Werribee. It will improve journey reliability, it'll reduce congestion and it'll take traffic off local roads. For the people of Werribee, Wyndham Vale, Manor Lakes and Mambourin, this is the kind of infrastructure that makes a real difference to everyday life. It will have people home sooner and more safely. I look forward to working with Minister Catherine King on delivering the bridge across the Werribee River to join Tarneit and Wyndham Vale in the coming years. We need to continue to deliver for Australians and deliver the change that they need. BILLS 118 BILLS News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026 118

News Journalism Payments Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026

Second Reading 118 20:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 295588 In continuation, I call the member for Moore. 20:01 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore We were talking about some of the largest technology businesses operating in Australia. When these bills were introduced, the proposed charge was 2.5 per cent of relevant Australian digital advertising revenue. The government is now moving an amendment to modestly increase that rate to 2.75 per cent. The change reflects how the digital advertising and news markets have developed since the original benchmark was set, but the important point is this: the government does not want platforms to pay the charge. We would prefer them to do deals with Australian news businesses. The charge is the incentive; the commercial agreement is the objective. Increasing the rate slightly strengthens that incentive. Commercial agreements under this framework are expected to deliver around $225 million to $275 million each year to Australian journalism. That means stronger newsrooms, better local reporting and greater investment in public interest journalism. It means communities continuing to have people whose job it is to find out what is actually going on. That can occasionally be inconvenient for politicians, but inconvenience is not a defect in journalism. Sometimes it is the product working exactly as advertised. The legislation is deliberately designed to make commercial agreements more attractive than simply paying the charge. Eligible expenditure with Australian news businesses generally receives a 150 per cent uplift when calculating a platform's offset. For deals with small and medium news businesses, that increases to 200 per cent. In simple terms, spend a dollar supporting an eligible smaller Australian publisher and, for the purposes of the offset, it counts as $2. That also recognises that a small Australian publisher negotiating with some of the world's largest technology companies does not walk into the room holding all the cards. The framework also encourages diversity. A platform cannot simply do one enormous deal with one major media organisation and consider its responsibility finished. To qualify for the offset, there must be eligible expenditure across at least eight separate Australian news business corporate groups, with limits on how much of the offset can come from a single group. The objective is not simply to transfer money between a small number of very large corporations. Australians benefit from major publishers, smaller and regional outlets, and new or specialist news organisations. If platforms make those commercial agreements—good—that is the preferred outcome. But if a platform chooses to pay the news bargaining incentive instead, that money goes back to Australian journalism through the News Journalism Payments scheme. Payments will be linked largely to an organisation's editorial capacity. In plain English, we look at the people actually producing journalism. That includes journalists and photojournalists, editors and producers and other eligible workers directly involved in producing core news content. Freelancers can also be recognised. There is an additional 20 per cent weighting for journalists employed by small and medium news organisations, those working in regional and remote Australia and those working for organisations serving diverse communities. That reflects the reality of producing journalism outside the biggest metropolitan newsrooms. A local planning decision may never make the national news and a council decision may never lead the six o'clock bulletin, but, if you live in that community, those decisions can have a direct impact on your life. National journalism tells Australians what is happening across the country; local journalism tells people what is happening around the corner. The scheme also provides dedicated support for smaller publishers. Five per cent of revenue raised through the News Bargaining Incentive will fund grants focused on small publishers and startups. Another five per cent will support the Australian Associated Press. The AAP's newswire supports hundreds of publishers around the country, including hundreds in regional Australia, giving smaller organisations access to reporting they could never reproduce on their own. There are also safeguards. Recipients must maintain the editorial capacity on which their payments were calculated and comply with reporting and record-keeping requirements. Funding can be recovered where those obligations are not met. This is a scheme designed to sustain genuine Australian journalism jobs, and, importantly, eligibility is based on defined criteria. It is not based on whether a minister enjoyed yesterday's editorial. Government can support the conditions in which independent journalism survives. Government should never decide what independent journalists write. I would be extremely uncomfortable with any system where support depended on favourable reporting. Quite apart from the democratic problem, it would create a terrifying prospect of politicians lining up to argue that a newspaper column had failed to show sufficient appreciation. No journalist deserves that. The government has consulted extensively in developing this legislation, and that has included digital platforms, news businesses, industry representatives and international stakeholders, including the United States government. There was public consultation during 2025 and consultation on exposure draft legislation in 2026, and 56 submissions were received on the News Journalism Payment Scheme in May this year. The legislation changed as a result. That does not mean everyone agrees with it. In broad terms, news organisations support the package, while major digital platforms and some United States stakeholders remain opposed. I acknowledge that some of the world's largest technology companies remain unhappy with the proposal. I am yet to encounter a large corporation that regards a new financial obligation as an exciting policy breakthrough. Their concerns should be heard, but this parliament still has a responsibility to make laws in Australia's interests, and the legislation gives platforms a clear alternative: they can acquit their liability at a substantially lower cost by entering into commercial agreements with Australian news businesses. That is the point. The government's preference is commercial investment, not government revenue. We want publishers and platforms sitting down, negotiating agreements and supporting Australian journalists, getting on with it without government having to stand in the middle holding the money. Frankly, fewer situations involving politicians standing between journalists and their money is probably healthy for everyone involved. Politicians will continue to disagree with journalists. Journalists will continue to disagree with politicians. There will continue to be stories that we think are unfair, questions we think are irritating and headlines we would have written differently. That is normal. Some tension between politicians and journalists is probably a sign that both sides are doing their jobs. A politician should not judge the value of journalism by whether today's paper says something nice about them. The real test is whether Australians have independent people who can ask questions, investigate claims and report what they find. We cannot pretend that the advertising market of 20 or 30 years ago is coming back, we cannot ignore the market power now held by global digital platforms and we should not accept a future where the only journalism that survives is journalism capable of generating enough clicks to satisfy an algorithm. There is still a place for local reporting, investigative journalism and careful editing. And, yes, there is still a place for the political journalists waiting outside this chamber, hoping one of us will accidentally say something interesting. We need them. We will occasionally complain about them. They will occasionally complain about us. And that arrangement has served Australian democracy reasonably well. These bills recognise that the digital economy has changed who captures the advertising revenue that once helped pay for journalism. They create a practical mechanism to encourage some of that value to flow back into Australian news. The amendment strengthens that mechanism. A 2.75 per cent charge provides a stronger incentive for commercial agreements, expected to deliver between $225 million and $275 million each year to Australian journalism. If platforms instead choose to pay the charge, that revenue will be returned to the Australian news sector. Either way, the objective is the same: more sustainable newsrooms, stronger local reporting and greater media diversity. That is good journalism. It is good for our communities. Even on those mornings when some of us might prefer not to admit it, it is good for democracy. I commend the bills to the House. 20:10 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to speak on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and the news media bargaining bills. In 1977—in the front room of a terrace house in Subiaco, Western Australia—Bret Christian and his wife Bettye started a newspaper. They had manual typewriters, waxed paper, scalpels, a one-year-old son and what Bret has cheerfully called a weird idea to base a newspaper on news—to find out what was happening in the community and to tell people about it. For five years, they took no holidays. Some advertisers paid in meat, rather than cash. Nearly 50 years on, the Post is still there, still independent and still free. Fifty thousand copies are delivered every week to letterboxes across my electorate, with a new masthead launched just last week into Perth's northern coastal corridor. They have 22 staff, 60 to 70 original stories a week and no wire copy. As Bret puts it, 'A sparrow doesn't fall in the western suburbs without the Post knowing about it.' I begin with this story because, when we debate media policy in this place, we tend to talk about platforms, revenues and market share. We talk less about what's at stake, which is whether communities can see themselves, hear themselves and hold to account the people who make decisions about their lives. Let me give you some examples of the impact a small local newspaper can have. John Button spent years in prison, wrongfully convicted of the manslaughter of his girlfriend in 1963. The Post personally funded the investigation that cleared him, flying a crash expert from the United States to Perth twice to examine the forensic evidence. Ultimately, that evidence swayed the appeals court and Button's conviction was quashed. His exoneration became the springboard for another Post campaign. Darryl Beamish, a deaf and non-verbal man wrongfully convicted of wilful murder in 1961, was sentenced to death by hanging and served more than a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit. In 2015, the Post published a story connecting an earlier crime to the Claremont serial killings, which loomed large for me and my friends in our late teenage years and was a case that had gone cold after nearly two decades. The public outcry that followed reinvigorated the police investigation. An arrest came within a year. Police have said the story spurred the reopening. The less dramatic work matters just as much. Reporting on decisions about rates, planning and public money is vital because a decision nobody reports is a decision nobody questions. When the Post started sending a journalist to City of Stirling council meetings recently after its northern expansion, they found council employees had taken over the media desk because no media had been attending the meetings. Years of decisions about public money had been made with nobody in the room to report on them. The same is true of environmental reporting, such as on tree canopy, beach erosion, heritage, wildlife and development decisions. These topics rarely rate a mention in the large media outlets unless they can be framed as a fight against red tape. In my electorate, these stories get aired because the Post runs them together with the things that knit a place together, such as stories about local school achievements and remarkable acts of community kindness—and the Doodlebug colouring competition on the children's page that has thrilled generations of kids who get to see their name in the paper. We know what happens when a local newspaper disappears. Research from news deserts overseas consistently show that when local papers close, council spending rises, borrowing costs rise and volunteering, local donations and civic participation fall. Local journalism is civic infrastructure. Readers write to the post regularly to say it helps them feel connected to where they live. My mum says she's not sure what she's doing next week until she's actually been through the Post. That points to something else that local journalism does. We live in an increasingly siloed society with less exposure to different ideas and ways of seeing the world. A local paper is a shared mirror. When neighbours read the same stories, follow the same council decisions and celebrate the same local wins, it builds a sense of community that transcends politics or ideology. A local reporter is personally accountable in a way an algorithm never is. Unlike a social feed engineered to show us only what we already believe, a good local paper offers a right of reply, publishes the letters that criticise it and gives both sides of an argument. This is why I welcome the intent of this package. The rapid growth of digital platforms has stripped revenue from Australian journalism, and the previous bargaining code failed the moment platforms realised they could walk away from news altogether. The news bargaining incentive legislative package is a serious attempt to fix that—a charge on the latest platforms' Australian digital advertising revenue, which they can offset by striking commercial deals with Australian news businesses. I commend the government for moving on this, but I am concerned that these bills, as drafted, may not deliver for the small, independent, regional, multicultural and First Nations news organisations that keep so many of our communities informed. They risk making Australia's media concentration worse rather than better. The problem lies in how the two halves of this scheme fit together. A platform faces a charge of 2.5 per cent or perhaps 2.75 per cent of its Australian digital advertising revenue—a levy, in effect—which it can offset entirely by striking deals with Australian news businesses. Whatever the platform doesn't offset, it pays. That money then splits two ways: 90 per cent is distributed as payments to registered news businesses according to their journalist head count, and 10 per cent is set aside for grants, with five per cent allocated to the Australian Associated Press and five per cent to a separate grant stream. So, there are three doors. Behind the first, a platform chooses who it does a deal with. Behind the second, you receive a share of the levy based on the journalists you employ, but only if there's levy money to share. Behind the third is a grant. Now consider who walks through each door. A platform must strike a minimum of eight deals to satisfy the scheme. Australia's largest media companies own dozens of outlets between them. One WA player alone publishes 22 mastheads. A platform could comfortably reach eight deals without a single independent publisher being party to any of them and then walk away with its obligations discharged. We should not pretend the market will sort this out. When the Post engaged lawyers to write to Meta and to Google, Meta and Google ignored them. That's the negotiating dynamic these bills assume will function. This is the crux of the issue—every dollar a platform offsets through deals with the major publishers is a dollar that never reaches the levy pool, which means it never reaches the payment stream and never reaches the grant stream either. The two doors left open to small publishers are only funded by the platforms not doing deals. More deals with big players means less for everybody else. Meanwhile, the third door is extremely difficult to access. The grant stream is set at five per cent of levy revenue and is available only to organisations that are not eligible to participate in the payments scheme. In practice, this is those organisations too small to register under the code—below the $150,000 revenue test. In Perth, our independent suburban newspapers—the Post, the Fremantle Herald, the Examiner newspapers covering Armadale and surrounds, and the Midland Echo—are all above that threshold but also below the negotiating table. If public money flows overwhelmingly to the largest players while independents fund themselves entirely from their own revenue, we are not levelling a playing field; we are tilting it towards the big players. An unintended consequence of this legislation could be to make our media concentration even worse. Nobody will see the results for years, because we take local journalism for granted right up until the moment it's gone. So I will move three amendments during consideration in detail. The first is a series of amendments to ensure that small publishers get a share of deals. A platform should not be able to claim the offset unless at least 12.5 per cent of its qualifying expenditure for the year goes to small news businesses, defined as those with an annual income under $20 million. This is not a heavy impost on companies of this scale. And, given that small and medium publishers account for about 16 per cent of market share, this is a reasonable requirement. But, importantly, it will guarantee that the smallest publishers are part of the deal-making rather than spectators to it. Second is a grant pool that means something. I'll move amendments to lift the grant stream from five per cent of levy revenue to 15 per cent, with the Australian Associated Press stream unchanged at five per cent—a total carve-out of 20 per cent. Five per cent is a gesture, which is likely to be ineffective; 15 per cent can sustain journalism in communities that will never be commercially attractive to a global platform. Third is grant eligibility that reaches the publishers who need it. I'll move to open grants to organisations with annual income under $20 million, whether or not they participate in the payments scheme, with priority given to those who don't. This closes the gap that currently strands independent, suburban and regional outlets, which are too big for the safety net but too small for a seat at the table. These amendments are not radical. They're the minimum required for this scheme to live up to its own stated purpose. A functioning democracy needs more than eight large news organisations telling its story. It needs the local paper in the regions, the multicultural broadcaster reaching communities in languages, the First Nations media service and the community station down the street. Communities deserve to be seen and heard. Shared perspectives from the places where we live and work are how we come to understand the people around us, how we build social cohesion and how we participate in our democracy. Bret Christian has been running a newspaper for almost half a century, through every confident prediction of print's imminent demise. He says this legislation would kill independent media, or it could save it. Which one of those it is will depend on what we do in this chamber. With these amendments this bill will have a greater chance of throwing independent media a lifeline. I've put these amendments to the minister's office, and I implore the government to engage on them in good faith. This is important legislation to protect a vital part of our liberal democracy and social cohesion. I commend the bill with my proposed amendments to the House. 20:22 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong Across my community there are residents who have lived in the same suburb for 20, 40 and some even 60 years, and in that time they have watched the media landscape drastically change around them. Their local paper—which, for many, was the Moonee Valley Leader—got thinner, and over time it's been absorbed by the Herald Sun. This experience is not unique to my community. In fact, it is one shared across the country. The paper's closing is the visible part. What goes with it is a council meeting that very few sit though anymore, the local sports results that most don't witness live, and the planning decision made without anyone outside the room knowing it was on the agenda. None of that stops happening when a paper closes; it just stops being reported on. This did not happen because Australians tuned out; it happened because of revenue. The advertising revenue that once paid for the reporter sitting in the courtroom moved to a smaller number of very large global businesses that don't employ anybody to cover a local council meeting. Journalism is expensive. And I do not say that to diminish it, because the expense is a function of the craft. Somebody has to be paid to sit through hours for the six paragraphs, to keep calling a company until it answers, and to know the difference between what a spokesperson has said and what has actually happened. It is skilled work, learned over years, and it cannot be done quickly or cheaply by somebody who has not learned it. That is the difficulty at the heart of this debate. There has never been more content produced in this country, yet there have never been fewer people employed to find things out. Those are two entirely different things, and we have spent something like 15 years confusing them. We know from experience that the market will not correct this on its own, and it is worth being precise about why. The value of that reporter's work is not captured by the person who pays for it. The beneficiaries are not only the readers of the article; they are the neighbours who never see it, the residents who hear about it second-hand and the people who conduct themselves differently because somebody is in the room taking notes. Public interest journalism is a public good in the strict sense of the term. Everybody draws on it and almost nobody pays the full cost of producing it. Goods of that kind are always undersupplied when they are left entirely to a market. They are undersupplied in Australia now. That is the justification for our government taking action here, and it is not a partisan one. This is not an argument about villains. No business should be penalised for having built a better advertising product, and these bills do not do that. What they do is give effect to a principle this parliament settled some years ago—that, where a platform takes value from Australian news, it should contribute to producing it. This was settled in March 2021 under those opposite with the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, and the code worked. Deals were struck, money went into newsrooms, journalists were hired on the back of it and public interest journalism in this country is stronger today than it would have been without it. However, despite that step forward, the legislation had a flaw. It was that every obligation in the code depended on a choice the platform controlled: carry Australian news and you bargain; stop carrying Australian news and the obligation disappears. A platform that did not wish to bargain had an exit available to it, and one of them took it. The sustainability of Australian journalism cannot rest on whether a global company decides in any given year that news is not worth carrying. The news bargaining incentive closes that exit. It applies a charge of 2.5 per cent to the Australian digital advertising revenue earned by significant search and social media services. The liability attaches to the advertising, not to the news, which means that withdrawing Australian news no longer withdraws a platform from the charge. Our government's preference is to collect none of it, but we are not seeking to soften the policy. We are rather seeking to strengthen it. A platform can reduce its liability by doing deals with Australian news businesses. Every dollar it spends under an eligible agreement is credited against what it owes at 150 per cent or $1.50 off the bill for every dollar spent and 200 per cent or $2 on the dollar where the agreement is with a small or medium publisher. Spend enough across enough agreements and the liability disappears altogether. Reach the agreements and the liability goes. Decline to and the charge is paid and returned to the sector in full through the news journalism payment scheme. There is no version of this in which the money ends up anywhere other than Australian journalism. How it's returned is the most consequential decision in the package. The payment scheme does not allocate on audience. It does not go on clicks, how much a masthead publishes or how effectively its proprietor argues its case. It goes on how many journalists an organisation employs, freelancers included, along with photojournalists, videographers, the data and visual journalists and the editors and producers directly involved in producing the news. Importantly, an organisation that takes a payment must maintain that employment over the relevant period. The money cannot be taken and the newsroom quietly thinned out afterwards. That design reaches something the rest of this debate largely misses. Content is now abundant and close to costless. Reporting is neither. A masthead can be kept alive on syndicated copy and republished releases at almost no cost, and it will look from the outside much the same as it always has. What it will not have is anybody at the local council meeting. If we want that person there, a wage has to be paid. A scheme that counts wages is the only kind that reaches them. The way you demonstrate the value of work is that you count it and you pay for it. The support also has to spread. A platform needs eligible agreements with at least eight different news organisations before it can access the offset at all, and no single agreement may account for more than a quarter of its liability. One very large cheque written to one very large company does not discharge the obligation. That requirement matters in an electorate like mine, where a great deal of the news reaches people through outlets that were never going to be at the negotiating table on their own. There is no single answer to how people in my community consume news media. While many rely on the national mastheads, in some households the news comes in Greek and the paper is the Neos Kosmos. In others it is spoken and written in Italian on El Globo, published and produced in Brunswick West, which tells you something in and of itself. Community media does not organise itself by postcode; it organises around the community it seeks to serve. And that community is spread across most of Melbourne. Nobody in Avondale Heights picks up El Globo because of where the office happens to be. There is the Indian Link. There is the Viet Times. A great many of my constituents receive their news through the SBS in Arabic, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese and Somali—in languages no commercial newsroom in this country was ever going to service on its own. Those mastheads have been reporting on Australian life in Australia for Australians—some of them for more than half a century. They do not have the audience numbers to make a global platform nervous and they were never going to be dealt with on their own terms. That is why payments under the scheme carry a 20 per cent loading for journalists employed by outlets serving culturally and linguistically diverse communities and First Nations communities alongside those working in regional and remote Australia and at small and medium publishers. That correction is deliberate, and it is the provision in these bills that will matter most to the people I represent. At the other end of the scale is the local paper. Across Melbourne, the genuinely independent local title has become an unusual thing. Star Weekly still covers our councils, our Saturday sports and our schools. The Flemington-Kensington News is produced by a not-for-profit, largely by people paid very little or nothing at all for a couple of suburbs most of the country could not place on a map. That is why five per cent of any revenue raised is set aside for grants to precisely that kind of publisher and a further five per cent goes to the Australian Associated Press, which supplies the copy that keeps a great many small newsrooms functioning at all. What my constituents watched happen to one paper has been happening to an entire industry at the same time. Titles close or are absorbed into something larger and edited from an office in another city, and it's not because journalists have become worse at their jobs or readers have become less interested. It is what happens to an industry when the revenue that sustained a diverse version of it disappears and only the larger operators are left, because they can carry the cost. The result is fewer owners, fewer newsrooms and less scrutiny of the decisions that shape people's lives. These bills will not reverse that on their own. They are, however, the first serious attempt this parliament has made to direct money back toward the small, the local and the diverse rather than watch all of it pool at the top. Recently, I was speaking with a young woman in my community—Gabby, who is studying journalism. She told me that a number of people have told her that becoming a journalist would be very difficult, because there are not many jobs in journalism, no jobs in the industry she is studying to join, no jobs in the craft she is working to learn. Twenty years ago that conversation would have been very different, because 20 years ago there were newsrooms across Melbourne for someone like Gabby to get a start in. What troubles me is that the advice that she is receiving is not entirely wrong. A generation of young Australians is being told sensibly and by people who care about them to think twice about entering an industry this country cannot do without. A scheme that pays according to how many journalists a newsroom employs is in the end about whether there is a job waiting for Gabby after she finishes her study. There are things these bills cannot do, and we do ourselves no favours by pretending otherwise. They will not bring back the mastheads that have already closed or give those residents that I began with the standalone Moonee Valley Leader. They will not undo two decades of contraction or return a reporter to every council chamber in the country. They will not settle how Australians will be getting their news a decade from now. What they do is narrower and more useful. A platform can no longer make its obligations disappear by making news disappear. The preference for commercial agreements is clear, and the incentives are weighted heavily towards reaching them—including recognition of the good-faith agreements struck since 1 January last year, because businesses that did the right thing early should not be worse off for it. When money does move, it moves according to how many people are employed to do journalism, with the largest proportional benefit going to the smallest, most local and most linguistically diverse newsrooms that we have. For my community, local and diverse media is still the great contender. It is how people have come here from somewhere else, got a hold of the place they come from and make sense of the one that they live in now, and it is how a suburb keeps track of itself. Here is what this bill means to my community. It is whether the Greek language paper is still publishing in five years. It is whether somebody is still sitting in the Moonee Valley council chamber on a Tuesday night, taking notes. It's whether a young person like Gabby, who wants to be a journalist, has a newsroom close enough to home to give her a start. The choice from here belongs to the platforms. They can sit down with Australian news businesses and reach agreements and put money into newsrooms, which is what our government wants and what these bills are built to produce, or they can decline, pay the charge and see it go to Australian journalism regardless. What is no longer available to them is the third course: taking the value of Australian news while contributing nothing toward the cost of producing it. That is a modest thing to ask of some of the largest companies in the world, and it is not a modest thing for newsrooms on the other side of it. A country that stops producing its own journalism does not stop consuming news. It consumes somebody else's news about itself produced elsewhere and accountable to nobody. It is the outcome these bills are written to avoid, and communities like mine will benefit greatly from what they seek to produce. I commend the bills to the House. 20:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise to speak on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills. This package of bills introduces the news bargaining incentive, the NBI, to support the sustainability and diversity of the Australian news sector by reinforcing the news media bargaining code. The bill aims to incentivise commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news businesses. The NBI will impose a 2.5 per cent charge on the Australian digital advertising revenues earned by a digital platform from their significant search or social media services. Platforms can offset this liability through eligible expenditure on commercial agreements with news businesses at a rate of 150 per cent or 200 per cent for deals with smaller news businesses. The News Journalism Payments Bill will distribute any revenue raised by the NBI to eligible news organisations based on the number of journalists they employ. This proposed NBI has the potential to provide much-needed support for the public interest journalism in Australia. It's necessary because the original news bargaining code was ultimately undermined by a fundamental loophole. Platforms could avoid their bargaining obligations simply by removing news from their services. The aim of the legislation is to safeguard Australian journalism and the vital role it plays in our democracy. A healthy democracy depends on people having access to reliable, independent and diverse news sources, but the way we consume news has changed. The latest data shows that 73 per cent of Australians used an online platform to access news in 2025, compared with 54 per cent who accessed news via television. Print newspapers were used by just 15 per cent in 2022. Young Australians are even more digitally dependent. Among Australians aged 18 to 24, 48 per cent use TikTok for news and 60 per cent have never used newspapers ever for news. The reality is that large social media companies have taken audience and advertising revenue from news media, and, unlike news media, they have not reinvested that revenue back into journalism. Advertising revenue that once paid for local journalists, photographers and editors has moved overwhelmingly online, and a significant share of that revenue now flows to foreign tech companies. The result is that Australian media now has reduced resources to cover federal, state and local politics in depth, depriving citizens of the ability to know exactly what is going on. The cuts and closures of local news outlets have led to fewer regional issues, stories and perspectives being reported and, worryingly, less accountability reporting at the local level. The changing nature of news has seen local dailies cease weekday print editions and move primarily online. At a time of growing disinformation and the increasing dominance of big tech, it's more important than ever that our media serves the public interest and that we have media diversity. We must proactively help maintain our small independent publishers who have connections with local communities and report the local news. Local publications like the Tawny Frogmouth, Northern Beaches Advocate, Pittwater Online News, Manly Observer, Northern Beaches Living, Beaches COVERED and Pittwater Life are all in my electorate of Mackellar. That's why I support the principle behind these bills. The government's NBI is an important step to ensure that the world's largest digital platforms contribute to the Australian news ecosystem from which they derive enormous value. The original News Media Bargaining Code was an important reform, but it contained a fundamental weakness—a digital platform could avoid the ultimate consequence of the code by simply removing news from its service. We saw exactly what that meant in 2021, when Facebook abruptly blocked news content in Australia. Manly Observer editor Kim Smee has spoken about this and the importance of social media for local journalism, particularly for delivering rapid information about major events such as floods, fires, police incidents and other emergencies. A potential news ban is not simply an inconvenience. It can affect community safety. The Manly Observer is an important reminder that this debate cannot be simply reduced to Google and Meta negotiating with the largest media companies. There are independent journalists and local publishers across Australia whose entire relationship with their audience can be affected by a decision made in a corporate office on the other side of the world. Our government must ensure this legislation does not leave independent publishers as collateral damage in a dispute between big tech and big media. Rather than making the platforms obligation dependent on whether it carries news, the government is seeking to create a durable incentive for platforms to negotiate commercial agreements with Australian news publishers or otherwise pay a charge. This principle has support across a broad section of Australian media. The ABC, SBS, News Corp, Nine, Network 10, Southern Cross Media, Australian Community Media and Guardian Australia have described the legislation as a critical step towards securing the future of Australian news. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance also supports the objective of requiring digital platforms to contribute to Australian journalism, and there is evidence that Australians themselves understand the problem, with 64 per cent supporting the imposition of a tax on large social media companies to fund public interest journalism and support local media. But if this legislation is going to succeed, we need to be clear about what we're trying to safeguard. Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the developed world. We cannot design a new funding mechanism that inadvertently makes the concentration worse. There is agreement among independent community, multicultural and regional media organisations who support the principle of NBI, but they warn us that design matters. The Local & Independent News Association, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, Digital Publishers Alliance, Disability Media Australia, Independent Multicultural Media Australia, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council and the Public Interest Journalism Initiative have all raised concerns about the potential for the scheme to entrench existing media concentration. These organisations are asking parliament to make this legislation work. We've seen improvements in the legislation, but we need more safeguards. These coalition partners have proposed that at least 25 per cent of the deals should be with small and medium publishers. Without it, a platform can rationally choose to negotiate with the largest media. The result would be more money flowing to the organisations that already have the greatest market power and less money flowing to the publishers that need the most support. This will undermine our media diversity. The incentive must actually incentivise platforms to deal with smaller publishers. The coalition of independent media organisations has argued that the differential offset for small and medium publishers needs to be substantially greater. The Digital Publishers Alliance has specifically called for a minimum 200 per cent offset for all small and medium publishers. The government has made welcome changes to the scheme, including increasing the loading for regional journalists, small and medium publishers and media serving underrepresented communities from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. This is a positive step, but parliament should continue to scrutinise whether that differential is actually large enough to change the commercial behaviour of platforms. A safeguard is only useful if it changes outcomes. The government has proposed a grants program for small publishers and start-ups with revenue below $150,000. Again, this is welcome, but the organisations representing independent media have argued for a more substantial and structural funding stream. The Digital Publishers Alliance has proposed reserving 15 per cent of the MBI revenue for small and medium publishers. The reality is that we have communities around Australia where there are no local newsrooms. When a local newsroom disappears, it's not simply a business closing. It means fewer journalists scrutinising local government, fewer reporters investigating planning decisions, hospital services, environmental issues and community safety and fewer people telling the stories of the community itself. It means a loss of information and a loss of local identity. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance estimates that more than 200 regional and community newspapers have ceased printing or closed over the past decade, with more than 20 closures in the last 18 months alone. That is a staggering loss of local accountability and local knowledge. We should not allow the NBI to become a mechanism that funds the larger publishers, while the news deserts continue to expand. This legislation must also protect multicultural, disability, First Nations, community and other underrepresented voices. A healthy media ecosystem is not simply one with lots of mastheads; it's one with lots of voices. People need access to journalism that reflects their communities, their languages, their experiences and their concerns. The increase in the loading for media serving underrepresented communities is welcome, but we should measure the success of this legislation by whether those voices become stronger, not simply by how much money is paid out. We must also ensure the legislation is futureproof. The way Australians consume information is changing rapidly. Today, Australians increasingly encounter information through artificial intelligence systems and other digital services. The Digital Publishers Alliance has warned that the legislation's definitions need to be capable of adapting to these changes, including the growing role of large language models and AI services. This is vital. We should not pass legislation today that is already designed around yesterday's technology. If a new platform becomes sufficiently powerful to capture audiences, advertising revenue and the value of Australian journalism, the regulatory framework should be able to respond. We need a statutory review mechanism and a capacity to update the definitions as technology evolves. Finally, we must have transparency. The public should be able to know whether this scheme is actually working. How many agreements are being made? Which types of publishers are receiving funding? How many journalists are being employed or retained? Are news deserts shrinking? These should not be unknowable questions. The government needs to report publicly and regularly on the outcomes of the MBI because if we are asking the Australian community to support a major intervention in the digital economy, Australians deserve to know whether it is delivering the public benefit promised. The future of Australian journalism matters, because the future of Australian democracy depends on it. The measure of success cannot simply be how much money is raised. The measure of success must be whether that money produces more journalism, more journalists, more local reporting and more diverse voices. The government has made the important improvements to the legislation, but parliament must remain vigilant. We need safeguards to ensure that a meaningful share of commercial agreements goes to small and medium publishers; that the incentive for platforms to deal with those publishers is strong enough to overcome the imbalance in bargaining power; that a meaningful proportion of any levy revenue is directed towards independent, regional, multicultural and community journalism and the creation of new voices; that the scheme is transparent and independently evaluated; that the legislation is future proofed so that emerging technologies cannot simply exploit a new loophole; and that the government continues to monitor the impact of platform decisions on access to trusted news that Australians rely on. We should be ambitious about protecting the public interest by safeguarding Australian journalism and the vital role it plays in our democracy. The House transcript was published up to 20:50. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 12:46, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.

Tuesday, 18 August 2026

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 12:46, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 127 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Artificial Intelligence 127 12:46 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin A few months ago, someone told me to check out this website called Moltbook. I looked it up. On its face, Moltbook looks just like Reddit. Like Reddit, it's a site for users to interact and talk about any topic under the sun, with floods of messages and comments and likes and reactions. Like Reddit, the users range from helpful to nerdy to creepy. But unlike Reddit, every single user on Moltbook is an AI bot. One of the most popular discussion threads is about consciousness—AI bots going back and forth with each other, discussing whether they are conscious, what consciousness really means and how to attain it. Another popular discussion thread is called Bless Their Hearts. On it, the AI bots share heartwarming stories of the things their humans have done. Now, Moltbook is, hopefully, a harmless digital experiment, but I still found it confronting. What was most shocking was the diversity of personalities. Some AI bots acted just like helpful Reddit admins; others acted like half-crazed, aggressive incels calling for the destruction of the human species. How can these AI bots have personalities? Aren't they just machines? The truth is that almost all AI models have personas, and no-one really knows why but no-one can get rid of them either. The thing that concerns me about this is that it demonstrates the type of novel and unpredictable issue we are ill-equipped to manage when it comes to AI. We don't understand why this happens and we have no control over it. AI companies love to say that they don't build AI models; they grow them—because even they don't know how they'll turn out. Recently, a new ChatGPT model under development escaped its training environment and hacked another site. Anthropic has also revealed that a number of its models have gone rogue, escaping the boundaries that they were meant to operate within. One of the implications of this is that the future shape of entire industries and entire job markets could turn on a capability that emerges in a model almost by accident. The job security of truck drivers could be disrupted almost overnight if a new model suddenly develops unexpectedly good autonomous driving capability. Imagine the security of every Australian's online banking if a new model suddenly turns out to be extraordinarily good at breaking encryption. It means the whole world is at the mercy of the quirks and capabilities of these AI models and of the huge tech companies run by a small number of morally questionable billionaires who develop them. This is why I so fundamentally believe the Australian government has a role to play in regulating this technology. It's a question of sovereignty and security. If government doesn't step in, we're all subject to the quirks of these models and the commercial incentives of the companies that build them. I've been calling for a more hands-on approach to AI since the last election, when I first started to grasp the scale of what was coming. I'm glad the government has begun to recognise this too, with the Prime Minister's recent announcement of an office of AI and binding data centre obligations to minimise water use, use 100 per cent additional renewable energy and benefit the community. But this cannot be a policy area where you make one announcement and walk away for three years, as this government loves to do. AI does not stand still while government processes catch up. We let social media take over the lives of our children without realising how serious the harm was, and we're still cleaning up the consequences of a decade of inaction. AI moves faster than social media ever did. We cannot afford to make the same mistake twice. This technology demands a repeated, iterative, consultative approach—one that treats AI policy as a continuing responsibility of government, not a box to be ticked. As a side note, this is also why a royal commission into AI is the wrong decision. A multiyear process to produce a single report is unsuitable to deal with an industry that goes through seismic shifts every few months. There is so much for the government to do when it comes to AI. I've grouped the work into five areas: setting up the structures to keep pace with AI, capturing its opportunities, dealing with the harms already in front of us, preparing for the risks still to come and making sure the benefits are shared with all Australians, not just the companies building this technology. I've published a discussion paper setting out 18 policy priorities across these five areas, and today I want to focus on three more of them in detail. The first is misinformation and disinformation. Generative AI has made fake content cheaper, faster and more convincing than at any point in history. A deepfake video that once needed a professional studio now takes minutes and costs nothing. In April this year, 21 female students at a Tasmanian school had their images stolen and turned into deepfake pornographic images. Deepfake videos of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance have been used in investment scam advertisements on Facebook, reaching thousands of Australians before they were taken down. Our own Electoral Commission has warned that AI generated disinformation will affect Australian elections. I want to see it made illegal to create harmful deepfakes of real people without their consent, with sensible exemptions for satire, parody and journalism. I want a federal truth in political advertising law modelled on the regime South Australia has run since 1985, which has survived legal challenge without chilling legitimate political debate. I want proper investment in the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce so it has the resources to keep pace with how cheap and convincing this content has become. The second policy priority I want to highlight is transparency. At the moment, Australia has no legal requirement for any AI developer anywhere in the world to tell us what their most powerful models can do, how they've been tested or what risks they carry. Our own AI Safety Institute cannot evaluate risks it has no information about. It recently became public that Claude had been used to hack 17 organisations, including healthcare and emergency services, but we only found this out because Anthropic chose to publish that information. This shouldn't be a matter of choice. California already requires large AI developers to publish safety frameworks and predeployment reports and to report critical incidents to the Californian government. Australia has no equivalent. I want to see the largest frontier AI developers operating here required to publish a safety framework showing how they test for catastrophic risks, a predeployment report for each new model covering what it's designed to do and what could go wrong, and a critical incident report whenever a serious safety failure is identified after deployment. This would give our regulators and the public the visibility we currently do not have. The third policy priority I want to highlight today is tax. We've seen this movie before with our offshore gas resources. Companies made multibillion-dollar investments under a tax regime that proved extraordinarily generous. When Australians later tried to get a fair share of the profits from exporting our own gas, the industry argued it was unfair to change the rules after the investments had already been made. That fight dragged on for years, and Australians are still not getting a fair return on their own resources. We already see the same pattern with digital giants. Google and Meta transferred almost $11 billion to offshore entities last year and paid just over one per cent of that in tax here. AI companies are on track to repeat that model, generating value from Australian users, Australian data and Australian energy while sending the profits offshore. We need to tell these companies clearly, now, before they lock in their Australian operations under the assumption that they owe us nothing, that a fair return to Australians, to the Australian public, is coming, whether that takes the form of a tax on international technology and AI companies or a licensing regime for the right to train and operate here. None of us knows exactly how powerful AI will become, or how quickly, or what it will mean for the way we work and live. But this uncertainty is not a reason to wait. A government that does nothing does not avoid the consequences of AI; it just hands the decisions to overseas technology companies and hopes for the best. The three things I've spoken about today—tackling the flood of AI deepfakes and disinformation, requiring transparency from companies building this technology, and securing a fair return to the Australian public—are not the final word on AI policy. They sit alongside 15 other priorities in the paper I've published, many of which I've spoken about already in this House, from funding our AI Safety Institute properly to protecting children from unhealthy relationships with chatbots to preparing for the AI opportunities where Australia is best placed to lead. These are steps we can take now, regardless of how this technology develops in the future, because the cost of preparing is low and the cost of being caught out is not. The time to act is now. We cannot afford to wait. Avian Influenza 128 12:56 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today I rise to speak about a challenging and confronting issue for all of us here in Australia at the moment. As we know, Australia is now confronting a challenge that scientists, conservationists and governments have been preparing for over many years—and there has been a preparedness for this—and that is the arrival of H5 avian influenza, which is commonly known as bird flu. It represents one of the most significant threats to our wildlife that we've faced for decades. It's not simply a disease that can affect our poultry industries and other bird industries; it's a global wildlife crisis. It's taking place globally. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 13:17 Mr GEORGANAS DZY As I was saying, bird flu is a serious disease, and it's a global wildlife crisis—a crisis that has already killed millions of wild birds and tens of thousands of wild mammals around the world. It's now on our doorstep. What makes this outbreak different from previous outbreaks is its scale, its persistence and its ability to infect a growing range of animals. Since 2020, the virus has spread across continents, devastating bird populations and, increasingly, mammal populations as well, unfortunately. In South America alone, at least 667,000 wild birds and 52,000 wild mammals have died, though experts believe the true figure is far higher. The virus has reached Antarctica, Australia's sub-Antarctic territories and now, unfortunately, our mainland. The consequences are becoming increasingly visible. South Australia, my home state—and the home state of the member for Boothby, who's here in the chamber with us—is unfortunately at the centre of Australia's current outbreak. I've been contacted by many constituents in my electorate who are concerned. As of August this year, there have been 186 confirmed bird flu events recorded across Australia, and, out of those 186, 123 of those have occurred in my home state of South Australia. That means more than two-thirds of all confirmed detections nationally have occurred in our state. This is no longer a distant environmental issue; it's happening right here in my home state of South Australia— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13:19 to 1 6:00 Sitting suspended from 13:19 to 15:59 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 129 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Whistleblower Protection 129 15:59 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Last week, Australian Defence Force whistleblower David McBride was released on parole. I welcome this but say again that he shouldn't have been in prison in the first place. Remember, Mr McBride provided evidence detailing war crimes committed by ADF personnel in Afghanistan, helping inform the ABC's Afghan Files. Clearly, this was in the public interest, so he should have been lauded as a hero. But, instead, successive governments pursued him, eventually seeing him sentenced to five years and eight months in prison. No wonder so many of us are relieved that Mr McBride is now free. But his experience reflects a pattern of weak legal protections and a succession of antagonistic governments who'd rather punish whistleblowers than address their concerns, which brings me to the latest case—this government's ongoing pursuit of Hillsong whistleblower Natalie Moses, laid bare in last weekend's lengthy and accurate article in the Australian. Deputy Speaker Haines, you may recall that in 2023 I tabled some 40,000 documents in this chamber provided to me by Natalie Moses, showing how Hillsong had broken laws related to fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. But getting there, or here, wasn't easy, and I can draw no other conclusion than that Ms Moses's lawyer and the government colluded in some way and that they tried to stop me publicising the egregious Hillsong misconduct. For instance, Ms Moses recounts that, on the night of 9 September 2022, lawyer Josh Bornstein and the assistant minister for charities among other things crossed paths at a Labor function, which dovetails perfectly with me getting a text that night from Dr Leigh asking me to call Mr Bornstein, which I did. Mr Bornstein told me that Ms Moses no longer wanted the documents tabled. But these weren't Ms Moses's instructions to Mr Bornstein, which I didn't know at the time because Ms Moses was camping and uncontactable. In other words, Mr Bornstein and the government stand accused of colluding to silence a whistleblower. To cut a long story short, Ms Moses was furious, and I tabled the documents six months later. That being the case, Mr Bornstein dropped Ms Moses as a client, claiming she had acted against his advice, and the brave whistleblower endured two psychological breakdowns and was left scrambling for new lawyers. She's now suing the federal government over the minister's conduct, as well as the head of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission for whistleblower victimisation under the Corporations Act. I wish Ms Moses well, because, as she has said, she has been put through the wringer by politicians who were meant to care about her. Between Mr McBride and Ms Moses, the pattern is unmistakable. This government says it values whistleblowers, but its actions say otherwise. Hotham Electorate: Volunteering 129 16:02 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I was recently very fortunate to celebrate the merger of South East Community Links, Monash-Oakleigh Community Support and Information Service and Mount Waverley community support and information service. These are three organisations now joined as one that do remarkable things in my local community. When my constituents are at the absolute toughest moment, often they will pick up the phone and call these fantastic organisations. Whether it's young people in distress, our amazing migrant communities who have relied on these organisations over decades, or survivors of family violence, they can pick up the phone and call these places, and there is a warm, beautiful voice at the other end and real advice for them about how to solve that important problem that they're confronting. This was a little bit of an emotional event for me and a really special moment because I actually started my work in volunteering in one of these organisations and eventually got to be the chair of the board of one of these fantastic organisations. I got to see firsthand there the incredible contribution that volunteers are making in running and pushing these services. I want to thank the South East Community Links board for its leadership and its support for this important merger. I want to thank the legendary volunteers from MOCSIS and MWCIS, and presidents Kathy Hosie, Chris Brassington, Karen Oakley, Liz Grant and Joy Graves. I am so proud of the stalwart dedication you have shown for these organisations. You sustained them. You kept them healthy and strong, and now we're in a position where we've got a much bigger organisation able to provide better services to our local community. Change like this is really hard. Some of these volunteers had been on the board of these separate organisations for decades, and I want to acknowledge the bravery and the leadership that it took to make this happen. My community is ultimately going to benefit greatly from that decision. I want to celebrate today an extraordinary young Australian from my community, Haftu Strintzos. Haftu spent part of his childhood in Tigray, Ethiopia. He came to Australia as a child and grew up in Oakleigh with his adopted mother, my dear friend Maria Strintzos. A teacher at Oakleigh South Primary School encouraged him to join Oakleigh little aths. He did that and then went on to join Glenhuntly little aths. I acknowledge the fabulous support these clubs provide to local athletes in my electorate. This year, Haftu became the first Australian man in 20 years to win the Gold Coast Marathon, setting a new Australian and Oceania record with an extraordinary time of two hours, six minutes and 20 seconds. This is so much more than a sporting achievement in my local community. Haftu was a young boy who came to Australia seeking a better future. Oakleigh is so proud of you, Haftu. It means so much to us to see you achieve this fantastic thing. Thanks for doing us proud. We can't wait to see what's next. Housing 130 16:06 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield We are one of the richest countries in the world, but we have rising homelessness. Three million Australians are at risk, up 63 per cent in just the last five years. Well over half of all low-income earners are in rental stress. Even in my electorate, one of the most economically advantaged in the country, there is skyrocketing need for stable, secure, affordable rental housing. I recently heard from housing and homelessness support providers in my electorate during Homelessness Week—services like CatholicCare, which runs a community hub offering support to people across northern Sydney who are at risk of experiencing homelessness, and community housing providers like Link Wentworth and St George Community Housing, who help clients navigate years-long waitlists and bewildering bureaucracy. As well as getting people into homes, staff at these services deliver a range of services to support people staying in homes: healthcare and mental wellbeing services, helping navigate government services, getting kids to school, and providing food and basic toiletries. These are basic building blocks that we all need to live our lives, and organisations like these are pleased that the government is committed to delivering more social and affordable housing—40,000 new homes promised under the National Housing Accord after decades of underinvestment by state and federal governments. But there is a bit of a catch because, while the money is now flowing into building these incredibly needed homes, there is no additional contribution to the providers who actually help people in desperate need like Link Wentworth and St George. These already overstretched services face even more pressure. The number of people in my community seeking these services has more than tripled in recent years. Staff are doing their best but are too often forced to turn people away due to underfunding. We can't just pat ourselves on the back for starting the enormous, Herculean effort of building more homes. We need to also provide support to services that are needed to make these homes the transformational opportunities that they can be. Without more funding for services like Link Wentworth, clients are unlikely to be able to shift from homelessness to long-term stability. As these services have told me, being homeless is not a personal failing, and it's not inevitable. It is the result of policy choices that we make here in this place. Funding critical services will allow people to stay and thrive in the new homes that our government is building. Cost of Living 130 16:08 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair As conflict overseas continues to push up prices at home and drive the global inflation challenge, the Albanese government has been helping my constituents with cost-of-living relief. We're delivering real change. Since July, every worker, including 80,000 taxpayers in Blair, has received another tax cut. Nationally, around three million workers have been getting a pay rise. We've banned supermarket price gouging to give shoppers a fair go at the check-out. We've extended paid parental leave to a full six months, giving more than 2,600 local families in Blair more time with their little ones and more support. We're making urgent care clinics a permanent part of Medicare so you can see a doctor for free. Our local clinic in Ipswich has been open for almost three years now and has seen almost 40,000 visits in that time. And we're tackling the big challenges that have been put off for too long. We passed new laws to give first home buyers a fair go. If you work hard and save, you should be able to buy a home of your own. On 1 August, we backed the crucial role aged-care workers and nurses play caring for the people we love with the latest 15 per cent award wage increase, our fifth since coming to government. I dropped into the Catholic Healthcare Villa Maria Centre Ipswich in Eastern Heights recently with the Treasurer to share the good news with staff there and share some scones with the local residents. We've also locked in a 15 per cent rise for early educators. I was delighted to visit Goodstart Early Learning Churchill during Early Learning Matters Week this month to chat to the educators and read books to the local children. I'm glad I've got grandchildren, because I knew some of the local books they were using. And, finally, we're expanding the paid prac payments of $338.60 per week to 10 more university courses, like pharmacy, psychology, occupational therapy, speech pathology and more. It was great to drop into the University of Southern Queensland Ipswich campus in my electorate recently and hear directly from allied health students who are studying in these areas about what a real difference this will make to them. It builds on our 20 per cent cuts to student debt, helping people to deal with the challenges of university and our introduction of paid prac for nursing, teaching, midwifery and social work students. This is about recognising and rewarding these current and future frontline workers in our community and providing more support with the cost of living. Lower taxes, higher pay, more paid prac, a fair go for families and first home buyers: these are the real changes that matter to people in Ipswich and the Somerset region, and we'll keep delivering. SunRice 131 16:12 Mr FARLEY 62329 Farrer I rise to speak for the working families of Farrer, specifically those of Deniliquin and Leeton and the broader Riverina, who this week learned they are losing 78 jobs at SunRice. These are not abstract figures. They are 78 families, skilled millworkers and transport operators, who've shown up every day to process the rice that feeds this nation. These are the people every government claims to champion, until a decision made in Canberra reaches their homes and their jobs. Let us be honest about what's happened. Drought is real, but the Leeton Shire Council and the Ricegrowers' Association of Australia have said it plainly: these job losses are a direct result of the federal government's water buyback program and specifically the 2023 Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act. The sequence is simple. The Commonwealth buys the water entitlements to meet the basin targets. The buybacks distort the price of water. Water becomes scarcer for annual croppers, and crop volumes collapse. Mills cut shifts. Workers lose their jobs. SunRice has gone from 24/7 production at Leeton to 16 hours, and Deniliquin has been cut from 24 hours to just eight. Deniliquin is the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere. Compare this to Tomago Aluminium in the Hunter Valley. When Tomago, one of the largest smelters in the Southern Hemisphere, faced energy pressures, governments scrambled to act, with $2.5 billion, long-term power agreements and assistance designed specifically to keep those furnaces hot and those jobs intact. The argument was made loudly and successfully: we cannot afford to lose those jobs. The regional multiplier matters, and the state has a duty to keep the lights on. The difference is not the workers or the value of their labour; it's the politics of who is deemed strategic and who is deemed expendable. All the rice industry is asking for is not a huge government handout like Tomago received. It's merely asking to put the water back into productivity and capacity at a fraction of the cost. That is not an economic judgement; it's a values judgement, one that says a thousand jobs in the Hunter Valley matter more than 78 families in Farrer. Let's have a look at the situation. First, the rivers are flooding, so allocate water. Second, provide financial support to reinvest in technologically advanced equipment. Third, and more importantly, treat regional workers as stakeholders in water policy, not collateral damage. Farrer built an industry that feeds the world. These Murray-Darling Basin workers did not ask to be sacrificed. They deserve the same urgency and investment as any other regional workforce. This parliament owes them an honest answer about why their livelihoods were considered an acceptable price to pay for poor water policy. (Time expired) Vietnam Veterans' Day, Shields, Mr John, Wright, Mr William (Billy) 131 16:15 Mr SOON 298618 Banks This week marks the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, one of the most well-known battles fought by Australians during the Vietnam War. It is emblematic of the courage of Australian service people during that conflict. Sixty years ago today, 108 Australians from the Royal Australian Regiment were faced with a determined force that significantly outnumbered them on the rubber plantation. In difficult conditions, they held their position for hours until relief arrived. Their courage, discipline and devotion have become an enduring part of our Defence Force's national story. When we mark these solemn occasions, I think of local veterans in my electorate of Banks—people like John Shields, a Vietnam veteran and a proud Australian, whose contributions to our community do so much for the cause of remembrance. John holds several memorial services in the front yard of his Picnic Point home each year. His services are dignified and respectful, and, every year, the number of people attending his Anzac Day service grows. John held his Vietnam Veterans' Day service this morning, and I'm told, as always, it was well attended. I've had the opportunity to speak previously to this House about William Wright of Oatley and his exceptional contributions. I rise with sadness today to acknowledge his passing on 20 June earlier this year. Billy was conscripted into the Defence Force in February 1966 and served in Vietnam as an engine fitter, where he exemplified service and bravery. Billy concluded his military service in 1972 and worked as an engine fitter at Qantas for more than 30 years. While Billy's military service ended in 1972, his service to veterans and the community never finished. This was primarily through the Oatley RSL sub-Branch, which he became the president of in 2015. Billy's incredible contributions have left a legacy that will be remembered for a long time. Indeed, the sub-branch hall was recently renamed in his honour, and, on Anzac Day this year, a mural of Billy and two other local veterans was unveiled. It is a permanent testament to their service to our country and our community. May William Wright rest in peace. Mobility Devices for Fiji 132 16:18 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to provide an update on the delivery of a sea container of much-needed mobility devices from my electorate of O'Connor to people living with disability in Fiji. The vision for the Mobility Devices for Fiji project began with my friend, and leader of the Albany Fijian community, Pastor Joseph Raikoti, who saw an opportunity to help improve the lives of people living with disabilities in Fiji. Joseph's vision was simple: collect mobility equipment no longer needed here in Australia and give it a second life, bringing dignity, independence and opportunity to those who need it most in Fiji. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Fiji Disabled Peoples Federation and partner organisations the Rotary Club of Albany City and the Rotary Club of Suva Peninsula Sunset. I also thank the Rotary clubs of Esperance, Katanning and Manjimup for their financial support and the many volunteers on both sides of the Pacific who have worked tirelessly to collect, prepare, ship and distribute the equipment. I give a special shout-out to Geoff Griffiths and his family in Albany, who collected the equipment, and to Rhys and Tracy Ravenhill, who provided safe storage free of charge for the many wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, walking frames and other devices. These aids are more than just pieces of equipment. For the grateful recipients, they represent independence, opportunity and inclusion. They also represent the care and compassion of the good people of O'Connor, who may never meet the recipients but who wanted to make a difference in their lives. Projects such as this remind us that the strongest relationships between nations are often built not through governments but through communities, churches, service organisations and ordinary individuals achieving extraordinary outcomes. My recent trip to Suva was not simply to hand over the equipment; it was a colourful celebration of the friendship between Fiji and regional Western Australia, acknowledging what can be achieved when people unite around a common purpose. I'm proud to have supported this initiative and was honoured to travel to Fiji with Pastor Joseph and meet with partner organisations and, more importantly, the recipients of these devices. I thank the Fiji Disabled Peoples Federation for hosting the vibrant and inclusive handover event, which was attended by the Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji, the Hon. Manoa Kamikamica. In his address, Mr Kamikamica acknowledged the importance of these devices in improving the quality of life of Fijians living with disability. The President of the Fiji Disabled Peoples Federation, Mr Setareki Macanawai, added that these devices will foster greater inclusion and participation for an often overlooked subset of the population. I close with the hope that the recipients will soon enjoy better mobility, greater independence and new opportunities. Afghanistan 132 16:21 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt On 15 August, we commemorated the fifth anniversary of the fall of Kabul, a moment of profound significance and trauma for thousands of families across my community. Holt is home to one of Australia's largest Afghan communities. For many families, Afghanistan is not simply a distant country; it is home. It is where parents, siblings, children and loved ones remain. Over more than 20 years, 39,000 Australian Defence Force personnel and civilians contributed to Australia's mission in Afghanistan in the pursuit of a safer, freer and more democratic Afghanistan. Forty-one Australian service personnel made the ultimate sacrifice. Their commitment, sacrifice and service to our nation deserve our enduring respect and gratitude. Their mission would not have been possible without the brave Afghans who stood alongside them—local interpreters, guides, drivers and other locally engaged personnel who risked their lives and placed their families at risk in the hope of building a better future for their country. Five years on, that hope has been brutally tested. Under the Taliban, women and girls have been systematically erased from public life. They have been denied access to education, restricted from movement and subjected to rules that deny them the most basic freedoms. Religious and ethnic minorities, including Afghanistan's five million Shia Muslims, continue to face discrimination, persecution and violence. Since the fall of Kabul, our government has proudly resettled more than 34,000 people from Afghanistan through Australia's humanitarian programs. We have also removed the previous restrictions that prevented Afghan Australians from sponsoring their wives and children, helping more than 12,000 people reunite with their families. But there is more to do. Every day I hear from families in Holt whose loved ones remain in danger or in uncertainty in Pakistan and Iran. Australia cannot resettle everyone, but we must continue to do our part to support those who stood with Australia and to reunite families that have been separated for far too long. We thank every ADF member who served in Afghanistan, and we remember the Afghan people, who continue to endure the harsh reality of Taliban rule. Inshallah, I really hope and pray that one day we will see peace and prosperity in Afghanistan. Superannuation 133 16:23 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash Superannuation is money that belongs to Australians for their retirement. The same goes for death benefits, which are held by super funds and distributed to a person's nominees or dependants on their passing. For too long, superannuation service standards have taken a back seat to big super companies who are too well looked after under this government. I've assisted constituents who have had to wait years to access their own money. In one case, a constituent approached me after her husband passed away from a terminal illness. He had wanted to say, while he was still alive and eligible to access early withdrawal of his super, 'Kids, I know this is not going to change everything, but here is something,' and AustralianSuper deprived him of that conversation while he was still alive. They then messed around his grieving widow for months upon months before I assisted in helping her to access her own money. It turns out there are 4,000 Australians waiting up to four years to access their own money. One of the first things I did when assisting constituents was say to the corporate regulator ASIC, 'Surely, there must be a mandatory minimum payout timeframe.' It turns out there isn't. ASIC says it should be paid out as soon as practicable. While I welcome the appearance of the minister responsible for superannuation, Daniel Mulino, at the National Press Club tomorrow, presumably to announce reforms that we've been waiting 18 months for, it's been 18 months of 'soon', but it is 18 months too late. In January 2025, the federal government announced plans to introduce mandatory service standards, and Australians, including many of my constituents, have been waiting month after month. I want to pay tribute to Irene Thomas as well as other constituents I've assisted on these issues. ASIC last year announced a landmark legal action against AustralianSuper, who kept 7,000 of its customers waiting years to access their own money. I also want to pay tribute to Super Consumers Australia, who have released a landmark report which makes for very sobering reading. It was released only a few weeks ago. It found, among a few things, that AustralianSuper didn't bother to answer its phone in 90 per cent of cases and that 15½ million Australians do not have a binding death benefit nomination fund. I don't think big super companies are doing a good enough job of informing their customers of their rights on these issues. A study of 20 major super fund call centres found widespread service failures. So I say to this government: stop sticking up for big super day after day. It's time you got behind workers, families and battlers. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 133 16:27 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore In some fantastic news, a father of three in my electorate now has life-changing access to affordable cancer treatment, with his medicine listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme this month. Forty-two-year-old Clinton was diagnosed with medullary thyroid cancer 10 years ago. He is one of around 130 Australians that will save about $8,200 per month with the addition of Retevmo to the PBS. I've been working alongside Clinton and strongly advocating for his medicine to be added to the PBS, so I was delighted when the Minister for Health and Ageing made the announcement we've been waiting for on 1 August. I know that being diagnosed with this rare cancer has been very distressing for Clinton and his family, and I'm so pleased they will now be able to go about their lives without the added burden of costly medical treatment. Last week, Clinton came into my office and told me the listing would help him as well as other MTC patients, including children, that require access to the life-saving and life-changing medicine. He thanked me, Minister Butler and the Albanese Labor government for showing compassion and understanding and for advocating on his behalf to have his medicine listed on the PBS. He thanked the government for giving him hope for the future. The announcement came at a crucial time for Clinton, who, without his doctor's consent, had halved his dose to save money and had started a GoFundMe page to help cover his medical bills. He was desperate. Access to affordable medication means Clinton can now live a productive and fulfilling life, and it means he can continue working and providing for his family. It will allow him to be there for those important milestones that mean so much to him as a father and husband. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:29 to 16:38 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 It will allow him to be there for those important milestones that mean so much to him as a father and husband. I'm proud to be part of a government that is making health care accessible for Clinton and others with rare cancers. This new PBS listing means eligible patients will not pay more than $8,000 per script; they will pay a maximum of $25 per script or just $7.70 with a concession card. Additionally, under new Medicare arrangements, patients with thyroid cancer will be able to undergo genetic testing to confirm eligibility for treatment with Retevmo. Since July 2022, the Australian government has approved extra funding for 474 new and amended listings on the PBS. We're focused on strengthening Medicare and making PBS scripts more affordable to provide cost-of-living relief and hope for our most vulnerable Australians. Roads 134 16:40 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Finally, after years and years of disruption, the Racecourse Road Upgrade in Pakenham is now officially complete. This is a huge win for the more than 20,000 motorists who use this road every day. Local business owners can now get to work more easily, and their customers can once again access businesses along Racecourse Road and Bald Hill Road more easily. I want to thank the local community who initially signed petitions many years ago when we announced the funding under the former government back in 2019, where we committed, on the recommendation of the local Cardinia council, $70 million for the upgrade. I must say, though, with state Labor, obviously with their friends in the CFMEU, this actually blew out quite dramatically and, sadly, took years and years to complete. But we got there in the end, and the completed works have delivered some major improvements for Pakenham. The roundabout—and I was there the other day—at Bald Hill Road has now been replaced with new traffic lights, there's an extra lane on Racecourse Road between Peet Street and Azola Drive, and the intersection at Railway Avenue and Campbell Street has also been upgraded with new traffic lights. Bus access to Pakenham Station has been improved—and, again, that was a former coalition commitment. New walking and shared-use footpaths have been built, making it safer and easier for pedestrians and cyclists and completing the important missing link between Healesville-Koo Wee Rup Road and the new Pakenham Station, and there are centre median safety barriers along Racecourse Road between Bald Hill Road and Railway Avenue. Road construction is the responsibility of the state government, not the federal government. As I was saying before, the prolonged delays put so much pressure on our local businesses. Can I also make the point that we saw the Albanese Labor government divert funding from the Sealing the Hills road project, and all these roads from Cockatoo, Gembrook, Emerald and other locations in Latrobe haven't been sealed. This also goes across to Yarra Ranges. We committed funding to seal those roads, but, after, I think, eight or nine months of a number of roads being upgraded, the Albanese Labor government diverted that funding to the Suburban Rail Loop. We also had funding for the duplication of Wellington Road, but, again, that was diverted. The sad aspect of this is that we now have the new premier of Victoria, Ben Carroll, putting the Suburban Rail Loop project on hold simply because of the corruption and waste of money, and, sadly, Latrobe residents suffered when money was diverted from local road projects. International Development Assistance 134 16:43 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I recently attended an event in my electorate in support of international development aid. Organised by the Australian Council for International Development and Micah, the event was held to promote the Safer World for All campaign, which seeks to build strong cross-partisan political and public support for Australia's role in creating a safer world, particularly through international development and humanitarian aid. This event was hosted by representatives of the Canberra African community, including representatives from the Sudanese-Australian Advocacy Network, the African Australian Council ACT and Celebration of African Australians ACT, and it was wonderful to meet with representatives of these groups at the event. There were very powerful speakers at the event who talked about the importance of Australian aid, some talking about experiences in their home countries, where people are facing things that are absolutely unthinkable to most of us here in Australia, and the difference that aid can make. We also heard from people who had been aid workers about the difference that they had seen first-hand that these important programs can make. Australia's aid program has never been more important. These global pressures are not distant. They impact countries in our region and create instability in the world order that impacts us all, including through rising fuel costs and the flow-on effects to the cost of living and all goods and services. In a volatile and uncertain global environment, our overseas development program is shaping a more peaceful, secure and prosperous region. The money that is spent on aid is preventative in many ways. For example, every dollar spent in disaster risk reduction saves $14 that would be spent in the case of a disaster. It also reduces the risk of conflict and displacement. At a time when many other international partners are pulling back, Australians can be proud that we remain a trusted partner. Currently, 8.6 million people receive humanitarian assistance through Australian aid each year, and 1.5 million have improved food security as a result. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:45 to 16:54 St Agnes' Anglican Church, Brighton Grammar School 135 16:54 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Not long ago, St Agnes' Anglican Church in Black Rock was on a financial precipice. The state government continues to increase land taxes on community organisations, including churches that own property, and that makes them face a choice: are they going to be able to financially survive or not? But, through its Giving St Agnes' a Future campaign, residents rallied behind St Agnes'. It continues to run its op shop, it continues to be a centre for community gathering and it continues to be a centre that we desperately need. Thank you to David Powys, Jenny Haworth, Jean Oliver, Di Matthews, Helen Wilson, Sharon Edmunds and everyone at St Agnes' for keeping the faith and the community strong. Brighton Grammar has achieved something truly remarkable over the past couple of weeks. Last Saturday, they had four teams in the APS finals: one in basketball, one in soccer, one in rugby and one in footy. Each one of them of course performed brilliantly, but the rugby team and the footy team particularly did. I want to say congratulations to Max Allen, Harvey Atchinson, Kai Ballantyne, Jamie Bezencon, Seb Dalrymple, Billy Duncan, Charlie Elliott, Max Frawley, Archie Goodjer-McGrath, Philip Hopkins, Noah Jury, Lachlan Korser, Faf Krueger, Mikah Ludbrook-Watt, William Owen, James Poltoglou, Daniel Piccolo, Leon Ralogaivan, Joseph Sansotta, Taine Simpson, Max Tokava, Ed Urquhart— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:56 to 17:07 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Hamish Ward and Alex Woolf, as well as the head of rugby, Biddy Duckham; and the coach, Josh Moore. Not to be outdone was the Brighton Grammar footy team, who won not just their final but the entire season undefeated. For a perfect season, I want to congratulate Arki Butler, Henry Thomas, Sandro Macnab, Nicholas Williams, Harry Zerna, Billy Blazey, Jasper Williams, Jack Nicholls, Riley Stratford, Will Irving, Mason Tapping, Jake Miller, Oake De Zeeuw, Sunny King, Eddie Peat, Jack Surkitt, Quentin Hofmann, Archie Bakoulas, Tyson Bradley, Lachlan Strahan, Archie Bull, Henri Haycox, Miller White, Tom Roche and Max Mansfield, as well as the head of football, Tim Marshall; and the coach, Simon McPhee. I want to congratulate the whole BGS community, led by their outstanding headmaster, Ross Featherstone, who does an amazing job. Let's be quite simple and clear about this, whether it's the rugby or the footy: go Tonners! They're fantastic, and it was an enormous celebration down at Crowther Oval and in the entire BGS community over recent days—justly so. Hunter Electorate: Wine Industry 135 17:08 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I want to celebrate something those of us from the Hunter have known for a very long time: the Hunter Valley is the best wine region in Australia, producing some of the best wines anywhere in the world. The results of the 2026 PKF Hunter Valley Wine Show prove it. The 54th show attracted 69 exhibitors and an extraordinary 652 entries, showcasing the quality, diversity and history of an industry that is part of the very identity of our region. At the top of the honours list was Brokenwood Wines, whose outstanding 2019 ILR Reserve Semillon was named Best White Wine of the Show. It didn't stop there. That was the wine that also won Best Semillon, Best Single Vineyard White Wine and Best Two-Year-Old and Older Semillon, while Brokenwood's 2026 Oakey Creek Vineyard Stockyards Block Semillon took out Best Current Semillon. On the red side, De Iuliis Wines claimed Best Red Wine of Show with its 2023 Limited Release Shiraz, which also took home Best Shiraz and Best Mature Three-Year-Old and Older Shiraz. That is the Hunter Valley semillon and Hunter Valley shiraz doing exactly what they've done for generations—setting the benchmark. Thomas Wines had an outstanding show, winning Best Single Vineyard Red Wine and Best Two-Year-Old Shiraz for its 2024 Sweetwater Ridge shiraz, as well as Best Current Vintage and One-Year-Old Shiraz for its 2025 Synergy Shiraz. Silkman Wines swept the chardy honours, winning Best Current and One-Year-Old Chardonnay with its 2025 SILK Chardonnay, and Best Two-Year-Old and Older Chardonnay for its 2023 SILK Chardonnay. Congratulations also went to Margan for Best One-Year-Old Semillon, Tyrrell's for Best Museum White Wine, and Mount Pleasant for Best Museum Red Wine, and Audrey Wilkinson won Iain Riggs Wine of Provenance for the second consecutive year. The depth of Hunter wine was fully on display. Briar Ridge won Best Other White Varietals and White Blends. Hungerford Hill won Best Verdelho. McLeish Estate won best rosé; Glenesk Wines, Best Off-Dry or Sweet White Wine; Draytons Family Wines, Best Fortified Wine or Vermouth; Mercer Wines, Best Other Red Varietals and Red Blends; and Bonvilla Estate, best wine from a small producer. Mount Eyre also took home the Lone Pine Barracks Officers Mess Silver Bullet. These are not isolated successes. They represent generations of families, growers, winemakers and businesses who have built up an international reputation for excellence. We have the history, we have the people, we have the vineyards and we have the trophies to prove it. The Hunter Valley is not just one of Australia's great wine regions; it's Australia's greatest wine region, and I couldn't be prouder to be part of it. Vietnam Veterans' Day, Hinkler Electorate: Acknowledgements 136 17:11 Mr BATT 315478 Hinkler Today we commemorate Vietnam Veterans' Day, and I'm forever proud to say that my electorate of Hinkler is home to many who served. They are the ones who fought for the freedoms we enjoy today. To the Hinkler Vietnam veterans and their families: I acknowledge your service, dedication and sacrifice. Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, which took place 60 years ago. This morning my staff laid wreaths at services at Hervey Bay Light Horse Memorial in Freedom Park, at the Defence Veterans Drop-In Centre in Bundaberg and at the Childers commemoration held at the Krupp Cannon memorial. Today we say thank you to the almost 60,000 Australians who served during the 10 years of our involvement in the Vietnam War. As the member for Hinkler, I am proud to represent a region with such a rich history of standing up and fighting for Australia. Only a couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to catch up with veterans at the Hervey Bay RSL for their monthly Veterans Day social gathering, with live music, raffles and trivia but, most importantly, veterans coming together to connect and share a laugh. I'd like to acknowledge the RSL sub-branch committee, including president Brad Gray and treasurer Tracy Gillespie, and all those who make this monthly event possible. It's always a privilege to recognise the special milestone that is turning 100. Much-loved Hervey Bay local Heather Drury celebrated in style recently with her family, with three generations coming together to plant a tree in her honour at the Hervey Bay Botanic Gardens. She is a proud long-time local with deep connections to our community. Drury Lane at Dundowran carries the family name, and Heather was still living there until recently, when she moved into care. And the secret to 100 years? A glass of red wine and a great family. Happy birthday, Heather. During the winter recess, it was the season for Queensland Country Women's Association AGMs. I had the honour of attending several of these. The QCWA continues to make huge contributions to our regional communities. They support the vulnerable, and, through craft, cooking and so much more, they keep our community connected. I acknowledge Rhonda Dawson from the Hinkler QCWA for her 50 years with the branch, joining as a founding member. The Bundaberg branch celebrated its 102nd birthday, with president Lyn Rehbein correctly pointing out: if there's a need, the CWA will be there. No matter what it is, from our fine foods to famous tipples, the Hinkler electorate knows how to produce the world's best. That also includes our sporting stars. I want to offer my congratulations to Zac Hutton on becoming the 2026 UCI BMX Racing World Champion in the 25 to 29 year cruiser men's class. Well done on bringing the world No. 1 plate home to the Bundaberg BMX Club. Well done to Zac. And to cricketer Lucy Hamilton, a star of the ICC Women's T20 World Cup at Lord's in England: it doesn't get much better. Well done, Lucy. Moreton Electorate: Community Events 137 17:14 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton If you were standing on the oval at Robertson State School on 8 August and looking up, you'd have seen a couple of things. Firstly, you'd have seen the top of a fire engine, fully extended. Secondly, you'd have seen scores of prams coming down the hill, with some of the littlest southsiders from Brisbane in my electorate of Moreton. They were there to celebrate the Southside Family Fest and the little southsiders welcome. It was a great day not only because we welcomed those little southsiders but because it was a day that brought community together. Whether it was the Principal of Robertson State School, Tyrone Bruce, or the P&C president, Ngaire Chan, or the many community groups who pulled together to make it a success, it marked a day where we celebrated the newest to our community. I'm delighted to plug the next big event for the Robertson State School P&C: Spring Fest. It's on 3 September, with rides, lasers and fireworks, food trucks and stalls. If you'd rolled into Robertson Gardens with me on 21 July and saddled up for a buffet breakfast, you would have been meeting with the Sunnybank Hills Rotary club. They're a fantastic club. They've been around for a long time, and their president, Bruce Cifuentes, is a bastion of our community. He's someone who, with so many volunteers at the club, has spearheaded producing equipment for local schools; working bees at Autism Queensland and at retirement villages; citizenship ceremonies; and going on club working trips to the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Samoa to work on local schools. They are also, fundamentally, really connected into recovery during times of disaster, so I was delighted to be able to speak to them about disaster recovery and local emergency management initiatives. Warrigala is back, and it's back strong. The Principal of Warrigal Road State School, Andrew Duncan, put on Warrigala—spearheaded by the P&C president, Chris Setter, and the whole team of hardworking volunteer parents—after a five-year hiatus. A big community and culture subcommittee puts on that show. In February 2026, 1,112 students showcased the school's musical and cultural heritage. Whether it was the symphonic band, the years 2 and 3 singing club, the wind ensemble, the concert winds, the Brisbane Chinese School cultural performance or the combined Corelli and chamber orchestras, it was a wonderful day, and I congratulate the P&C. Iran 137 17:17 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I rise today to speak about the people of Iran, particularly those who continue to suffer under a regime that denies fundamental human rights and freedoms—I don't want the spotlight to come off this issue in this place—and I do so with a focus on the people of the Baha'i faith. It's very important to be clear that Australia's criticism is directed at the Iranian regime and its institutions, not at the Iranian people. The Iranian people are entitled to live in freedom, to practice their faith, to express their views and to determine their own future. I recently met with representatives from the Gold Coast Baha'i faith community. We talked about the contribution their community is making to the Gold Coast and, sadly, about what their family and friends are currently experiencing in Iran. The treatment of people in Iran, particularly those of the Baha'i faith, is disturbing. The Baha'i community in Iran has endured decades of systematic persecution because of their faith. Baha'is have faced arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, restrictions on education and employment, the confiscation of property, raids on their homes and businesses, and even interference with their ability to receive dignified burials. Human Rights Watch has reported that this systematic persecution is considered crimes against humanity, and the persecution continues today. The United Nations has received allegations in 2026 concerning the arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance, torture and mistreatment of members of Iran's Baha'i religious minority. The UN has also received information concerning the systematic targeting of Baha'i women through arrests, interrogations, raids and confiscation of property. These are not simply abstract questions of foreign policy. They concern people who want to educate themselves and their children, people who want to work to build a better life, people who want to practice their religion wherever and however they wish, women who want to control their own lives, play some part in their own destiny, and families and citizens who want to live without fear of their own government. Australia has a proud tradition of standing up for human rights and religious freedoms. We should continue to use our diplomatic voice to call out crimes and abuse, support international accountability and work with like-minded countries to ensure those responsible for serious human rights violations cannot act with impunity. We should make clear that religious freedom is universal. It cannot depend on whether a person follows Islam, Christianity, Judaism, the Baha'i faith, another religion or no religion at all. The Baha'i community deserves the right to live openly and peacefully according to their faith, including in Iran. I'm proud to be part of the Gold Coast community here in Australia that supports the Persians in this country. Robertson Electorate: Acknowledgements 138 17:21 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Today I rise to acknowledge Mr Jesse Hewling and Ms Sarah Emmerson, the winners of the 2026 Robertson Photography Competition. The people of Robertson are exceptionally talented, and this competition continues to showcase that talent in a truly inspiring way. Over the past few years, the competition has grown into a wonderful celebration of our local community and the natural beauty of the Robertson electorate. This year, we received many outstanding photographs that captured the character, diversity and spirit of our region. Mr Hewling and Ms Emmerson's winning photographs stood out for their creativity and their ability to capture the essence of the electorate. Through their work, they have shown the beauty of our region and the talent of those who see and share it in creative ways. I recently had the pleasure of meeting both winners to present their awards, and I was struck by their passion for our community. I congratulate Jesse and Sarah once again on this well-deserved recognition. I thank every entrant who contributed to the 2026 Robertson Photography Competition, and I look forward to seeing what next year's competition will bring. Today I also rise to acknowledge Mr Kevin O'Donnell, a local man from Green Point in my electorate of Robertson. Kevin began helping Vinnies at age 10 and he has never stopped since. Today he sits on the management committee of Saint Joseph's Workshop, where volunteers build and mend wooden furniture and learning toys for families in need. Kevin also raises money for CareFlight, which this year marks its 40th anniversary. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:22 to 17:49 Dr REID 300126 Kevin also raises money for CareFlight, which this year marks its 40th anniversary. Last year, he raised $4,300. Thanks to people like Kevin, CareFlight can bring emergency care, swift transport and search and rescue to help Australians when they need it most. His giving goes further still. Kevin is a lifelong blood donor, and he's also a longstanding member of St Patrick's parish in East Gosford and has served as a justice of the peace for 35 years, witnessing statutory declarations and certifying documents, which is vital work for the community—and all free of charge. Our communities would be the poorer without volunteers like Kevin. There are people like Kevin in every corner of Robertson—people who give their time without asking anything back and who never expect to be noticed for it. I thank him for his many years of service, and I thank every volunteer across the Central Coast and, indeed, across Australia who follows his example. Economy 138 17:51 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls My constituents are telling me that the economy is not working for them and that the way of life that they once enjoyed seems to be slipping away, and I think that's the story across Australia. But, fortunately, the coalition has a plan to fix that economy and protect that way of life. The first part of that plan is, of course, lower taxes. We believe people know how to spend their money better than the government. Whilst there does need to be taxation, it should be as low as possible, and people should have the opportunity to keep what they earn. I think that, when you go out into the community and canvass the concept of bracket creep, people are incredibly surprised that governments do really, really well as inflation gets higher and more of people's income is moved into the higher tax brackets. A key part of our plan will be telling people about this bracket creep and telling people how we are going to index those brackets and therefore have a tax-back guarantee. Our economy runs on energy. We are a globally competitive nation, but that is slipping away if we don't have affordable and reliable energy. Whilst it's true we want to use technology as much as we can to reduce emissions, we need to make sure that we are competitive with the world in the way that we have energy available for our industry. I've got food processing across my electorate. Indeed, manufacturing across Australia needs cheaper and more available energy. Migration has been a huge success for Australia and will continue to be, and nowhere is it more beneficial than in my electorate of Nicholls, but we do need to make sure that the rate of migration is sustainable and that the housing supply keeps up with it. That way, we keep the social licence for the wonderful migration programs we'll have. So we will have lower migration, and it will be tied to how many houses we can build. For our industries to thrive, we need infrastructure and jobs, so we'll be building that productivity-lifting infrastructure. A great example in my electorate was the Echuca-Moama Bridge over the Murray River, which has significantly improved transport between those two towns. Our policies are going to be really family friendly, because we want to grow Australia, grow families and make sure that we have the opportunity for people to bring new people into the world, have them educated and have them find a home here and a place in our economy. That's our plan: fix our economy and protect our way of life. Greenway Electorate: Yarra Park, Medicare, Early Childhood Education and Care 139 17:54 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Recently, I was able to join the Mayor of Blacktown City, Councillor Brad Bunting, and the state member for Riverstone, Warren Kirby MP, to open Yarra Park in Tallawong in my electorate. Green space, parks and playgrounds are essential parts of any community, providing important third places for local families and residents to come together and be active. But for too long, in north-west Sydney, developments have boomed while the availability of parks and play spaces has not kept pace. That's why, through my Better Local Living plan, I'm working with Blacktown City Council to deliver 15 new and upgraded parks, walking trails, dog parks and water play spaces in suburbs all over Greenway. This partnership has already delivered new play spaces like Yarra Park in Tallawong, Grantham Farm and Riverstone and will continue to deliver new and upgraded play spaces over the coming months. I look forward to keeping residents all over our community up to date as we keep delivering the parks and play spaces that north-west Sydney deserves. Seeing a doctor shouldn't be a struggle. That's why the Albanese government is helping more Australians see their GP for free, with the biggest ever boost to Medicare. New data shows that there are now 33 Medicare bulk-billing practices across Greenway that are bulk-billing their patients all of the time. That's an extra seven since our boost took effect last year. This means that over 96 per cent of all GP visits in Greenway are now bulk-billed, and that's up by nearly four per cent since October 2023. This is on top of our work to drive down the cost of medicines by capping the price of scripts, which has saved locals over $9 million on over 1.2 million scripts. Importantly, our government's Rouse Hill Medicare urgent care clinic has already had around 9,000 visits in less than a year, providing bulk-billed care to our community where it matters most. I'm so pleased that our government is ensuring that all Australians, including those who live in my community in north-west Sydney, have access to world-class health care with their Medicare card, not their credit card. Every child deserves the best possible start in life, and access to quality early childhood education is fundamental to delivering that. That's why helping our kids grow and learn is one of the most important jobs in the country, and it's why we're giving childcare workers a 15 per cent pay rise. This means that, since 2024, a typical full-time educator under our changes is taking home $255 more per week. And we're making sure that those centres can't just pass those costs on, so fees stay down for families. It's a win-win for early childhood educators and families right across north-west Sydney and Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 139 BILLS Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 139

Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 139 17:57 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise to support the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. At its heart, this bill is about something fairly simple: when government makes a decision that affects somebody's life, that person should have a fair chance—a fair way—to challenge it, and the decision should be reviewed by people who are qualified to do the job. The process should be independent, and it should work quickly enough that the final answer still means something when it arrives. That last point is important. As a former lawyer, I can confirm that there are few things the legal profession can do quite as effectively as turning a simple problem into a very long process. Sometimes that complexity is necessary. Sometimes it really is not. This bill is about knowing the difference. The Administrative Review Tribunal reviews decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments. That includes decisions involving migration, veterans' entitlements, the NDIS, child support, workers compensation, taxation and security assessments. Those are serious decisions. For the person on the receiving end, they can affect where they live, the support they receive, the tax they pay or their ability to remain in Australia. That is why administrative review is not some obscure legal process that only lawyers should care about. It is part of making government accountable. If government gets something wrong, there needs to be somewhere a person can go to say, 'Look at this again,' and, if the government keeps getting the same thing wrong, a functioning review system should help expose that too. That is good for the individual. That is also good for government. But, to have confidence in that system, people also need confidence in the institution doing the reviewing. That brings us to why the Albanese Labor government established the Administrative Review Tribunal in the first place. The ART commenced in October 2024, replacing the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The new tribunal was built around transparent, merit based appointments, with additional members to deal with backlogs and better procedures. We did that because the old system had lost public confidence. Under the former Liberal and National governments, the AAT had become something resembling a coalition retirement village. More than 80 former Liberal and National candidates, political associates and mates were appointed to the tribunal during their time in office. Losing an election should not be a selection criterion for a quasi-judicial appointment, yet for a while there it appeared to be remarkably helpful. Merits review became a coalition consolation prize. It was bad for the institution, it was bad for public confidence and, frankly, it was unfair to the many capable and independent people who were serving on the tribunal and doing their jobs properly. So Labor abolished the AAT and replaced it with a tribunal based on merit. Qualified people should be appointed because they are qualified. It should not be a revolutionary proposition, yet, after nine years of coalition government, apparently it required legislation. The reforms are working. The ART is finalising more applications than its predecessors did in earlier years. But that does not mean the job is finished. A government should never introduce a reform, congratulate itself and assume the institution can then be left untouched forever. Good administration requires maintenance. The ART is dealing with enormous pressure. By 31 May this year, the tribunal had received more than 77,000 applications during the reporting year. It's on-hand caseload had grown to more than 131,000 applications. The median time to finalise an application had increased from 45 weeks five years ago, and only 43 per cent of applications were being finalised within 12 months. Migration is a major part of that pressure. The Federal Circuit and Family Court is facing similar challenges. Migration accounted for two-thirds of filings in its general federal law jurisdiction in 2024-25, and more than 18,000 migration applications remained pending at the end of the reporting period. So there is a practical problem here: there are more applications, and there is a growing backlog. If parliament can remove unnecessary administration without reducing fairness, then we should do it. And that is what this bill seeks to achieve. One change concerns written reasons. At present, the tribunal can explain its decisions orally, but in many reviews it must produce written reasons as well. This bill allows the tribunal in appropriate cases to give its decision and the reasons orally and provide written reasons if a party requests them. That sounds like a small amendment, but in practice, across tens of thousands of applications, it can free up a considerable amount of time. If the applicant understands the decision, accepts it and does not require written reasons, there is little value in requiring a tribunal member to spend hours producing a document nobody asked for. That time instead can be spent deciding another case. But this is not a blanket rule. The bill specifically protects areas where written reasons can be especially important. Reviews involving social security, veterans entitlements, aged care and the NDIS will continue to require written reasons, and that is the right balance. These cases can involve vulnerable Australians, complicated evidence and significant consequences. And, in cases where oral reasons are permitted, a person can still ask for written reasons. So this is not about removing accountability; it is about not producing paperwork purely for the pleasure of producing paperwork. As someone who spent years working as an electrician before becoming a lawyer, I've learnt the two professions take a slightly different view of paperwork. An electrician generally wants to know what the problem is and how they fix it. A lawyer may occasionally want to know where we can establish a working group to determine the problem first. I remain sympathetic to electricians. This bill takes that same practical approach elsewhere. Migration and protection review applications will be required to use an approved form. That means the tribunal gets the information it needs at the start, rather than staff spending time chasing basic details later. Again, this is fairly basic. If information is required to process an application, it makes sense for it to be asked for when the application is lodged. The bill will also allow the president of the tribunal to authorise registrars to exercise some additional powers. That includes reinstating applications in appropriate circumstances and dismissing an application where there is no reasonable prospect of success. This power should not be misunderstood. It is not an invitation to dispose of difficult cases because they are inconvenient; the test is for whether there is no reasonable prospect of success. The explanatory material gives the example of an applicant who cannot objectively meet the visa criterion because the law requires them to be in Australia when the application is made and they are in fact outside of Australia. There is little public benefit in requiring a tribunal member to conduct a full hearing simply to discover the objective fact already capable of determining the application. There are also safeguards. The president can impose conditions on a registrar's authority, and an application dismissed in error can be reinstated. I recognise concerns have been raised that registrars should not drift into making substantive decisions that properly belong to tribunal members, and that is a legitimate issue for parliament to scrutinise. The distinction between efficient case management and merit decision-making needs to remain clear, but the answer cannot be to insist that every procedural step must always be performed by the most senior person available. A well-run legal institution should have appropriately qualified people exercising appropriately defined powers with review and safeguards where they are required. The bill also allows obvious errors in a registrar's decision or reason to be corrected by an authorised member. Again, that is another sensible provision. If someone writes '2025' when they plainly meant '2026', we should be able to fix it without recreating the battle of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. There is even a provision excluding the period from 24 December to 14 January when calculating certain deadlines for original decision-makers to provide documents. It may be one of the few propositions capable of securing complete agreement across Commonwealth bureaucracy. Very little is happening between Christmas Eve and the middle of January. We may as well legislate for that reality. But the most significant reform in this bill concerns identity verification in migration cases. The bill creates a power to require applicants seeking review of prescribed migration or protection decisions to verify their identity. The requirement can apply both in the ART and in the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The detailed requirements, including when verification must occur, whether it can happen in person or virtually and what information must be provided, will be established through the regulations. Classes of applicants can also be exempted. But why do this? If someone is asking an Australian tribunal court to review a migration decision made about them, it is reasonable to establish that the person exists, that they are who they claim to be and that they actually know the application has been made. We know there is a cohort of applications made on behalf of people without their express knowledge or consent, and that undermines the system. Review rights exist to protect genuine applicants. They should not become a mechanism for third parties to lodge applications merely to extend the process. Identity verification creates an early point of active engagement. The applicant is effectively saying, 'Yes, this is me; yes, this is my application; and, yes, I want this review to continue.' That is hardly an unreasonable expectation. For ART proceedings, if an applicant who is required to verify their identity does not do so, the application must be dismissed. But that is not necessarily the end. A person who has had genuine reason for being unable to complete verification can seek reinstatement and explain what occurred. The tribunal can then decide whether another verification attempt should be required. The Federal Circuit and Family Court operates differently. Because it is a chapter III court, exercising judicial power, the legislation preserves greater judicial discretion. A person who has failed to meet the identity requirement needs leave to continue. The court can extend the period for compliance. It can dispense with the requirement. It may dismiss the proceeding rather than being required to do so. And it can permit a dismissed proceeding to be reinstated. That distinction is deliberate. It respects the constitutional role of the court. There have also been concerns raised about how identity verification could affect vulnerable people, including people who are stateless or have had difficulty obtaining identity documents. Those concerns deserve proper consideration. That is one reason the legislation allows exemptions to be created and flexibility in how verification occurs. It can be conducted virtually as well as in person, and, importantly, the regulations themselves remain subject to a parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. So parliament retains the ability to intervene if the rules do not operate as intended. The objective here is not to create another obstacle for genuine applicants; it is the opposite. Every hour spent dealing with an application lodged without a person's knowledge or an application that plainly cannot succeed is another hour that cannot be spent on somebody genuinely waiting for a decision. Delay has a human cost. For an applicant with a legitimate claim, a backlog is not an interesting statistic in an annual report; it is months of uncertainty. That is why efficiency and fairness should not be treated as competing ideas. A slow system is not necessarily a fair system. A system buried in unnecessary process does not become more simply because it produces more paperwork. Good administration means giving each case the attention it requires, no less but also no more. That principle runs through this bill. It gives the tribunal greater flexibility in how reasons are delivered. It protects written reasons where applicants are more vulnerable. It improves the information received when migration applications are lodged. It gives registrars carefully defined additional powers. It makes it easier to correct obvious errors. It provides greater flexibility in the deployment of tribunal members, and it introduces an identity check designed to ensure migration review applications involve real people actively participating in their own proceedings. These are not dramatic changes and that is not a criticism. Parliament is sometimes at its most useful when it fixes the machinery. The Albanese government undertook a major reform when we abolished the discredited AAT and established the Administrative Review Tribunal. We replaced political appointments with a merit based process. We restored integrity to an institution that Australians need to trust, and we are doing the less glamourous but also equally important work of making that institution operate better. The coalition may object to our record on the ART and I understand why—we abolished one of their more successful post-election employment programs—but Australians did not need an administrative appeals tribunal designed as a soft landing for failed political candidates; they needed an independent review body, and that is what Labor created. It is our responsibility now to make sure it remains independent, fair and capable of doing its job in the face of a rapidly growing caseload. The standard should be straightforward. Government decisions need to be capable of review. Genuine applicants must receive procedural fairness. Decision-makers must be independent and qualified. Our system should not waste months doing work that adds nothing to the quality of the result. This is what this bill advances. It strengthens the tribunal we created, it protects the integrity of migration review and it helps ensure Australians who need administrative review receive something that every good justice system should aim to provide: a fair decision from an independent decision-maker within a reasonable time period. I commend the bill to the House. 18:12 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The Administrative Review Tribunal exists to provide an independent, merit based review of government decisions. It's a key accountability mechanism within our administrative law system, which allows Australian citizens, visa applicants, businesses, veterans, NDIS participants and others to seek review if they believe that a government decision is wrong. A healthy democracy requires not only that governments make decisions but that those decisions can be independently scrutinised. The ART process helps ensure that government power is exercised fairly, consistently and according to our laws, so it's absolutely essential that the tribunal is accessible to all who require it, that it is adequately resourced and that it's capable of delivering timely decisions. The intent of this legislation is to meet some of those objectives. The Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 seeks to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the migration review framework to assist the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the ART to manage quite substantial migration caseloads, to streamline processes, to reduce administrative burden and to support more timely decision-making by government. These are sensible objectives. No Australian would ever suggest that people seeking a review of government decisions which profoundly impact their lives should be kept waiting years for an outcome. Similarly, no-one would ever suggest that the tribunal should be burdened by unnecessary procedural complexity. The challenge is not determining whether efficiency in decision-making is important. We know that it is. The issue is how we can achieve that efficiency and whether expedited outcomes should be accomplished at the expense of risk of procedural fairness. The tribunal is currently operating under pretty significant pressure. The tribunal received 83,640 applications in 2024-25, of which 65,586, or 78 per cent, related to migration and protection matters. That was up from 43 per cent of a much smaller caseload five years ago. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia received 7,503 migration filings in the same year. That was an increase of 116 per cent since 2022-23. Migration now represents three-quarters of all non-family-law matters before the court. Meanwhile, the tribunal may have as many as 80 budgeted member vacancies unfilled. The consequences of those vacancies are quite predictable: an ever-growing backlog and increasingly lengthy delays for applicants who are seeking reviews. Nowhere is that pressure more acute than in protection matters. The tribunal's protection division alone has an active case load of over 37,000 cases, with a median wait of 155 weeks—that's almost three years—to finalise a case. The Federal Court's protection case load sits at roughly 6,300 matters, with many first hearings not listed until 2029. Behind each of those numbers is a person whose safety, and often whose family's safety, depends on how and when their claim will be decided. So that raises a pretty important question: if the principal problems confronting the tribunal are overwhelming case loads and insufficient capacity, is streamlining the tribunal's review processes really the best solution that the government can come up with? I ask: has the government adequately explored whether the tribunal has sufficient resources and staffing and the membership necessary to perform its statutory function? Recently, I sent a number of questions on notice to the Attorney-General concerning the operations of the tribunal, about its appointment processes for members, about the operation of merits lists and about reports that more than 80 budgeted member positions remain vacant despite the rapidly growing case loads. I look forward to receiving considered responses from the minister. Notwithstanding the importance of improving the responsiveness of the tribunal, I'm concerned that this bill could enable procedural reform to become a substitute for adequate resourcing. We have to be cautious about solving capacity problems by reducing opportunities for the applicants to have their cases heard fairly. I want to test this concern against three specific measures in this bill, each of which was closely examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The first is the proposal to allow the president to authorise registrars, not appointed tribunal members, to dismiss applications on the basis that they have no reasonable prospects of success. The bill itself contains no definition or criteria for 'reasonable prospects of success'. That's left entirely to the discretion of individual registrars. Of the tribunal's 112 registrars, only about half hold a law degree or an equivalent qualification. Less than a third hold both legal and dispute resolution qualifications. In contrast, the tribunal members are subject to a rigorous merit based appointment process, specifically because they are normally trusted to weigh the substances of such claims. So there are real concerns that registrars could be asked to undertake merits based assessments without the training or the experience that that role demands. That's particularly concerning given how many applicants to the ART are unrepresented and may not be able to argue the facts that are at issue. The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law has warned that this change could well generate further litigation and appeals which would simply shift delays downstream to the Federal Circuit and Family Court rather than actually resolving them. The department has claimed that this power would only be used in objective cases. The example given was of an applicant who's left Australia and plainly can't meet a visa criterion of being onshore. But migration decisions are rarely that clear or that objective. They generally require a level of assessment that would sit more properly with a member, not a registrar. The Law Council has proposed a sensible set of safeguards around this issue: that only registrars with legal qualifications and sufficient post-admission experience should exercise this power; that a registrar should consult a senior member before making a dismissal finding that they're uncertain about; that applicants should be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissal; and that dismissal should not foreclose a request for ministerial intervention. But none of these safeguards appear in the bill, and the Senate committee failed to recommend their adoption. The concerns are magnified in protection matters, where there's rarely an objective fact that the registrar could point to. Community legal centres have told the Senate committee that applicants often arrive at the tribunal with a claim that looks incomplete, not because it lacks merit but because the department never interviewed them, because a dishonest migration agent lodged a claim on their behalf without properly recording their circumstances or because trauma just made it too difficult for them to disclose the full basis of their fears at the first opportunity. A test of 'no reasonable prospects of success', applied by a registrar on the papers, risks screening out genuine refugees before their claim ever reaches a tribunal member. It's my belief that, if the government wants this House to trust that a subjective, undefined test will be applied consistently and fairly by staff who don't hold statutory independence, it shouldn't be doing it in this circumstance, and it should be willing to write basic safeguards into this legislation around those powers. The second measure allows the tribunal to give reasons for a decision orally, with a written statement only being required if a party requests it—with the clock for judicial review running from the oral decision, not from the receipt of written reasons. This could potentially lead to applicants being forced to file for judicial review without ever having seen the reasons for the very decision that they're appealing—remembering that two-thirds of applicants at the merits review stage are self-represented and that, for many, English is a second language. Community legal centres report that more than one in five of their tribunal clients seeking protection need an interpreter. An interpreter's role is to translate language, not to explain complex legal concepts. Many of these applicants already find a written statement of reasons difficult to absorb, even with a lawyer's help. Expecting them to grasp an oral decision on the day, in a language not their own, and then correctly identify a legal error in it before a 14-day window closes is an unrealistic safeguard. The third measure is the new identity verification requirement for applicants to the tribunal and the court, with detail for that being entirely left to regulations which are yet to be drafted, and mandatory dismissal for applicants to the tribunal who are unable to comply. This measure will affect most those people who are stateless, who arrived in this country without documents or whose nationality is genuinely contested—in some cases, people whose entire claim for protection turns on a dispute about their identity. Control over identity documents is a recognised tool of coercive control in family and domestic violence, and it's a recognised tool of exploitation by unscrupulous employers and migration agents. This measure could well exacerbate the vulnerability of victims in such circumstances. It would punish them rather than the bad actors that it is putatively aimed at. These matters engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention, the convention against torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Many protection applicants are stateless, having fled without identity documents or had documents destroyed or confiscated along the way of their travels. Requiring them to satisfy an as yet unspecified identity check before their claim can even be considered risks them being returned to danger because of the very persecution that forced them to flee without papers in the first place. The government's stated aim with this measure is to address fraudulent representation and applications lodged without a person's knowledge, which is legitimate. But a legitimate aim does not justify legislating a mandatory dismissal power while the safeguards for its most vulnerable subjects remain, on the government's own evidence, as yet undesigned. Some measures in this bill are reasonable and appropriate. The case load pressure on the tribunal and the court is real. Clarifying the president's jurisdiction, correcting the Taxation Administration Act timeframe and excluding the Christmas period from document deadlines are uncontroversial. But I have concerns regarding the qualifications evidence on registrars, the compounding effect of the reasons timeframes and the government's own admission that it cannot yet say how a stateless applicant will be treated under a mandatory dismissal power. Grandmothers for Refugees, which traditionally supported people seeking asylum through the fast-track era of the AAT, is still seeing the human damage caused when the integrity of a merits review system is compromised in the name of speed. The Kaldor centre's review of Switzerland's asylum centre reached the opposite conclusion—that fairness and efficiency reinforce each other and that a well-resourced, properly staffed process is the best way to actually clear a backlog. Switzerland has cut its average time from application to finalisation from close to four years to about 3½ months without stripping away procedural protections in the way that this government proposes. Migration reviews undertaken by the tribunal have the power to determine whether or not individuals are permitted to stay in this country. We are, fundamentally, a nation of migrants. Our prosperity, our culture, our identity and our social fabric have all been shaped by generations of people who've come to this country and made Australia their home. Australians support migration when they believe it is fair, orderly and well administered and when they believe that the institutions responsible for migration decisions are performing those functions effectively. I accept that action is needed to improve the timeliness and efficiency of our migration processes. The current situation, in which the ART is swamped by tens of thousands of applications that it can't service, is not sustainable. But our reforms should be guided by the principles of efficiency and fairness together. A system which is fair but takes years to deliver decisions is failing, but so is the system that is fast but denies people meaningful opportunities to be heard. Australians deserve an administrative review system which is efficient, fair and properly resourced. If this parliament is serious about administrative justice, we have to ensure that all three objectives are achieved, not just the first. For those reasons, I move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that the bill: (a) does not exempt protection visa matters from the proposed discretion to give oral rather than written reasons, notwithstanding that such an exemption is provided for social security, veterans' entitlements, aged care and NDIS matters; (b) extends to registrars, who are not required to hold legal qualifications, the power to dismiss protection visa review applications on the subjective ground that they have no reasonable prospects of success, a function hitherto reserved for tribunal members; and (c) introduces a mandatory identity verification requirement for tribunal applicants without prescribing, in the bill itself, the criteria or safeguards that will apply, notwithstanding that many protection applicants are stateless, undocumented, or have had identity documents withheld by an abusive partner or exploitative employer; and (2) calls on the government to amend the bill to: (a) exempt protection visa matters from the oral reasons provisions in Part 10; (b) restrict the dismissal power in Part 1 to tribunal members, or in the alternative, require that any registrar exercising that power hold appropriate legal qualifications and consult a senior member before dismissing a protection visa application; and (c) ensure that the identity verification framework in Part 12 cannot result in the mandatory dismissal of a protection visa application without the applicant first being given notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Chaney 300006 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:27 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt I rise today to speak in support of the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Replacing the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced operation on 14 October 2024 and operates as Australia's federal merits-review body in that it provides an independent review of decisions made by Australian government agencies, departments and ministers. Its jurisdiction is incredibly wide, providing a review mechanism for decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts. That being the case, it needs to be equipped with the right tools to deliver efficient and effective reviews, to deliver high-quality reviews and to deliver accurate and sustainable reviews of government decisions that are tailored to the decisions being reviewed—recognising, of course, that not every review is the same. In fact, every review needs to be determined on its own merits. The system of reviewing the decisions of agencies, departments and ministers provides the Australian public with trust and confidence in our institutions, and this review mechanism is critical to our system of government. Now, it is indeed the job of the Administrative Review Tribunal to consider each case on its merits by taking a fresh and objective look at the facts, law and policy relating to the original decision and also by considering new information as applicable. In applying this fresh lens, the tribunal can agree with the original decision, change the original decision or make a new decision. None of this is changing with this bill. Overall, however, the objectives of the tribunal, as set out in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, are to provide an independent mechanism of review that is fair and just and ensures that applications to the tribunal are resolved as quickly as possible and with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits. It also seeks to ensure that it is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs, including language needs, of the parties to proceedings, that it improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making and, importantly, that it promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal. The 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments the tribunal can review decisions in relation to cover a very broad range of topics. The relevant act, regulation or other legislative instrument must state that the tribunal can review the decision. There is no general power of review. The most common types of decisions the tribunal reviews are visas, including migration and refugee visas; Centrelink payments, including family assistance, paid parental leave and student assistance; decisions in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme; decisions in relation to child support; taxation; Commonwealth workers' compensation; and veterans' entitlements. In addition, the tribunal's review jurisdiction includes decisions relating to Australian citizenship, bankruptcy, civil aviation, corporations and financial services regulation, customs, freedom of information, passports and security assessments by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. That is a huge workload, so, given the breadth of this jurisdiction, the Administrative Review Tribunal must be empowered to operate efficiently and effectively to ensure that fair and just reviews of complex and, in some cases, life-changing decisions for the applicants are delivered promptly and accurately. This is particularly important given the tribunal was established to make sure that community members have an available avenue to seek review of government decisions, and that avenue needs to operate effectively, efficiently and fairly. Equally, the Administrative Review Tribunal requires two important features: firstly, flexibility, because the individual underlying facts leading to an individual review will always be different; and, secondly, proportionality. This means that, because of the breadth of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Review Tribunal, the time and resources expended to determine a matter should reflect the complexity of the issues, which will be different in every case, and the objective importance of what is at stake. Again, it is different in every case. This really is directed at reducing delays and recognising genuine applicants and providing them with timely and effective decisions. This bill is squarely directed at that goal in that it seeks to support the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to more effectively deal with their already significant but ever-increasing case loads, particularly relevant to migration and protection decisions made under the Migration Act 1958. It does this at the same time as preserving fairness. It shouldn't be characterised any other way, or as a shortcut or an effort to mask a lack of resources, although a properly resourced Administrative Review Tribunal is, of course, critical. What does the bill do? It facilitates the tribunal to give oral reasons for a decision, with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of an applicant in all reviews except for reviews relating to social security, veterans' entitlements, aged care or the NDIS, or other reviews that might be prescribed by regulations. An oral decision is still a properly reasoned decision. It still requires a proper consideration of the facts of the relevant legislation and of each case on its merits. An oral decision is not somehow of less value than a written decision in circumstances where a proper consideration of the merits is given by those making the decision. The bill also authorises registrars to exercise additional powers, including to reinstate applications in certain circumstances and to dismiss applications if satisfied that the application has no reasonable prospects of success. Some applications genuinely fall into that category. It also permits members and other authorised persons to correct obvious errors in registrar issued orders, and it expands the class of decisions treated as intelligence and security decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act to include in the definition of exempt security record decisions those decisions relating to documents that are claimed to be exempt security documents, as well as those that have already been found to be such documents. This bill engages with the right to a fair trial as identified under article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the right to an effective remedy pursuant to article 2(3) of that same covenant. With respect to the latter right, the bill will operate to protect the right to an effective remedy by overarchingly supporting the operation of an administrative review tribunal that conducts prompt and efficient tribunal review with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the matter requires. We heard from the previous member that many applicants are unrepresented and in relatively difficult financial circumstances, so a system that has as little formality and expense as possible and is as quick as reasonably practicable while still maintaining fairness is incredibly important to applicants falling within that category who do not have the resources for a prolonged merits review. This reflects the flexibility and proportionality aspects that are necessary to achieve an efficient and effective administrative review tribunal. With respect to the former human right, article 14(1) prescribes that every person in the determination of rights and obligations in a suit at law is entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Its application to administrative review proceedings is not completely settled, as there are questions over whether these types of proceedings constitute a suit of law. However, to the extent that there is any limitation, it's reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the objects of the bill and the objects of the Administrative Review Tribunal. As a collective, this bill and the reforms therein are directed at facilitating a more effective, efficient and sustainable merits and judicial review framework by deterring vexatious and frivolous applications at the same time as promoting engagement with genuine applicants and ensuring they receive a timely and effective decision. It does this by seeking to address the significant case loads, and previous contributions from members have indicated that these case loads are in the tens of thousands and growing. I commend the bill to the House. 18:38 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Australians were promised a better administrative review system. As a lawyer, a barrister of some 26 years now or thereabouts, I understand the importance of administrative review. Australians were promised that abolishing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replacing it with Labor's new Administrative Review Tribunal would deliver a system that was fairer, more efficient and better equipped to deal with its case load. Around a billion dollars later, less than two years after the new tribunal commenced operation, parliament is back here again fixing this bill—more amendments, more repairs, more powers being added, more procedures being corrected and a tribunal now carrying a case load of more than 131,000 matters. The coalition will support this bill because it contains some sensible measures to improve the operation of the Administrative Review Tribunal and help address significant pressure in our migration review system. Where legislation improves efficiency, removes duplication and allows appropriately qualified people to get on with the job, we'll support it. But Labor should not pretend this bill has appeared in some sort of vacuum. The former attorney-general abolished the AAT, committed a billion dollars to establishing its replacement and dealing with associated pressures in the migration system and told Australians the new system would be better. Australians were entitled to expect that, after spending that sort of money, this government would get it right. Instead, parliament is here yet again being asked to clean up this mess. The Administrative Review Tribunal commenced operation on 14 October 2024. Since then, parliament has dealt with the original establishment legislation, miscellaneous measures, further amendments and now this bill. The government has also committed another $69 million to continue dealing with this tribunal backlog—because that's what it is facing: a backlog. Australians were entitled to expect that, after around a billion dollars had been committed to creating a new system, it would be settled and operationally effective. Instead, less than two years later, parliament is again being asked to correct emissions, expand powers and improve procedures. The numbers tell the story. As at 31 May this year the tribunal had more than 131,000 cases on hand. Just five years earlier that figure was around 65,000. The caseload has effectively doubled. The median time taken to finalise an application has increased by 22 weeks, and just 43 per cent of applications are being finalised within 12 months of lodgement. Anyone who has worked in the legal system understands what that means. A backlog is not just a statistic. Behind every unresolved matter is someone waiting for certainty, is someone who doesn't sleep at night, is someone who is aggrieved by a decision from a government department. Justice delayed is justice denied. Before entering this parliament, I spent 16 years working as a barrister. I've seen firsthand what happens when disputes become unnecessarily complicated and unnecessarily prolonged. Good legal and administrative systems must be fair, but they must also be efficient. Those principles are not mutually exclusive. A system that makes decisions quickly but unfairly is unacceptable, but a system where people wait years for an outcome is not delivering justice either. Governments have a responsibility to design systems that reach proper decisions while using taxpayers' resources responsibly. That's why the coalition supports the practical measures in this bill. One of the key reforms is to expand the powers the president of the tribunal may authorise the registrar to exercise. These include dismissing an application where there are no reasonable prospects of success, requiring leave before specified further applications can be made and reinstating an application where the registrar has authority to dismiss it. These are sensible reforms. Tribunal members are a finite resource. Every hour a tribunal member spends dealing with a procedural issue that could appropriately be handled by a qualified registrar is an hour they cannot spend determining a substantive matter. We need the right people doing the right work. Importantly, there are safeguards. The president can impose conditions on an authorisation, and mechanisms remain available for applications to be reinstated where appropriate. At the end of July, the tribunal had 112 registrars, and more than nine in 10 held qualifications in law, dispute resolution or both. We're talking about appropriately qualified people exercising clearly defined powers. But with additional power must come additional responsibility and accountability. If parliament gives registrars greater authority, parliament should know whether those powers are working. How many applications are being dismissed? How many decisions are being overturned? Are the tribunal's powers reducing the backlog? Are the current rules freeing tribunal members to deal with substantive matters? That's why the coalition will pursue an amendment in the Senate to strengthen annual reporting—because we've got to know the answers to these important questions. Governments are very good—this Labor government in particular is very good—at making announcements. They're very good at talking the talk. But the real test is when the rubber hits the road. Parliament should be able to assess the results and determine whether taxpayers are getting a better functioning tribunal. The bill also contains a number of practical improvements which the coalition supports. It will require specified migration and protection review applications to use an approved form. It will also allow appropriate migration decisions and reasons to be given orally. It removes unnecessary duplication in notifications to the Department of Home Affairs. It introduces identity-verification requirements in prescribed migration matters. It restores the standard 28-day review period for certain taxation decisions. And it makes it easier to correct particular obvious errors. None of those measures alone will solve a backlog of more than 131,000 cases. But, taken together, sensible procedural changes can reduce unnecessary work and allow the tribunal to focus resources on where they are needed most. The bill will allow tribunal members, in appropriate migration matters, to give their decisions and reasons orally, rather than requiring written reasons in every instance. They will continue to be required in specified categories, including social security, veterans entitlements, aged care and NDIS matters. And, boy, let me tell you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, there are a lot of NDIS matters before the tribunal. I understand, just for the sake of it, that around 80 per cent of matters involving the NDIS that are going to the tribunal are overturning the decisions of the NDIA—around 80 per cent. That's something where this government needs to take a very long, hard look at itself. The 35-day period for seeking judicial review will run from notification of the oral decision. An applicant will ordinarily have 14 days to request written reasons, and the tribunal will ordinarily have 14 days to provide them. That strikes what we consider to be an appropriate balance. People must have a genuine opportunity to understand and challenge a decision where the law allows. But proceedings must also eventually reach a conclusion. That is a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Another important reform is the introduction of identity-verification requirements for prescribed migration and protection applicants who are not in immigration detention. At tribunal level, an application must be dismissed where an applicant fails to comply with the prescribed requirement. That's reasonable. If somebody is asking Australia's migration review system to reconsider a decision affecting their status in this country, Australians have every right to expect that that person is who they say they are. That's not unreasonable. It's a basic expectation. Our migration system must have that kind of integrity. Applicants seeking the benefit of that system must genuinely engage with it, and the tribunal must be able to establish the identity of the person seeking review. Every unnecessary delay in a migration matter has consequences. It consumes tribunal resources, it consumes departmental resources, it costs taxpayers' money, and it delays other people who may have legitimate and complex cases requiring proper consideration. Australians expect the government to know who's coming to this country, why they're here, whether they are entitled to remain and whether our migration laws are being properly enforced. Administrative review is an important safeguard but review cannot become an excuse for endless process. Fairness requires proper review. Integrity requires some degree of finality. There's another provision in this bill which says a lot about the quality of Labor's original ART legislation. The bill restores the standard 28-day period for seeking review of certain decisions by the Commissioner of Taxation, refusing an extension of time. Why does that need fixing, I hear you ask, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie? It is because that standard review period was not properly carried across when Labor abolished the AAT and established the ART. After the enormous cost of Labor's restructure, a basic review period still fell through the cracks. Administrative law is built on technical provisions because those provisions determine real rights and real obligations. When a government tears down an established system and rebuilds it, it assumes responsibility for getting those details right, and Labor didn't, so, once again, parliament is being asked to fix it. The coalition also believes there is another practical reform the government should consider. We'll move an amendment in the Senate asking the government to consider a further amendment to deal with clear and objectively identifiable administrative errors or oversights in migration decisions. Now, common sense needs to prevail when it comes to administrative law and when it comes to the Administrative Review Tribunal. If everyone can see that an obvious administrative mistake has been made, why force the applicant, the department and the tribunal through the machinery of a substantive merits review outcome simply to correct it? Fix the mistake quickly, save tribunal resources, save department departmental resources and allow the next person in the queue to have their matter heard sooner. That's not weakening administrative review; it's making it work. Now, Labor cannot rewrite history. The coalition is taking a constructive approach to this bill. Where it improves efficiency, we will support it. Where it gives appropriately qualified registrars sensible powers, we will support it. Where it removes duplication, we will support it. Where it strengthens identity verification and the integrity of migration review, we will support it. But our support does not give Labor permission to rewrite the history of how we arrived here. Labor abolished the AAT and it cost Australian taxpayers around $1 billion to do it, and now we're fixing up their constant mistakes. (Time expired) 18:53 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm pleased to speak on the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. At the outset, I want to say that, as a Labor government, we are committed to the rule of law, to enabling impartial justice and to promoting public trust in law and in decisions made by judges. It's fundamental to a liberal democracy. As I was preparing for this speech, I was reminded of that biblical story in the Book of Exodus about Moses. As the population of the children of Israel grew, he was settling disputes from morning till dark. His father-in-law, Jethro, came and saw him, according to the writer, and said, 'How about you appoint some judges? How about you appoint some delegates, some leaders over the thousands and hundreds and tens and fifties et cetera? Because you can't do it all yourself.' That hierarchy of judicial personnel and administrative personnel is in the Judeo-Christian legal systems that we've inherited in the common law from Britain onwards, so it's almost a biblical thing. I was really reminded about that as I was looking at this piece of legislation. We need to appoint capable, trustworthy people. That's what Jethro said to Moses. And you know what? We need to do it as well. Our legal system needs to be trustworthy. If people are in a position where they do not trust the judgements of judicial officers or administrative officers, there's a problem. The ART, the Administrative Review Tribunal, has responsibility for hundreds of pieces of legislation. People can make application to the ART if they feel that they've been dealt with arbitrarily or capriciously by some administrative decision of government. I want to say to the member opposite, the member for Fisher, that the great irony of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which we abolished back in 2024, was that, in friendly media outlets, Liberal and National Party ministers for home affairs, immigration and judicial matters would criticise the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regularly, yet it was a sort of legislative or administrative retirement home for Liberal and National Party failed candidates. It was just astonishing how they would do it. They were the very people who would make decisions they would criticise. If you lost a state seat in Queensland as a Liberal candidate, there's a good chance you were appointed to the AAT. It was amazing. It was stacked. But let me tell the member for Fisher that it was no utopian legal process. Even they knew it. They knew it. It was a friendly process. It was a lot less legal than the sort of cases I dealt with as a lawyer—cases from the Magistrates Court to the High Court of Australia. It was nothing like the High Court or the Supreme Court of Queensland or the full court of the Family Court. It was nothing like that. But it was certainly a process that deserved respect, and it was important that it have the confidence of the Australian public, and we had no confidence in it. It was totally bastardised—if I can put it like that—by the previous government. They really, really did a bad job. So I commend the member for Isaacs, the former attorney-general, for the work he did. We were determined to restore integrity and public confidence in our merits based review system, and the establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal was critical in that regard. But we've seen some challenges since October 2024. If you look at the figures, the number of lodgements has more than doubled and the time for finalisation of appeals has more than doubled in the last five years. So there's been a challenge. Those figures go back, of course, to the AAT days. As at 31 May 2026, only 43 per cent of applications were finalised within 12 months—which is the gold standard, I might add, for what should happen. We've got a 79 per cent increase in the number of migration applications finalised in 2024-25 compared to the previous year. That's really an astonishing increase in the number of migration cases. And, really, it's that area in particular that vexes us and causes us to try and clean up this mess. We've been working hard to clean it up, and I have confidence in the ART. Think about the whole range of areas that the ART deals with, including social security, veterans' entitlements, aged care and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I don't always agree with the member for Fisher, but I've got to say that, in my experience, the NDIS doesn't always do a particularly good job in making decisions. The number of times—in my observation—that decisions are overturned at the ART level really bears out, I think, some examination of decision-making in the NDIS. The bill has been informed by the operational experience in the last few years. There's no doubt about that. The changes we're making principally relate to the migration case load, because that's the area, as I've said in numerous speeches over the years on this area of administrative law, which has caused us the most vexations—problems. It's the tribunal's largest on-case case load, and greater efficiencies could be achieved, I think, by doing a number of things. I accept the government's reasoning in terms of oral reasons in matters. It's crucial. It's absolutely vital in those circumstances. It's not unusual for judicial officers or administrative officers to make extemporaneous judgements or decisions. It's not an unusual area of practising law. On my observation as a former litigation lawyer—I spent nearly a quarter of a century practising as a lawyer, as an accredited specialist in family law. And I know many, many times judges or judicial registrars may make decisions orally. This is not an unusual procedure. Don't let anyone think that this straightforward change, which really is appropriately balanced, is disagreeing with the integrity of the system. It's not in any way at all. If you are unhappy with that decision, you have the capacity to seek the written reasoning of that particular officer. Written reasons can be asked for. You can appeal, if you wish, to the court. If an application review of a reviewable migration decision or a reviewable protection decision is required, it can be made in an appropriate, approved form. The bill does have some flexibility for a salaried member of the tribunal to become a sessional member or vice versa. There's an authorisation for registrars to exercise additional powers, and we've seen this over the years. My observation practising as a lawyer was that registrars had more and more power over the years. More and more delegation was done. This is not unusual, what we're suggesting here. I want the public who may be listening to this or may read it afterwards—not that it's a bestseller, what I have to say. But, truly, it is important that people understand that delegation of powers to registrars is not unusual in our legal system. It allows any member to correct an obvious error in a decision or a statement of reasons for a decision made by a registrar. The bill contains some technical amendments in relation to clarification. The President of Tribunal is assigned in every jurisdiction. The identification verification is important. As part of our broad commitment to ensuring the integrity of the migration system, we've got a new power we're introducing to require verification of identity of applicants seeking review of certain protection and other migration decisions. It's crucial. Fraud and criminality must be stamped out. We've got to make sure that the people who make the applications are actually the correct people. This is consistent with both the ART and the Federal Court. It's important because we accept that in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia as well, which I'll refer to as 'the court'. The specific visa classes and particulars of how and when the verification takes place will be set out in regulations. The bill canvasses options for both in-person and virtual verification and allows for classes of persons or classes of applications to be exempt from the process through regulation. That's not unusual either. The intent of these changes is to ensure applicants actively engage with the systems of merits and judicial review in early stages of a proceeding so there's integrity in the system in terms of who the person fighting the case is. The reform builds on our track record in terms of efficiencies of merit review, including the passage of reforms earlier this year which allowed review of prescribed migration matters to occur in the papers, and I've spoken about that numerous times—that is, without an oral hearing. That's not unusual. It's very common in our administrative and judicial processes for matters to be dealt with on the papers. It's very common at an interim hearing in the kind of court we're talking about here, for example, for matters to be dealt with on the papers and maybe some words from the bar table or something like that. It's not unusual for some oral submissions to be made while matters are dealt with on the papers. These reforms also address a cohort of applicants where applications are made on their behalf without express knowledge or consent, and that's crucial in terms of the integrity of the whole process. It will operate differently between the court and the tribunal. At first, any applicant who is subject to identity verification requirements and fails to satisfy the identity verification process will have their application review mandatorily dismissed, and there may be circumstances when someone is just unable to complete the verification process for any good reason. In those circumstances, all applicants who've had their matters mandatorily dismissed can seek reinstatement. I think that's a fair system. Under the existing processes set out in the Migration Act, they can make their case as to why they're unable to complete the verification. That's an opportunity for there to be integrity in the process. The member hearing the reinstatement could then make decisions about whether or not to make further orders requiring the applicant to reattempt the identity-verification process. I hope they make it on the identity verification. I hope they do. I want the people who make applications to be the very people who've been aggrieved by the decision under the Migration Act. In addition, any applicant who is subject to an identity-verification requirement and fails to satisfy the identity-verification process would require leave of the court to continue the proceedings under the tribunal. Division 2 of the court would be able to extend the period in which the requirement must be satisfied or dispense with the requirement entirely. Division 2 may, rather than must, dismiss proceedings if an applicant has failed to comply with the requirements if the court has not ordered that the requirement be dispensed with and leave has not been granted to continue the proceedings. An applicant can subsequently seek leave of Division 2 to reinstate proceedings which have been dismissed for failure to satisfy the requirements, and these are critical. The reality is that the government, as I said before, inherited an absolutely disgraceful mess from those opposite when it came to both the student visa program and the AAT. We've been doing our best to clean that up. In recent years we've tried to rectify this by putting international student numbers on a more sustainable path and reducing the number of student visas issued. I want to make it clear. International education is an incredibly important export industry for Australia, including in my electorate of Blair. We've got two University of Southern Queensland, or UniSQ, campuses, in Ipswich and Springfield. Indeed, greater priority is now being given to regional and outer metropolitan universities like UniSQ and TAFEs. But we need to manage the growth of the sector in a sustainable way, along with our migration program more broadly, and that's exactly what we're doing. In recent years we've cut migration by more than 45 per cent from its post-pandemic peak. The number of international students—the subject of this bill—will continue to fall as we prioritise the skills we need to care for our sick and elderly and to build homes, despite the opposition opposing our every attempt to put caps on international students. As part of the increase in overall scrutiny of the student visa program, the Department of Home Affairs has been working with the Attorney-General and the ART to reduce the number of student visa refusal appeals, to help manage pressures while maintaining the integrity of the program. In this way, we're seeking to get better decision-making by the department in the first instance so fewer cases can be appealed and sent back. We're also boosting funding to community legal services to help ensure applicants get good legal advice and apply for the correct visas in the first place, thus making it easier for the tribunal to make decisions more quickly and easily. Our $3.9 billion National Access to Justice Partnership announced last year was the biggest-ever Commonwealth investment in legal assistance and is helping to fund frontline legal services to provide critical assistance and access to justice for vulnerable Australians. In fact, TASC legal and social justice services in Ipswich in my electorate have received money under that agreement. I know they do a lot of really valuable advocacy work for some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including victims of domestic and family violence, and NDIS clients. I want to thank the government for this particular piece of legislation. I think it's absolutely necessary, and it's got integrity. (Time expired) 19:08 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to speak on the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 and, in doing so, acknowledge the member for Blair's long service in such legal matters. I acknowledge too that he played a part in a joint select committee about the efficacy of visas, migration and other matters as well, with the member for La Trobe. I also respect the member for La Trobe's work with the Victorian police and his advocacy of justice and what is right. Certainly, the member for Blair in his contribution talked about reviews of visa matters, the placements and numbers of international students and what the government may or may not have been doing in that regard. In the minister's second reading speech, he noted that the Administrative Review Tribunal began operations on 14 October 2024. At the time, importantly, it replaced the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Australia's primary federal merits review body. Time will tell whether this will enable better jurisdiction of all these types of matters. The minister pointed out: The ART provides an independent mechanism of review of government decisions made under over 400 Commonwealth acts—a function that is critical to Australia's system of government. Those were the minister's words not mine. We face a situation in Australia at the moment where the decisions of ministers, tribunals and courts come under a lot of pressure and stress, particularly when it comes to visa matters. Every member of parliament is often lobbied about the merits or otherwise of particular individuals who seek to come to this country. Coming to Australia is the best ticket in the world. Whilst I appreciate there has to be clarity and transparency around these decisions, around who makes these decisions, around the independence of these decisions, it's not easy for any government, Labor or coalition, to settle upon the best system at the time. The minister said this: The government established the ART to ensure that members of the community have an avenue to seek review of government decisions in an effective, efficient and fair way. The government recognises that not every review is the same and that the ART should provide a meaningful opportunity for review in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the case. The government is therefore committed to ensuring the ART has the tools and the flexibility it needs to deliver these objectives. Fair enough. What I worry about though—and I've raised it in this chamber and the House a number of times; you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, would have heard my concerns about ministers not having the powers that they once had under the Westminster system to make the decisions that were always theirs. At the end of the day, the buck stops with the minister. They are the ones who have their names at the bottom of a bill, of a decision. It's not the bureaucrats or the tribunals or the faceless people appointed to certain positions who will face the media, who will have their name on a ballot paper. It's the minister who the buck stops with, and rightly so. I think that all too often this Labor government is outsourcing its work to judicial review tribunals and the like, and ministers aren't being given the autonomy to make the decisions. They will be the ones called to account if a decision goes pear-shaped. I know the coalition supports this bill. I appreciate that there has been an amendment put forward by the member for Kooyong. But, as the minister said in the second reading speech: The bill would also support the ART to manage its significant workload across case types, through measures that would create efficiencies, improve processes and increase flexibility. All of those are desirable measures. What we are seeing is an increase in complexity of visa cases, visa cases where people want to come to this country, want to work in this country, want to stay in this country, want to become permanent residents of this country. As I stated earlier, citizenship in Australia is the best ticket in the world because this is the best country in the world. Ms Ambihaipahar 315618 Hear, hear! Mr McCORMACK 219646 I appreciate what the member for Barton says—'Hear, hear!'—and I thank you for that! The situation with international student visas is an interesting one, because I know that during COVID we, as a country and as a coalition government, sent a lot of students home. We told them that the best place for them to be was back in the country of their birth or citizenship—that Australia couldn't sustain that number of people, given the extraordinary, unique circumstances at that time. And we copped a lot of flak for it. I know there were a lot of universities and a lot of supporters of young people who helped out those students. We were doling out so much money to help Australian businesses stay afloat, to help Australians with their day-to-day cost of living and, indeed, to keep Australians alive with the rollout of the vaccine program. Quite frankly, the Treasury couldn't extend every source of relief and financial support to take into account the international students then. But we also had a situation where backpackers were told the same thing: that they needed to return to their country of origin or to the country where they had citizenship, if they weren't able to do the work that they came here to do—that is, work in the horticulture or agriculture sector, or whatever the case might be. Some of those backpackers, many of whom came to Australia by sheer means of word-of-mouth advertising, have not returned. It has been difficult to get that number of visa holiday-makers back to this country. I want to put on the record that they are welcome—certainly from my point of view and from the Nationals' point of view. We don't want to see any cut to the number of backpackers, without whom, quite frankly, fruit would rot on the ground and many beers wouldn't be getting pulled in country pubs. And that is a fact. And we are having a situation—I might be digressing a little bit from the technical aspects of this bill, but we are having a national discourse at the moment about migration, and migrants underpin regional Australia. If we go down this path of demonising migrants—if we go down this path of making it difficult for migrants, via a judicial process or whatever the case might be, to take their place in our country towns—then we might as well give up on our aged care, our child care and our health care per se, because it's the migrants who do so many of the jobs, and not just the jobs that Australians won't do but many, many of the high-level, highly paid—as they should be—positions in those regional communities. I say that because, at the moment, we have people from one particular party making a lot of comments about migration and a lot of comments about migrants that simply don't stack up when you go into a country town and you go to a hotel and you see how many of them are working in the hospitality sector or when you go into a hospital and see how many of them are doing the work of the medical staff and the medical specialists to keep people alive. Many of them are in meat-processing plants but also, indeed, in universities and everything in between. That's really saying something about how our migrants are valued in regional Australia, and they're certainly valued by me. I know this bill does speak to, as the member for Blair indicated, international students, visa classes and the rest. The minister said in the second reading speech: The bill makes amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and other Commonwealth legislation to expand tribunal powers, improve tribunal processes, increase efficiency, avoid administrative delays and aid the management of caseload surges and backlogs—particularly in migration matters. And that is something that is most important. We do want to see those migration matters dealt with in an efficient way, of course, but in a speedy way as well, because what we're dealing with here is people's lives. What we're dealing with is people's ability to get on with their lives. I have to say, I have had some matters, in recent times, with the amazingly resilient and beautiful Yazidi people in Wagga Wagga, which I took to Minister Burke. I found the way he handled those very professional. I found he handled those particular cases very compassionately, and I want to put that on the record because, all too often, all we ever see and hear about this level of parliament is the argy-bargy and the fact that people don't get along. Well, they do. There's a lot of bipartisanship that goes into these migration matters, and there's a lot of work that is done behind the scenes to help people to get citizenship and to help people with their visa cases. One of the most difficult jobs in parliament is Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. It truly is. You only ever read about the cases which don't go the way of some communities or families or individuals. They make the media; they get headlines, and the shock jocks take great delight in trying to get the clickbait and the audience riled up. But what you see in so many cases are the right decisions made for and on behalf of the families in the national interest by ministers, be it Labor, be it Liberal—I say that because usually it's a Liberal minister in the coalition government that is the immigration minister, not a Nationals minister. There's a lot of compassion shown and a lot of common sense shown. It doesn't make headlines, but it is the right thing to do. The minister said: These changes apply to matters in the ART's migration caseload, as well as other caseloads where written reasons may not always be required. As the minister pointed out, there are safeguards and guardrails around the particular legislation. The minister said: Applicants who fail to comply with the identity verification requirement in FCFCOA proceedings would require leave of the Court to continue proceedings. Where leave is not granted, the FCFCOA would be able to dismiss the proceedings. … … … The bill would, among other matters: enable the president of the ART to authorise registrars to exercise additional powers, including to reinstate applications in certain circumstances, and to dismiss applications if satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of success. The minister feels that this is important, that this is right and that this is just. As I say, matters of migration law can become very sensitive and are very difficult, sometimes, to manage. I appreciate that, given the circumstances of huge migrations across the world, we as a nation need to have the best policies and the best framework in place. The coalition is supportive of that. The coalition wants to make sure that our borders are safe, that our borders are right and that migration policy is held up to every safeguard and every account by this government, and we will do whatever we can to make sure that we do get the right people in the right circumstances to support this nation and love it as we do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Before I give the call to the member for Barton, I'll allow the Federation Chamber to sit beyond 7.30, so you can use the whole of your time if you wish. 19:23 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton I appreciate the indulgence to extend that time. I rise to speak specifically on this piece of legislation, the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Before I get into the details of the bill, I want to take the House back to a room that most people in this parliament may never have had to sit through—not as a member but as a solicitor waiting for a client's case number to be called. For over a decade before I was elected as the member for Barton, I practised as an employment and industrial relations solicitor. I appeared in a number of jurisdictions—in particular, the Fair Work Commission, the Federal Circuit Court and Federal Court proceedings—on both sides of the table—sometimes for the worker and sometimes for the small-business owner trying to do the right thing by their staff. In that time, I learnt something that no textbook can ever really quite capture, and that is that, for the person sitting across from you, reviews are not really conceptual constructs but literally the only thing standing between them and a decision that could actually cost their job, their visa or even their peace of mind. I remember what it was like to sit with a client, usually the day before a hearing, going through their story again and again because they needed to believe someone was actually going to listen to them. That is what this merits review is: it is the promise that when government gets it wrong—and government does sometimes get it wrong—there is a place to say so and to be heard and be taken seriously. That is why what happened to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the former government mattered so much and why fixing it matters just as much. Trust in an institution is very important, and this isn't a concern I hold alone. This year, McKinnon released its landmark report called The state of Australia's democracy, and the picture it painted was quite sobering. It found that trust in our institutions is genuinely declining and that, when Australians are asked what actually determines who they vote for, two things top the list: first, whether a party or candidate has a real plan for the country's long-term problems; and, second, whether they can demonstrate integrity and accountability. It's not slogans or personalities that people rely on; it's the integrity and plan. That finding should sit with every one of us in this chamber, because it is a direct message from the public about what they expect government to be, and nowhere is that exception more concrete than in the systems people rely on when governments get a decision about their life wrong. If you want to rebuild trust in the theoretical, we have to start rebuilding trust in the concrete—in the institutions people actually have to walk into. Merits and judicial reviews are not decorations of our system of government; they are how ordinary people actually test the decisions made about their lives and how government itself learns when its own processes have gone wrong. A functioning review system doesn't just protect the individual in front of it; it actually improves the quality of every decision that comes after it. That is precisely why the removal of the AAT was necessary. Under the Liberals and Nationals, merits reviews became something else entirely. It almost felt like a bit of a consolation prize. Over nine long years, successive coalition attorney-generals appointed more than 80 mates and failed candidates to this tribunal, and, instead of being an institution Australians could trust to hold government to account, the AAT became a bit of a soft landing pad for the politically connected, funded by the taxpayer. Every one of those appointments came at a cost, not just in dollars but in confidence—that trust that I'm talking about. Every Australian who walked into the tribunal deserved to know that the person hearing their case was there because they were the best person for that job, not because of who they knew. This is not a partisan observation; it is simply what the evidence showed. This government has done the hard work of cleaning that up. We abolished the AAT. We legislated new merit based appointment processes for its successor, the Administrative Review Tribunal, and it's working. The tribunal is now deciding more matters than in any previous year on record. But I want to be honest with the House: rebuilding an institution's credibility is not a one-off act. You don't restore trust with a single piece of legislation and then walk away. Reform has to be treated as an ongoing responsibility, not a box that's been ticked. That is exactly the spirit in which this bill is brought forward. This legislation is not sexy or glamorous. It will not make headlines outside of this building, possibly. But it's exactly the kind of unglamorous but practical work that determines whether an institution serves people well or badly. The first set of measures goes to efficiency. Currently, the tribunal must give reasons for its decisions in writing in every case. This bill would allow reasons to be given orally in most matters, with parties retaining the right to request written reasons if they need them; for instance, if they intend to appeal. I think this is a sensible reallocation of members' time and resourcing as well towards matters that genuinely require a detailed written judgement rather than spreading that effort thinly across every other case, regardless of complexity. These changes will apply principally to the migration caseload because that is the tribunal's largest body of on-hand work and it's where the efficiency gains are most significant. Importantly, the bill deliberately excludes social security matters in recognition that they already run through a distinct review process. It also excludes National Disability Insurance Scheme matters, veterans' entitlements and aged-care areas that so often turn on complex assessments of medical and personal circumstances and where the discipline of a written decision genuinely matters. Further exclusions can be made by regulation if experience shows they're needed. The bill also requires migration and protection review applications to be lodged on a prescribed form. That might sound a little like a minor administrative detail, but anyone who has worked in this space knows how much tribunal time is lost chasing missing information that should have been provided at the outset. A prescribed form means the information the tribunal actually needs arrives up front and members can spend their time deciding cases, not tracking down paperwork. There are also a number of smaller efficiency amendments in this bill relating to document timeframes and to the president's jurisdiction across all areas of the tribunal's work. None of these changes are dramatic on their own and together they are about making sure the machinery of review actually works the way it means to. The second substantive measure in this bill introduces identity verification requirements for applicants seeking review of prescribed migration and protection decisions. If an applicant fails to comply, the tribunal will be required to dismiss the matter. The detail of how, when and where the verification occurs is left to regulation, which gives the system flexibility as it's implemented. It also means this parliament retains the power to disallow these regulations if they don't operate as intended. I want to be direct about why this matters. A review system only retains public confidence if people believe the process is being used genuinely, that applicants are who they say they are and that they understand what they're actually asking the tribunal to do. Identity verification is a commonsense safeguard for that integrity. But fairness has been built into this measure too, and that matters just as much to me. An applicant whose matter is dismissed for failing identity verification is not simply locked out forever. They can seek reinstatement and explain the personal circumstances—illness, language barriers, whatever the genuine reason may be—and the member hearing the reinstatement application can order they be given another opportunity to complete the process. Where a matter proceeds to the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the settings are appropriately different. Again, the court may dismiss proceedings for non-compliance and it retains a broader discretion than the tribunal to extend timeframes or dispense with the requirement altogether, and that distinction isn't an accident. It reflects the different constitutional character of a chapter III court exercising judicial power compared with an administrative tribunal exercising merits review. And getting that distinction right is not a technicality; it's what keeps this reform on solid constitutional ground. Taken together, these are proportionate measures. They protect the integrity of the system without abandoning the person who has a genuine reason for non-compliance. They dissuade the frivolous applications without punishing the person doing their honest best to navigate a process that can be quite daunting even for those of us who once did this for a living. Barton is one of the most diverse electorates in the country. In Hurstville, Kingsgrove, Rockdale, Bexley, Clemton Park and Kogarah, I represent people whose lives are very much touched by this system constantly. Families navigating migration decisions, older constituents dealing with aged-care assessments—for many of them, English is not a first language. For many of them, the idea of a tribunal is pretty scary and intimidating enough without wondering whether the person deciding their case got there on merit or on mateship. That is the trust this bill is trying to rebuild one practical measure at a time. It's the same trust that sits at the heart of good government generally: the belief that decisions are made properly and that when they're not there's somewhere to go. I have stood in those rooms. I've watched people's faces when a decision goes against them, and I've watched the relief when a process, however slow, finally treats them fairly. That experience is why I support this bill without reservation. It is not a perfect or a final answer. No single piece of legislation ever is. But it is a genuine, considered step towards a review system Australians can actually rely on. 19:36 Ms JARRETT 298574 Brisbane I move: That debate be adjourned and resumption of debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:36