Pat Conaghan's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Flags Amendment (Protection of Australian National Flags) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to speak to my private members' bill, the Flags Amendment (Protection of the Australian National Flags) Bill 2026—a bill to protect...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to speak to my private members' bill, the Flags Amendment (Protection of the Australian National Flags) Bill 2026—a bill to protect the Australian flag and the Australian ensign, a bill that has been called for by millions of Australians, and a bill that has serious consequences to those who act against it. The Australian flag and the Australian red ensign are not abstract ideas. They are not props for political theatre. They are national symbols earned through sacrifice, service, and shared history. And when those symbols are burned or deliberately desecrated, it is not an act of harmless protest—it is an act that strikes at the heart of our nation, our respect and our cohesion. That is why we must seriously consider making the burning or desecration of the Australian flag and the Australian ensign a criminal offence. This bill does so by amending section 7 of the Flags Act 1953 to criminalise the burning of the flag or red ensign with penalties of $16,500 or up to 12 months for a first offence, or in the case of a second offence, a minimum 12 months imprisonment—further in the case of a noncitizen convicted of this offence, automatic referral to the minister for consideration of cancellation of the persons visa on character grounds. From Gallipoli to the Western Front, from Tobruk to Kokoda, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, the flag was present in moments of extraordinary courage and unbearable loss. It was stitched onto uniforms, flown over camps, and folded with care at military funerals. For thousands of families, the Australian flag is inseparable from grief, pride, and remembrance. To burn that flag is not a neutral act. It is a conscious insult to those who served and those who died. The Australian ensign, including the red ensign, carries its own powerful legacy. Australian merchant sailors sailed under it in wartime, often without weapons, keeping supply lines open at enormous personal risk. For decades, their service was overlooked. Today, we finally recognise the ensign as a symbol of quiet bravery and national contribution. Some argue that burning the flag is a legitimate form of protest. I disagree vehemently. Protest is about persuasion and principle. Flag desecration is about provocation. It does not advance debate. It does not invite understanding. It is designed to offend, to divide, and to demean. And Australians who love their country have had enough. Making flag desecration a criminal offence would send a very clear message: you are free to criticise this country, you are free to criticise this government and its policies—but you are not free to deliberately destroy the symbols that represent the sacrifices of others. This respect is not limited to military service. It extends to the way the flag unites us in peace. Think of our sporting heroes. Think of Cathy Freeman carrying the Australian flag after her Olympic victory—the moment that showed the power of national symbols to unite rather than divide. Think of our Olympians standing on podiums as the flag rises and the anthem plays—Ian Thorpe, Betty Cuthbert, Andrew Hoy, Emma McKean, just to name a few. When our teams compete on the world stage, the flag does not represent one race, one religion, or one political view. It represents all of us. Win or lose, it tells the world who we are. Burning that flag is a rejection of that identity. We must also address an uncomfortable but necessary question: what does it mean when noncitizens deliberately desecrate the Australian flag? Australia is a generous nation. We welcome migrants, refugees, students, and workers from around the world. Citizenship—and even residency—is not just a legal status; it is a relationship built on mutual respect. If someone who is not a citizen chooses to publicly burn or desecrate our national flag, they are making a statement. They are declaring contempt for our country—contempt for we who have hosted them, protected them and offered them opportunity. It is entirely reasonable for Australia to consider deportation in such cases. In fact, I would go further to say it is more than reasonable; it is absolutely necessary in the interests and the safety of our country and our citizens. This is not about race, religion or background. It's about conduct. Every nation sets expectations for those who wish to live in its borders. Respect for national symbols is a minimal and reasonable expectation. If a non-citizen deliberately and publicly violates that standard, Australia has the sovereign right to reconsider their place here. Citizenship carries responsibility. So does residency. Denouncing flag desecration is not about attacking individuals; it is about defending principles. We can and must say, without apology, that those who burn our flag are wrong. Their actions are divisive, disrespectful and damaging to our social cohesion. If we allow the deliberate desecration of our flag to become normalised, we send a message. We send a message to our veterans, to our sporting heroes, to new citizens, and to children learning what it means to be Australian. And that message is that nothing is sacred. That message is that sacrifice is optional. And that message is that unity is expendable. This is not the Australia I grew up in. It is not the Australia we grew up in. Let's not try and fool ourselves. The desecration of the Australian flag does not have a long history. Growing up as a child in the seventies and eighties, I can't recall ever seeing it happen. I can say, though, unequivocally, that in the past three years, since the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas and Palestinian militant groups on young Jewish people, we have seen a proliferation of flag burning and the importation of hate and division here in Australia. On 9 October, on the steps of our own Opera House, evil people celebrated the massacre; across our iconic Harbour Bridge, fringe groups chanted 'Death to Australia'; and at Invasion Day rallies around Australia on 26 January, we saw the national flag burned—the same national flag which stands proudly side by side the Indigenous flag around Australia, including in this place, as a symbol of recognition and acceptance of our history by the Australian people. We should be a nation that debates fiercely but respects deeply; a nation that welcomes newcomers but expects loyalty to shared values; a nation that honours its past while working towards a better future. Making flag desecration a criminal offence, and considering deportation for non-citizens who engage in it, is not about punishment for its own sake. It's about drawing a line—a calm, lawful, and principled line—around what we owe one another as Australians. We owe it to the Anzacs who never came home. We owe it to the athletes who carry our flag with pride. We owe it to future generations who deserve symbols that still mean something. Let us protect the Australian flag and the Australian Ensign—not as untouchable relics but as living reminders of who we are, what we value, and what we stand for.
Economy | Constituency Statements | House debates
This week Australian mortgage holders and small business owners were slugged with the 13th interest rate rise since this government came into power—an unlucky number for what increasingly...
This week Australian mortgage holders and small business owners were slugged with the 13th interest rate rise since this government came into power—an unlucky number for what increasingly feels like an unlucky country. Once upon a time, we considered ourselves the lucky country, the land of the fair go, where, if you worked hard, you got ahead. Now, we're the country of the most rampant inflation problem of any major advanced economy. Since May 2022, gas prices are up 42 per cent, electricity is up 38 per cent, milk is up 24 per cent and eggs are up a whopping 37 per cent. These are the basic household goods that our people pay for. In my electorate of Cowper, the average household income is certainly on the low side of the national scale. They're small business owners, farmers, retail workers and modest retirees. Every day I hear about the choices they're being forced to make to keep their heads above water—choosing between mortgages and medicine or electricity bills and groceries. I hear from businesses who can no longer afford their input costs but can't put their prices up because their customers can't afford to pay for it. It's no wonder the insolvency rate reached its highest level in 35 years. And how did we get here? It's because this government is more focused on ideology than sound fiscal management. There's a Treasurer more concerned with headlines than households. And it's those that can least afford it that ultimately pay the price. For the next decade, the federal budget is a sea of red because Labor keep spending with reckless abandon on their own pet projects. In fact, they've added $50 billion of discretionary spending this year alone. Public spending is currently growing twice as fast as the rest of the economy. The government sector is getting fat while the taxpaying private sector and small businesses are starving. This government's answer to everything is more debt. Take our housing affordability problem. Labor's answer is a five per cent deposit scheme a scheme that has driven up prices and encouraged our would-be first home buyers to take on the maximum amount of personal debt to acquire one of the few remaining homes over the past disastrous four years of rampant, irresponsible immigration by Labor. The repayments on a 95 per cent loan over 30 years are simply criminal. I say this: we are now paying $3 million an hour, $67 million a day and $24 billion a year in interest. That is your money. That is not the government's money. Don't be fooled by a tricky Treasurer deflecting responsibility. This is his mess, and we have to live with it. (Time expired)
Cowper Electorate: Roads | Statements | House debates
This week I've been inundated with calls and emails from frustrated constituents who have once again been negatively impacted by the closure of a main access road in my electorate, Waterfall Way....
This week I've been inundated with calls and emails from frustrated constituents who have once again been negatively impacted by the closure of a main access road in my electorate, Waterfall Way. The 185 kilometre artery road sustains the lifeblood of the Dorrigo plateau region, connecting agricultural industries and communities to essential services. It's importance and natural beauty are matched only by its unreliability. These communities need a viable alternative route, and, frankly, it needed to be done years ago. While these pathways have proven difficult to map out in the past due to the multifaceted government solutions required to effectively manage this issue, in recent years, all representatives have come together and effectively scoped the best way forward. I'd like to commend mayor Steve Allan and MPs Michael Kemp and Brendan Moylan for driving this forward at a state and local level. But now it needs to be funded properly. Funding that had been earmarked in 2022 by the coalition at a state and federal level has since been rejected with the change of government. Since then, we've had a rolling procession of ministers who are there for the pics and the platitudes but never bring their chequebooks for the solution. It's time for our isolated communities to be recognised and safeguarded. We need a solution, and we needed it yesterday.
Cost of Living | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
Before the member for Eden-Monaro leaves the chamber, I refer to her last contribution. In the past, with disasters in my area and in previous times, we have worked very closely together. Where...
Before the member for Eden-Monaro leaves the chamber, I refer to her last contribution. In the past, with disasters in my area and in previous times, we have worked very closely together. Where credit is due, I will certainly give the member that credit. However, your last speech was rank with hypocrisy in saying we were looking at ourselves—looking backwards, not looking forward. What was the last question in question time about? Was it about the interest rate rise that will cause the majority of households to pay another $1,300 a year? No, it wasn't about that. Was it about the housing crisis? No, it wasn't about that. Was it about the fact that electricity prices have gone up 38 per cent? No. Was it about gas going up 42 per cent? No? What was the question about? Was it about the economy? Was it about how people are suffering? No. It was about why standing orders were suspended. All they wanted to do was talk about what's happening in this bubble. They didn't want to talk about what's happening to people on the ground. The point of that is that it was completely political. The last question in question time—the show people want to watch to hear answers to questions from those across this side—was deliberate and political and had nothing to do with people because you don't care. The government doesn't care. It was complete spin. It was a very deliberate question, to take the shine and the spotlight away from a failing Treasurer and a failing government and a failing economy. What we see is that that will continue. We see the unlucky No. 13. This is the 13th rate rise since this government came into power—$1,300 a year. These are normal people who are being affected. In my electorate, we don't have the highest mortgages. But with this interest rate rise—and I've already spoken to people in my electorate—people are now deciding whether they pay for food or whether they pay for pharmaceuticals. These are business owners. These are farmers, pensioners, students and people going to university who are deciding whether to buy food or going-back-to-school supplies. It's no wonder that we have the highest insolvency rate of businesses in 35 years—35 years! But it's 'business as usual, and we'll ask a political question for the last question of question time.' We are going to see over the next decade a sea of red, of deficits, because of the policies and ideology of this government. They will continue along with net zero, and damn the cost for ideology. That is why you have seen the increases in the price of electricity. That is why you've seen the increases in the supermarket—because of input costs. That is why you have seen the biggest insolvencies in 35 years. And that is a shame. That is a shame for Australia, but it is shame on this government. You talk about the policies, but you don't go out and consult. You make the decisions in your backrooms and then you turn around and point at us when we say we can't agree with that, because it's not our ideology and, from what our people are telling us, it doesn't work. You say you represent rural people. Well, I certainly don't see you representing them in here. The government needs to take stock, the Treasurer needs to take responsibility and this Prime Minister needs to own up to it.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendment on sheet 2 circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 30), after section 19AABC, insert: 19AABCA Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits...
I move the amendment on sheet 2 circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 30), after section 19AABC, insert: 19AABCA Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits Temporary freeze in indexation (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 19(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days: (a) 1 August 2026; (b) 1 February 2027. Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year. Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 19(1)). (2) In this section: CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty in the following: (a) the rate column of subheading 2208.20, 2208.20.10, 2208.20.90, 2208.30.00, 2208.40.00, 2208.50.00, 2208.60.00, 2208.70.00, 2208.90.10, 2208.90.20 or 2208.90.90 in Schedule 3; (b) the rate column of an item in the table in Schedule 4A or a later Schedule that relates to a subheading in Schedule 3 specified in paragraph (a). indexation day has the same meaning as in section 19. tap spirit means: (a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or (b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system. This relates to having spirits on tap. I've already spoken at length about that, and I commend it to the House.
I move the amendment on sheet 1, circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert: 6M Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits (1) Despite any...
I move the amendment on sheet 1, circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert: 6M Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days: (a) 1 August 2026; (b) 1 February 2027. Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year. Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)). (2) In this section: CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty set out in: (a) item 2 of the Schedule; or (b) subitem 3.1, 3.2 or 3.10 of the Schedule. indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A. tap spirit means: (a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or (b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system. The amendment on sheet 1 would require the Treasury to conduct a comprehensive review of Australia's alcohol tax system by 2 November 2026. This amendment is about one simple truth: on our current course, the Australian way of life is being taxed and inflated away by the government prioritising ideology and spin over the lives of everyday Aussies. While inflation is easing overseas, Australia's inflation again rose in December. When the cost-of-living crisis is being added to by a further 3.8 per cent, it's becoming an emergency. Australians are doing it tough. Young families can't afford homes. People are struggling to put food on the table, and now, thanks to a government that has lost control of inflation and that is obsessed with taxing you, many Australians can't even afford a drink. Having a drink with your mates is part of who we are, especially as Australians. It's how people stay connected, especially in regional Australia, yet today Australia has some of the highest alcohol taxes in the world and one of the most irrational systems for collecting the taxes. Alcohol taxes are automatically indexed to inflation twice a year, every February and August, regardless of what's happening in the economy, regardless of the cost-of-living pressures and regardless of whether pubs, clubs or consumers can afford them. This means Australians are getting hit twice—first, they're hit by inflation pushing up the price of everything, and then, second, they're hit by these automatic tax increases. You pay more, and they collect even more tax. Australians are already paying over $100 in tax on a litre of some spirits, compared to around $15 in the United States and about $60 in New Zealand. We know exactly what this kind of policy leads to. We've seen it with the tobacco excise. The government jacked up tobacco taxes year after year, ignored warnings and told Australians it was all about health outcomes. But what actually happened? Smoking rates went up, criminal gangs moved in, the illicit trade exploded and tax revenue collapsed. There were more smokers and less revenue—less revenue to fund health services, the exact opposite of what the tax was intended to achieve. That's one of the biggest public policy failures in Australian history, and I fear the same will happen with the tax on alcohol unless the government starts taking this problem seriously. That is what this amendment is about. To its credit, the government, under pressure from the National Party, has agreed to pause indexation on draught beer for two years, and it's no surprise that we support it. But it's really nothing more than crumbs from the Treasurer's table; it will deliver less than a cent per pint, and it's not good enough. It doesn't fix the system. It doesn't deal with the fundamentals. Only a thorough review of our alcohol tax settings can do that. For years now, on both sides of politics there has been a broad acceptance that Australia's alcohol tax system is broken. It is overly complex. It taxes similar products in wildly different ways. Beer, wine, spirits, cider and ready-to-drink products are all taxed under a completely different regime, often with no clear policy rationale. It is not based on health objectives or modern consumption patterns. Labor's Henry tax review all the way back in 2010 acknowledged it was a mess, but nothing was done, and it's only gotten worse. This amendment takes the sensible, responsible step to start fixing that mess. It requires Treasury to review the current alcohol tax system and report back to parliament with options for reform. This is a system we have had for over 100 years without a major review, and it's long past due. A review will create the evidence based policy that is needed to restore common sense to our alcohol tax settings, and I commend the amendment to the House.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert: 6M Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits (1) Despite any other...
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert: 6M Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days: (a) 1 August 2026; (b) 1 February 2027. Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year. Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)). (2) In this section: CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty set out in: (a) item 2 of the Schedule; or (b) subitem 3.1, 3.2 or 3.10 of the Schedule. indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A. tap spirit means: (a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or (b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system. This is a straightforward amendment that would extend the government's pause on indexation of draught beer excise so that it also applies to on-tap spirits from 1 August 2026. We welcome the pause on the draught beer indexation. In fact, it was Nationals policy going back some time. We've said very clearly that pubs, clubs and hospitality venues deserve support, especially in our regions where our locals play an important role in our communities. But this particular amendment goes to something more important, and that is fairness. Because under the government's approach, if you order a draught beer at a bar, you get relief. But if you order a gin and tonic, a vodka soda or a spirit served on tap, you keep paying the inflation tax. I want to ask a very simple question: how is that fair? Why should Australians who prefer spirits be singled out to keep paying automatic tax increases while beer drinkers get a break? I'd genuinely like to hear someone from the government benches explain that logic. In many venues, spirits on-tap are becoming more popular. They're served the same way over the same bar by the same staff in the same venues as draught beer. Yet the government has decided that one drink deserves relief from inflation-linked tax hikes and the other doesn't, and that unfairness matters more when we look at who is being affected. Spirits, particularly lighter, mixed drinks are more commonly consumed by women and young people. This government likes to pretend it's a friend to women and younger Australians, but clearly not if you don't prefer beer. What the government has effectively done is say, 'If you drink beer, we'll give you a break, but, if you drink spirits, you're on your own.' At a time when the cost of living is already at a crisis, that distinction is hard to justify, and then it becomes even harder to justify when inflation runs hotter than expected. Annual inflation to December is now at 3.8 per cent, and, yesterday, we had a rate hike. So, when Labor provides relief from inflationary tax rises to some drinkers and not others and inflation is out of control, the impact of that unfairness only grows. By pausing indexation for draught beer but not for on-tap spirits, the government is deliberately locking in unequal treatment and letting it compound over time. Why is the government picking winners and losers here? This amendment will ensure that every Australian's tastes are treated the same. The decision makes even less sense when you consider the practical reality for venues. Pubs and clubs don't see beer and spirit drinkers as separate classes of customer. They're all patrons. They're all supporting the venue. They all keep local hospitality alive. But, under this government's approach, venues will face distorted incentives, pushing some products over others purely because of a tax treatment, not consumer choice. That's bad for customers, that's bad for venues, and that is bad policy. This amendment doesn't reduce the relief beer drinkers are getting. They deserve a drink. All it does is say, if we're pausing the inflation tax on alcohol served on tap, we should do it fairly. Beer on tap and spirits on tap should be treated the same. This isn't a radical position, and it's not likely to break the government coffers. It's just basic fairness. At a time when Australians are struggling with the cost of living, the least we can do is make sure relief measures don't arbitrarily favour one group over another. I urge the House to back this sensible, fair and modest change and ensure that, when relief is provided, it's provided equally. Thank you.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Today I rise with a heavy heart, alongside colleagues on all sides of this House, to acknowledge and mourn the lives lost in the tragic and senseless attack at Bondi. Like so many Australians, I...
Today I rise with a heavy heart, alongside colleagues on all sides of this House, to acknowledge and mourn the lives lost in the tragic and senseless attack at Bondi. Like so many Australians, I was shaken to my core by the images and the stories that followed—stories of ordinary people enjoying an ordinary day in a place that symbolises freedom, community and joy. Bondi is one of our country's iconic locations. It is where families gather, where visitors are welcomed, where life is lived freely without fear. On 14 December, 2025, that freedom was shattered. As the sun dipped towards the horizon and families laughed together as the celebrations of Chanukah by the Sea commenced, a nightmare unfolded—a terrifying act of hatred that took 15 precious lives and wounded many more. That night should have been filled with candlelight and laughter. Instead, it became a moment of horror. That this place and this celebration became the scene of such evil and violence has left our nation grieving and deeply saddened. Today, we remember those whose lives were taken. Each of them was more than a victim of an act of violence. They were loved, as parents, children, siblings, partners, friends, colleagues and community leaders. They had plans, dreams and futures that will never now be realised. To their families and loved ones I offer my deepest condolences. No words spoken in this chamber can ease your pain, but I hope you know that the grief you carry is shared by everyone in this place and by this nation. We also acknowledge those who were injured, both physically and psychologically. The trauma of that day does not end when the headlines fade. Healing will take time, and it will require ongoing care, compassion and support. We must ensure that those affected are not forgotten once the immediate shock has passed. In moments of darkness, it is easy to focus on the horror, but today it is also right and necessary that we recognise the extraordinary acts of bravery and humanity that emerged amid the chaos. We honour the bystanders who did not run away but instead ran towards danger—people who rendered first aid, who comforted strangers and who placed themselves in harm's way to protect others. Their courage reminds us that, even in the most frightening moments, decency and selflessness endure. We pay tribute to our emergency responders: the police officers who confronted the threat with speed and professionalism; the paramedics who worked tirelessly under immense pressure; the doctors, nurses and hospital staff who fought to save lives; and the lifeguards and first responders who transformed a place of leisure into a place of urgent care. Their actions saved lives. Their service reflects the very best of Australia. These men and women do not seek recognition, but they deserve it. They showed calm in chaos, compassion in crisis and bravery when it mattered most. This attack has forced us to confront difficult questions about the safety of members of the Jewish community and about the safety of everyone in the community. Those discussions are necessary, and they must be undertaken with seriousness and care. But today, first and foremost, is about remembrance, respect and unity. Violence seeks to divide us. It feeds on fear and isolation. Our response must be the opposite. We must respond by standing together, across the country, across communities, across faiths and across political differences, united in our rejection of hatred and our commitment to protecting one another and protecting our freedoms. Today we do more than mourn. Today we recommit ourselves to rejecting hatred in all its forms, to speaking against antisemitism, to standing united against violence and to demanding that safety and dignity be the right of every person in this nation. What happened in Bondi was more than an attack on innocent lives; it was an attack on our sense of safety and trust and on the very values we hold dear. But, even in that darkness, we choose light, we choose unity and we choose love. May those who lost their lives rest in peace. May their families find strength in the love that surrounds them, and may we, as a nation, move forward with resolve, humanity and hope.
Corporate Governance: Superannuation Industry | Statements by Members | House debates
I'm calling on the Albanese government to start helping the families caught up in the biggest super failure in Australian history—First Guardian and Shield. Twelve thousand Australians have...
I'm calling on the Albanese government to start helping the families caught up in the biggest super failure in Australian history—First Guardian and Shield. Twelve thousand Australians have had more than a billion dollars of their super put at risk. These are everyday people who have worked hard, saved and trusted in the system, but they have lost their super because this government and ASIC failed to protect them. Rather than supporting the victims, the focus now seems to be on developing new laws. If we have learnt anything from this debacle, it's that the answer isn't always more laws. Often, ASIC and government just need to do their job. The government has the power under section 23 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to take action and give some hope to many of those affected by Australia's biggest super failure. They say they're waiting on advice from Treasury so they can seek more advice from APRA. My advice is simple: do the right thing. Every day of delay adds to the anxiety of people who have already lost enough. Tragically, one victim has already taken his life. This isn't a bailout; it's about delivering justice for the honest families who were let down by this government and ASIC. Don't make them wait through endless court cases. These are real people. They're good, hardworking Australians who have done the right thing. Now it's time for this government to do the same thing.
Low-Income Superannuation Tax Offset | Motions | House debates
I rise to speak on this motion, which claims that only the Labor government will protect Australian super. Well, if that's how Labor want to be judged, they should hang their heads in shame,...
I rise to speak on this motion, which claims that only the Labor government will protect Australian super. Well, if that's how Labor want to be judged, they should hang their heads in shame, because the facts are clear: Labor is not protecting your super. On this government's watch, more than 12,000 Australians—many nearing retirement—are facing over a billion dollars in losses from their super following the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. This is the biggest failure in Australian history. It happened under Labor, and they've been asleep at the wheel since. That's not what protecting your superannuation looks like. I've met some of these people. These aren't rich people. These aren't wealthy people. I've met a detective from Queensland. I've met members of the Save Our Super group like Melinda Kee; Peter Spencer-Franks, a bus driver; Brad Waterman; Denise Cocquyt, a teacher; and Mike Poland, who I met last week in Perth. They've lost everything. On a personal note to them: thank you for coming to see me to tell me your story. More so, thank you for stepping up despite what you're facing, despite you working all your life and now having no super because of a failure by government and a failure by ASIC, which I'll get to. You stand up, and you will be the face, and you will fight and advocate on behalf of those 12,000 other Australians. Thank you. These are Australians who played by the rules. They trusted that the system would protect them, but it failed and they tell me they've been left with nothing. The government ignores them. Their letters go unanswered, or they're answered by bureaucratic nonsense. They just want the government to acknowledge that they exist—that's all—and to work with them. People caught up in these failures have been pushed to the brink, and there is a real human cost. Very, very sadly, one person has taken his own life over this. I want to say this to those impacted. I will work with you. Please take one day at a time. Lean on your family and friends and the Save Our Super group for support. If you need help, please go and get it. There is nothing wrong with that. There will be brighter days ahead. I acknowledge what you've gone through. I'm listening and I'm working with the minister to try and find a solution. I truly hope I can work with the government. I've mentioned that the minister, Minister Mulino, is working well with me. He's very engaging and—credit where credit is due—he's doing the best he possibly can under a very difficult set of circumstances. But let's be clear. This government have failed. First, in 2022 they commissioned a review by the Treasury into regulation of the managed investment schemes, the very structures used by First Guardian and Shield. Submissions to the review called for tighter regulation, stronger oversight and greater transparency. The response by this government—nothing. The review was buried, with no reforms and no action. Second, they let ASIC fail and haven't held them to account. ASIC was warned about First Guardian back in 2019 but took years to take any serious action. Later they raised concerns about Shield with Macquarie but failed to tell the other platforms about it. That silence led to super losses that could have been avoided. ASIC is now taking action, which is good to see, but the horse has bolted. It's too late. Twelve thousand people have lost their superannuation. They're acting like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. And what has the Treasurer done? Absolutely nothing. He hasn't even bothered to update the statement of expectations for ASIC, a basic tool every government has used to set standards for the agency—and when I say 'he hasn't' I'm talking about the Treasurer, not about Minister Mulino. Instead of protecting your super, Labor is focused on raiding it. We saw that in the paper today, with Premier Allen, who has bankrupted a state and now is talking about raiding your superannuation to keep it afloat. The motion claims Labor will protect Australian super, but their record tells a very different story. This government has overseen the biggest superannuation failure in history, left Australians exposed by allowing ASIC's enforcement shortcomings to go unchecked and looked for ways to raid your super themselves. Australians deserve better.
Energy | Statements by Members | House debates
This government is obsessed with ideology over results and self-promotion over the needs of Australian people, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Labor's failing energy policy. Net zero at...
This government is obsessed with ideology over results and self-promotion over the needs of Australian people, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Labor's failing energy policy. Net zero at any cost is hurting families, hurting industry and hurting our nation's sovereignty. And for what? So that our illustrious minister for climate change and energy can cling to relevance by securing a COP31 'president of negotiations' title. While that might provide him with a personal ego boost, it doesn't provide a boost to our economy or the average Aussie's household budget. Household electricity bills are up a whopping 39 per cent, making power prices the single biggest contributor to inflation. If your bill is up 39 per cent, then you know that the businesses who manufacture, distribute and sell every product on our supermarket shelves are also forced to pay the increase in energy costs to consumers. Australia has already been cutting its emissions at roughly twice the pace of the OECD while producing just one per cent of the globe's total emissions. Why are everyday Australians expected to carry more of the global burden than they create? We have to focus on what is right for our country, our economy and our people, and that's affordable, reliable energy. There is a cheaper, better and fairer way forward, and the coalition are committed to delivering it.
Economy | Statements by Members | House debates
Why is it that everyday Australians are expected to pay for this government's policy backflips and failures? After realising that you can't tax imaginary money in unrealised capital gains, the...
Why is it that everyday Australians are expected to pay for this government's policy backflips and failures? After realising that you can't tax imaginary money in unrealised capital gains, the Treasurer's 'new and improved' super tax 2.0 is reportedly going to be even more complicated and will add costs onto super funds that will be passed on to every single member, not just those with large balances—well, for those who still have balances, anyway, unlike the 12,000 Aussies who lost their life savings after this government ignored ASIC warnings. Then there's the failed $9 trillion net zero policy, driving up the price of not just your monthly energy bills but every single product on our supermarket shelves. Australians deserve a cheaper, better, fairer energy policy, but instead our homegrown industries are being driven offshore and inflation rates are being pushed above the threshold that would finally trigger some relief for mortgage holders. Speaking of mortgage holders, how's your five per cent deposit scheme working out? Rather than going full throttle on the real issue of housing supply, Labor has introduced a bandaid inflationary policy that, within its first month, has added $10,000 to the national house price. As the saying goes, you always pay more under Labor.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The passage of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 will be supported by the coalition. The development of this bill represents practical and necessary follow-up...
The passage of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 will be supported by the coalition. The development of this bill represents practical and necessary follow-up action to the signing earlier this year of what is generally known as the Geelong treaty. It also has a much longer and more formal name, which is the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But, whatever you prefer to call it, this arrangement represents a key element underpinning the trilateral AUKUS partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. It was signed in Geelong on 26 July 2025 by Australia's current defence minister, Richard Marles, and his UK counterpart, John Healey. In broad terms, this represents a shared commitment between our two nations to collaborate closely on the design, construction, operation, sustainment and regulation of nuclear powered submarines, the central capability under Pillar I of AUKUS. To be more specific, the bill gives domestic legal effect to article XXI of the treaty. That article provides that neither nation will impose customs duties, excise or similar charges on certain goods imported or exported in connection with the treaty. In practical terms, it means that, when eligible goods are imported into Australia or exported to the United Kingdom for use under the Geelong treaty, they can be traded freely without the burden of additional customs and excise costs. This bill achieves that by inserting item 58A into schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, establishing a duty-free rate for qualifying goods used under the treaty; defining 'Geelong Treaty' within the Customs Tariff Act to provide legal clarity; and ensuring that the changes apply not only to future imports but also to any qualifying goods that have already been imported and are awaiting customs processing when the treaty enters into force. While this bill is short and technical in nature, it therefore performs important functions. It will help to ensure that Australia is ready legally and administratively to meet the conditions necessary for the Geelong treaty to enter into force. Under article XXXIII, point A of the treaty, each party must complete various domestic processes before the treaty can commence. Passing this bill is part of that activity. It is in essence an enabling measure, modest in scope but important in effect. If implemented successfully, the changes to which it has given expression will facilitate some of the economic and industrial cooperation that will be needed to practically support AUKUS, not least by removing obstacles and lowering costs for companies and government agencies working to deliver this generation-defining capability. The language of the bill is deliberately narrow, and that's a good thing. The new concessional arrangements will apply only to goods for use under the Geelong treaty. That means they cannot be exploited for unscrupulous importers and exporters seeking to trade in eligible goods or used as a backdoor for unrelated trade concessions. Instead, the scope of the qualifying goods is narrow, limited to defence related items approved under formal arrangements between our governments and their authorised contractors. This is a targeted and well-disciplined approach to implementing the treaty obligations, consistent with the spirit of the AUKUS framework. It is about fostering even closer cooperation between two longstanding allies on a vital agreement and not about flouting trade rules or creating any kind of new class of general trade preferences. Here at home, this legislation has also been endorsed by the majority findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which examined the Geelong treaty in detail. I should add that AUKUS is not simply about building, acquiring and deploying submarines. From the time that the former coalition government began the work and ultimately struck in 2021 the original AUKUS agreement with the other two key allies involved in this partnership, it has been about embedding Australia in a deep and enduring network of technological, industrial and strategic cooperation with our most trusted allies. Through AUKUS, the long-term vision is that it will also lead to pronounced growth in the workforce, supply chains and regulatory systems that will sustain our development of the new submarines. The Geelong treaty is one of the latest practical embodiments of that partnership, ensuring that our laws, our defence industries and our economic frameworks all align with the capabilities that we are building. The coalition has been steadfast in its support for AUKUS from the very beginning. In government, we conceived it and negotiated it, and now, from the opposition benches, we continue to back it. If implemented successfully, AUKUS will spur a once-in-a-generation transformation of Australia's strategic posture. It will strengthen our deterrence, enhance our industrial capability and cement our place within one of the world's most advanced defence partnerships. This bill represents the latest step in making that possible. It ensures that all Australian laws align with our international commitments, that our defence industry can operate efficiently with trusted partners and that the broader AUKUS framework continues to move closer to reality. This bill is not controversial. It imposes no new taxes, no new regulations and no new obligations on Australian businesses or households. It simply ensures that Australia can honour the important commitment it has made under the Geelong treaty. This is a treaty that advances our national interests, strengthens our alliance with the United Kingdom and more broadly with the United States and supports the delivery of a capability that will protect Australia for a number of decades to come. For each of these reasons, the coalition supports the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, and we commend the government for introducing it into the parliament. Debate adjourned.
Regional Australia: Roads | Private Members' Business | House debates
I had the privilege of being the chair of the road safety committee back in 2019-20. Further to that, I had the privilege of actually going to the third international road safety convention....
I had the privilege of being the chair of the road safety committee back in 2019-20. Further to that, I had the privilege of actually going to the third international road safety convention. There were representatives of countries from all around the world concentrating on how we reduce the significant road toll in every single country around the world. We know that in Australia alone last year there were around 1,200 deaths. Despite the efforts of governments, despite the efforts of councils, despite the efforts of agencies in the sector, nothing seems to budge. There was a common thread and a shared international philosophy across four areas: first, people make predictable mistakes that can lead to road crashes; second, the human body has a limited physical ability to tolerate crash forces before harm occurs; third—this is the big one—a shared responsibility exists among those who fund, plan, design, build, manage and use roads and vehicles to prevent crashes that result in serious injury or death; and finally, all parts of the system must be strengthened to multiply their effects so, if one part fails, road users are still protected. I'll go back to the third area: shared responsibility exists among those who fund—government, plan—government and design—government. We are now seeing that one part has failed—that is, the Labor government's funding to our regions to fix our roads. While the last speaker might have said, 'We're spending this much here and that much there,' the government is not spending it in our electorates, not spending it in Nationals electorates. I know because I go and speak to my mayors, the councils and the councillors, and I speak to our people who use those roads. Imagine the outcry. Deputy Speaker Swanson, I would imagine you're getting the same outcry in your electorate. Our people are being told—victim shamed—'Your speed limits are going to be reduced from 100 kilometres an hour down to 70 kilometres an hour because you can't be trusted to drive on the same road you've been driving on for 30, 40, 50 years. You are too irresponsible to drive on that road, so we are going to reduce it to take care of you.' That is not the issue. We need to be respected in the regions. We need to be able to make our own decisions. This consultation—thanks for extending it by 28 days, Labor—is an affront. It is offensive to regional and rural people to say that they are too irresponsible to use the roads in their current state. Well, fix their state! Fix the roads! Come into our communities, Labor, and fund our roads. It is a little bit like Crocodile Dundee. Remember? He pulls out a knife, and Crocodile Dundee goes: 'That's not a knife. That's a knife!' Well, we've now got the same competition: 'That's not a pothole. That's a pothole!' That's what our communities are facing. It is an affront to all those intelligent drivers in the regions—all those farmers, truck drivers and tradies, who know those roads like the back of their hands—to be told: 'We're going to go out and consult, and we're going to protect you from yourselves.' Well, Labor, you're out of touch. You say that the Nationals are out of touch. We know our people. You are out of touch with your electorates and our electorates and the crossbench electorates if you think you can walk into our communities and reduce the speed limit from 100 down to 70. We will not cop it. Fix the roads!
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
They are—thank you—small-business owners, who do more hours than I like to think of, and they deserve a break. I know that, when we put that policy out there, I was getting phone...
They are—thank you—small-business owners, who do more hours than I like to think of, and they deserve a break. I know that, when we put that policy out there, I was getting phone calls, text messages and emails saying, 'Thank you for thinking about us.' This is not about us making money; this is about us reinvesting into our communities to ensure we're here for the future, to ensure that we can spend that money on the Saints soccer team or the Rovers Cricket Club or a charity for cancer. This is what the pubs and clubs do, and so do the small brewers. They're small businesses. They're out there contributing to the economy of regional and rural communities, and, at the end of the day, the government coffers. Not only do we have an obligation to revisit this—and, again, we will support it; it is a fraction of what is required to ensure the longevity and sustainability of the hospitality industry. On that note, this bill is a small and temporary step in the right direction. But Australians deserve more than small steps; they deserve a real plan to bring prices down, lower inflation and deliver tax relief.
I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and a related bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. The coalition will support these bills, because...
I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and a related bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. The coalition will support these bills, because freezing a tax on beer is common sense, and we won't stand in the government's way. But there is much more that needs to be done. Let me start with a bit of background to these bills. Australians face automatic tax increases on alcohol twice a year: on 1 February and on 1 August. That means that every six months excise goes up automatically, regardless of business conditions. It happens whether inflation is high or low, whether the economy is struggling or strong, and whether pubs and clubs can afford it or not. It's a system that runs on autopilot, and right now that autopilot is flying straight into an inflation storm. Just last week we saw inflation break through the Reserve Bank's target band again. That's bad news for mortgage holders, bad new for families and bad news for small businesses, who already face higher costs at every single turn. And drinkers get hit by inflation twice: once through rising prices and again through higher excise. This bill gives small relief from the excise but does nothing to tackle the rising prices. So any pause, any breathing space for pubs, clubs and everyday Australians, is worth supporting. But we should also be clear about what this measure actually delivers. This freeze saves less than 1c per pint. It does nothing about the high inflation we continue to see under Labor. High inflation means that the prices of your groceries, your power bills and your mortgage continue to go up. Under this government, we've already seen food prices go up by 15 per cent, housing by 19 per cent, insurance by 30 per cent, gas by 38 per cent and electricity by a whopping 39 per cent. Households need genuine action on the cost of living, not 1c on a beer. This change is nothing more than crumbs from the Treasurer's table. Yet, for many mid-north-coast hospitality venues, like the Willawarrin Hotel, the Hoey Moey, King Tide Brewing, the Pier Hotel, and Dave Richards at the Great Northern Hotel Kempsey, even crumbs can make a little bit of difference. These businesses have carried more than their fair share of pain. They've survived lockdowns. They've battled chronic staff shortages. They have absorbed spiralling costs of power, produce, insurance and freight. And they've seen their patrons tighten belts while their own margins disappear. Yet they're still standing, because they're stubborn, hardworking and deeply connected to their communities. They deserve a fair go. Unfortunately for many of these venues, this relief has come too late. I have a lot of pubs in my electorate of Cowper. I know the publicans, I know their staff and I know what the places mean to them. They sponsor the junior footy clubs. They host the charity raffles. They're there for weddings, birthdays and wakes. They're where people meet to celebrate and to mourn. In many country towns the local pub is not just a business; it is the beating heart of the community and it's where you find connection and a bit of laughter when times are tough. Australia's alcohol industry contributes enormously to our economy. It supports around 176,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. That includes 22,500 in manufacturing, 21,000 in retail and more than 126,000 in hospitality. It's one of the largest employers in regional Australia, and it keeps countless small towns alive. In total, alcohol excise generates around $8 billion a year in tax revenue, with the GST adding even more on top. So changes to excise affect far more than just the cost of a beer; they affect jobs, wages and community life. While the coalition supports this freeze, we will not pretend it's real cost-of-living relief. To give taxpayers less than 1c off a pint, when we've seen mortgage holders pay $1,800 more a month since Labor came to power, quite simply is an insult. We also won't pretend that this fixes the deeper problems in Australia's alcohol tax system. This two-year freeze is estimated to cost around $90 million over the forward estimates, less than two per cent of the $8 billion the Commonwealth collects from alcohol excise each year. This measure applies only to on-premises draught beer—nothing else. It doesn't apply to packaged beer, bottled spirits, wine or ready-to-go drink mixes. That means that most alcohol sold in Australia is completely untouched by this bill. On-tap spirits and cocktails are far more likely than beer to be enjoyed by women and young people, but the government didn't even think to include these in the indexation freeze. That means that young women that prefer on-tap spirits and cocktails will continue to face higher taxes, while beer drinkers get some relief. That makes absolutely no sense. There is nothing in this measure to address the $600 million alcohol tax gap identified by the tax office—money lost each year through illicit alcohol sales. That's revenue that should be going to hospitals, schools and roads, not into the pockets of criminal operators. It is exactly what we have seen in the illicit tobacco market, which the government has turned a blind eye to for so long. Right now more people are smoking again—we know that, with the wastewater data showing nicotine use rising. Revenue has collapsed. Tobacco excise went from $16.3 billion in 2019-20 to just $7.4 billion in 2025-26, a drop of more than half. Organised crime is the winner here. We see firebombs every other week. We see insurers refusing to cover businesses simply because they are beside a pop-up tobacco shop. It is one of the most serious policy failures in living memory, and we cannot afford to repeat that mistake with alcohol. If we let the illicit alcohol trade expand unchecked, we could lose billions more in tax revenue, drive honest operators out of business and put public health and safety at risk. And let's face it: those criminal organisations have the infrastructure there, right now, through the illicit tobacco market. They don't need to set anything up. They just need the alcohol. Only yesterday I spoke with reputable operators who are seeing it starting to flow into our communities. We need to address this right now. Australia's excise regime is showing its age. It's more than a century old. It has become a tangle of inconsistent rates and outdated definitions. It has been patched, amended and redefined, countless times, but never properly modernised. If we are serious about supporting local manufacturing and hospitality, we need to think beyond the next two years. We need a proper review of how alcohol excise works, what it's trying to achieve and how it can be fairer, simpler and more sustainable. Leading up to the last election, the Nationals developed policy in relation to alcohol excise, and that policy was across the board. It looked at beer, it looked at spirits and it looked at brewers—small business, big business, on tap or bottled—because the reality is, right now, if you go out and buy a bottle of spirits, whether that's scotch or gin, the excise is over 60 per cent of the purchase of that bottle. Over two-thirds—that is what we are paying. It's over 25 per cent every time you buy a beer, whether that's a draught beer, whether it's in a bottle or whether it's on tap. We developed that policy, which I was very proud of, and I put it out on social media. Somebody, a member of the public, said, 'What, you're going to save Australia one beer at a time?' My answer was yes—yes, we are—because, every time that business sells a beer that is cheaper, it puts more cashflow into that business, and that cashflow is where they reinvest into that business. What it means is they can keep that 18-year-old part-time or full-time worker, who's at TAFE doing a course so he or she can get an apprenticeship; they can stay employed. We will be saving Australia one beer at a time, because, if that person stays employed or the business is able to employ another person, that is good for the local economy. And, if that business grows, so does the community, because they don't just serve beer and alcohol; they sell meals, so they are getting produce from the local producers—that beef or the veggies. And then you think, 'Well, somebody's got to clean the place'—so the cleaner has a job and the cleaner can support his or her family, potentially sending kids to the local school. So, yes, one beer at a time will save a local community. It will save those people who work around the local pub. We've seen, on countless occasions, small towns die because their local pub shut. It's a reality. It might not happen in the cities, but we're talking about regional and rural people, and that's who the Nationals look after. So, if you save regional and rural towns by one beer at a time, I'll wear that as a badge of honour every single day, because we know that over 97 per cent of small and medium businesses are in the regions. If one beer at a time saves the pub, saves the hairdresser, saves the butcher, saves the baker, saves the school and that regional town thrives, then Australia thrives—and you replicate that hundreds of times around the country—and I'll wear a badge of honour, selling one beer at a time. But we have to reform the excise. It cannot be two years, switch the tap off and then go back to the old way, because that will not work. That will never work. And it's not fair on those mums and dads, generally, who own a pub out there, or small business owners like the flower group or David Richards with the Kempsey pubs. They put it all on the line. These aren't people who have been handed everything on a platter.
Superannuation | Questions without Notice | House debates
I have a point of order on relevance. I appreciate that the minister is entitled to preamble, but the question was in relation to how many times the government ignored warnings from Treasury and ASIC.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Recent collapses like Shield and First Guardian have put over $1 billion of Australians' hard-earned retirement savings at risk. How many times has the...
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Recent collapses like Shield and First Guardian have put over $1 billion of Australians' hard-earned retirement savings at risk. How many times has the government ignored warnings from Treasury and ASIC to effectively regulate these schemes?