Angie Bell's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Day, Mr Ali, Surf Lifesaving | Adjournment | House debates
The Gold Coast is home to some of our nation's most extraordinary athletes, and I rise to acknowledge and celebrate the incredible career and retirement of one of Australia's greatest surf...
The Gold Coast is home to some of our nation's most extraordinary athletes, and I rise to acknowledge and celebrate the incredible career and retirement of one of Australia's greatest surf lifesaving athletes and legends, Ironman champion Ali Day. Ali Day's career stands as one of the most dominant and respected in the history of Ironman racing. Over more than a decade at the elite level, he did not simply compete; he set the standard. His achievements include multiple Australian Ironman championships, Coolangatta Gold victories and national series titles that place him firmly among the legends of sport. But statistics alone do not capture Ali Day's contribution. Raised in a family deeply connected to surf lifesaving, Ali brought to the sport a profound respect for the ocean, for competition and for the values that underpin surf lifesaving in Australia—discipline, service, resilience and mateship. These values were evident every time he stepped onto the beach. In a sport defined by endurance and adversity, Ali Day distinguished himself through consistency and professionalism, year after year—I think it was 11. Across changing conditions and fierce competition, he performed at the highest level. He raced hard, he raced fair, and he conducted himself with humility in victory and grace in defeat. He forced others to lift their standards, sharpen their preparation and push beyond what they thought was possible. In doing so, he elevated the entire sport. Importantly, Ali's influence extended well beyond the course. To young athletes watching from the shoreline, he became a role model. He was proof that excellence is earned through commitment, sacrifice and persistence, and his career showed that greatness is built in early mornings, long sessions and quiet determination. As the federal member for Moncrieff, I'm particularly proud of Ali Day's connection to our coastal communities. Surf lifesaving is woven into the fabric of the Gold Coast and coastal Australia. It represents service, safety and community spirit. Ali Day has embodied those principles throughout his career, and he's represented Australian sport with distinction both at home and on the world stage. Retirement marks the close of an extraordinary competitive chapter, but Ali Day's legacy will endure. It will be felt in the next generation of ironmen and ironwomen, in the culture of excellence he helped to shape and in the continued strength of Australian surf lifesaving. On behalf of the parliament and on behalf of the people of Moncrieff, I thank Ali Day for his outstanding service to Australian sport. I congratulate him on a remarkable career and wish him every success in the next chapter of his life. I congratulate the Surfers Paradise Surf Lifesaving Club—101 years old this year—on their homegrown champ. Surf lifesaving began as a volunteer movement to keep Australians safe at the beach and has evolved into a world-class sporting pathway—one that produces elite athletes, inspires community participation and strengthens our national identity. The Gold Coast is the beating heart of surf lifesaving as a sport. Its beaches host some of the country's most iconic carnivals and events, attracting athletes from across Australia and from around the world. From Nippers to open competitors, surf lifesaving provides a clear, life-long pathway that combines athletic excellence with community service. Athletes are not only competitors; they are trained lifesavers who protect our beaches and save lives. As a sport, surf lifesaving demands extraordinary versatility. Competitors must master swimming, board paddling, surf ski and running, often in unpredictable and challenging ocean conditions. It tests endurance, strength, tactical intelligence and mental resilience in ways few sports can match. The professionalism, broadcast appeal and global reach of elite ironman and ironwoman racing demonstrate that surf lifesaving has matured into a highly competitive, spectator-friendly sport. These qualities make surf lifesaving an ideal candidate for inclusion in the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games. It is uniquely Australian. Coastal nations across the world already participate in international surf lifesaving competitions. Olympic inclusion would accelerate global growth, participation and safety outcomes, and surf lifesaving aligns perfectly with the Olympic spirit. It would showcase the Gold Coast's natural arena and leave a lasting legacy of increased beach safety. It's a national asset worthy of the world's biggest sporting stage—just like Ali Day.
National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
They need action, Member for Durack. And they certainly deserve more than legislation constructed to sound transformative while offering little substance to turn the dial on disadvantage. They...
They need action, Member for Durack. And they certainly deserve more than legislation constructed to sound transformative while offering little substance to turn the dial on disadvantage. They need a government that's focused on outcomes, not headlines. We haven't seen that yet—not once from this Albanese government. After carefully considering the bills, the detail of the proposed commission, the consultation undertaken and the record of this government, the coalition will oppose this legislation. There's no question that improved outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children must be a national priority. But the evidence is clear: under this Labor government, outcomes are simply going backwards. They're all spin, no substance—again, headlines, not the work. Under Labor's watch, four Closing the Gap targets are worsening: adult incarceration, children in and out of home care, children commencing school developmentally on track, and suicide, which is very sad. Youth detention is up 11 per cent. Preschool attendance is down 2.6 per cent—and that was a big increase under the Morrison government—and 1.2 per cent fewer Indigenous children are developmentally on track when they start school. Child safety indicators are worsening, and the system is not responding quickly enough, yet the government's answer is another national bureaucracy rather than directing resources to the frontline services and communities where they are so desperately needed. The Prime Minister has repeatedly pointed to structural change as the solution. But, in reality, structural change without functional outcomes is absolutely meaningless to a child living in overcrowded housing, exposed to violence, not attending school or, indeed, removed from their family. Structural change, Prime Minister, is not about building structures. It's about deploying the efforts of existing structures to maximum effect and dealing with those organisations you fund that are not contributing as intended. Because you are distracted, because you won't focus on frontline responses, we cannot support this. This bill is not the answer. It's not even remotely the answer for those children who are in need. The government argues this bill would create an independent and empowered national commissioner by transitioning the current executive agency into a statutory authority. But when we look closely, it becomes clear this is not a commission designed to fix a failing system; it's a commission designed to look like reform. The commissioner's functions mirror what already exists across multiple Commonwealth, state and territory bodies. These functions include coordination, research, inquiry, advocacy, providing advice to government, engagement, programs for children and education initiatives. These responses are about talking action, not taking action. The bill adds extensive, compulsory information-gathering powers, including the ability to compel individuals or organisations to provide information or appear before hearings, backed by civil penalties. But who could the commissioner be consulting that's not captured in consultation that governments and others undertake already? It will cost $33.5 million over the forward estimates, and it adds yet another layer of bureaucracy on top of a system already saturated with commissions, councils, working groups, peak bodies, statutory offices and advisory structures. This is just another expansion of the Albanese Labor government's big government policy. What the bill does not add is a single measurable, practical improvement to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people who need a response now. This body duplicates existing roles and function. It duplicates the work of the National Children's Commissioner, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the multiple Indigenous-specific children's commissioners already operating in the ACT, in Queensland, in South Australia and in Victoria. It overlaps with the Department of Social Services, which is already required to consult children and young people. It holds few functions not shared by state and territory child protection, education, youth justice and health agencies, where the real levers sit and which states and territories control. This new commissioner's work is essentially about consultation, providing advice to government, undertaking research and advocacy. As the gap continues to widen on the Albanese government's watch, there is no gap that this commission will fill. Instead, the focus should be on ensuring existing bodies do their jobs. The government's focus must be on ensuring resources are applied where there is potential for the greatest and most immediate change, and that is in frontline services on the ground. This commission reinforces and replays the Albanese government's track record of creating Canberra based structures to respond to community based challenges. It is bureaucracy masquerading as reform. The government says the commissioner will coordinate the efforts of states and territories, yet the bill offers no explanation of what powers or mechanisms the commissioner has to do so. There is no detail on how an educational program will be delivered across diverse remote communities nor an explanation of what unique power the national commissioner will have to speak directly to children when every government agency and independent commissioner already has that capability. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people regularly report consultation fatigue. It's unclear how the national commissioner will not just be an additional outreach body, consulting the same people on the same issues. Indigenous community leaders are clear, and their message is consistent: ample consultation has been done. It's now time for action, and it's time for implementation and respect for the work that has already been done, not time to reinvent the wheel. It's extraordinary that this government's primary justification for this bill rests on consultation that was limited in scope, circular in nature and heavily reliant on advocates who are already supporters of the concept. The person most consulted ahead of establishing the commission was the same individual appointed as the inaugural commissioner, Sue-Anne Hunter, fresh from her previous role as commissioner of the Yoorrook Justice Commission. The government relied heavily on a single one-off First Nations Youth Roundtable, tied closely to SNAICC—again, one of the most vocal proponents of this commission. Stakeholder diversity was limited, and alternative perspectives, including from frontline workers—such as child protection case managers and school principals in remote communities—and families themselves, were not meaningfully included. You would think that they know what they're talking about. They're living it. And yet, against the evidence, this government claims the bill reflects the voices of children. This national commission will be rich in symbolism but devoid of practical measures. We see this so often under the Albanese Labor government. Symbolic policymaking for the headline has become the hallmark of this government. The bill uses expansive language about human rights and cultural identity but fails to address why children are unsafe, why school attendance is failing, why youth detention is rising or why entire communities are struggling to maintain stable environments for their young people. The government cannot continue to ignore the real failures of existing systems only to shift accountability to a new body when those systems fail. The job of ministers in this government is to demand accountability, not divest it to someone else. The first job of any government, we know, is to keep its people safe. Protecting vulnerable children is not a job the Albanese government can outsource. Let me be clear: everyone in this place is on a unity ticket that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children deserve every opportunity to grow up safe, to grow up supported and to grow up thriving. But there is nothing in this bill that ensures outcome change. The Closing the gap report, due for release later this week, will likely try to gloss over worsening indicators for children in care, children developmentally on track and children experiencing harm. The government will attempt to point to this bill as proof that it's taking action to make a difference, but codifying a national commissioner with the power to write reports does not put a child in school. It does not remove a child from danger. It does not support parents to rear healthier, happier and safer children. This position will cost the taxpayer millions but do nothing to address the issues most immediately affecting those Indigenous children and young people around our nation. Despite the best intentions, the national commissioner will not close the gap. The government must be judged not on the number of bureaucratic structures it creates but on the outcomes it achieves for the most vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people—those that need the most help or are in the most danger. Currently, state and territory governments hold responsibility for the key systems impacting children: education, child protection, corrections and health. Nationally, the Department of Social Services, the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Coalition of Peaks also hold major roles in supporting Closing the Gap outcomes. As Minister McCarthy stated when scrapping cross-portfolio Indigenous estimates last year, improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians is a whole-of-government priority. It is therefore those agencies that must be held accountable by her—by the minister—not by a third party, a so-called independent commissioner. This bill explicitly shifts that accountability away from government and onto the commissioner. It's a part of our Westminster system that the minister is responsible. We've seen this in portfolio after portfolio. We've seen it in environment and now we're seeing it in social services. It does so by establishing a body that will drive accountability for policies impacting this group. The only real opportunity that exists here is for responsible ministers to blame the commissioner, not the ministers responsible and the policy responses that contribute to making the gap much worse. The cost of this commission, I will reiterate, is $33.51 million over the forward estimates and $9.33 million ongoing. The funding could instead support dozens and dozens of remote school attendance programs, fund additional child protection workers in crisis-level regions, strengthen domestic violence interventions, support alcohol restrictions and community safety plans, or provide early developmental support for vulnerable children. What about that organisation in the Northern Territory, Indi Kindi, that does fantastic work in the early childhood education and care space? Every dollar should go where it makes the greatest difference. That's why the coalition has always prioritised frontline delivery, not bureaucratic expansion—bigger government. That's what this Albanese Labor government is all about—expanding government jobs, spending taxpayer money on more wages for government jobs. The coalition's position is guided by longstanding principles. Australia has had enough symbolic gestures. Real improvements demand evidence based interventions. The answer is stronger governance, performance monitoring and transparency of existing organisations, not additional bodies that diffuse responsibility. Funding must flow to organisations with proven governance and results, not those with the loudest voices, and the government must act to end funding to those whose operations fail the very people they exist to help. The coalition is focused on breaking welfare dependency, supporting families and ensuring children attend school—all protective factors that change trajectories and that change lives. Strengthening the family unit is absolutely what the Liberal Party stands for and what the coalition stands for. When we help families, we help children and we help communities. Finally, community-level challenges will never be solved from Canberra. These principles stand in stark contrast to what this bill represents. The coalition has further, deeper concerns about this bill that must be addressed. This government has repeatedly elevated structures, panels and bureaucratic bodies in place of genuine engagement and measurable improvements. Across multiple areas, including family violence, youth justice, community safety and child protection, the Albanese government has consistently failed to listen to the voices of children. For instance, the University of Adelaide's report into the impacts of the cessation of the cashless debit card, vetted and watered down by the Department of Social Services, notably did not include a single child's voice. If the Albanese government were serious about improving outcomes, it would prioritise practical, measurable interventions; it would introduce policies to improve school attendance, especially in remote communities where attendance rates have collapsed; it would strengthen child protection systems, ending the care criminalisation cycle where children in out-of-home care all too often end up in contact with youth justice; it would support early childhood development, ensuring every child commences school on track—as the National Children's Commissioner titled her landmark report, children need 'help way earlier'—and it would also confront the drivers of violence, not just talk about them. This means responding to the havoc wreaked by the Albanese government's reckless decisions to allow alcohol restrictions to lapse in the Northern Territory and the ideological removal of the cashless debit card, which was working. It was getting results. It is those things that contributed to the outcomes ending up much, much worse for remote Indigenous communities specifically. None of these priorities are meaningfully advanced by the creation of the national commissioner. For all of these reasons, the coalition will oppose this bill. We oppose it because it duplicates existing structures. We oppose it because it diverts funding away from frontline needs—the Australians who need it the most. We oppose it because it shifts accountability away from the agencies responsible for delivering services. We oppose it because it relies on symbolic gestures instead of practical on-the-ground solutions. And, most importantly, we oppose it because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people deserve better. Australia's most vulnerable children do not need another Canberra based bureaucracy. They do not need more reports, more advisory bodies or more symbolic gestures. What they do need is functioning schools, safer homes, stronger families and accountable systems. They need their government to act, not to outsource. This bill will not change outcomes. It will not close the gap, and it will not rescue a single child from neglect, from violence or from disadvantage. The coalition stands ready to support any measure that genuinely improves the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, but this is simply not one of them. It's time for greater accountability and a focus on ensuring existing bodies do their jobs. That's the only way to turn the dial. The coalition will not be supporting this bill.
Yes, for those listening from home, you've got me again. I'm here to represent Senator Kerrynne Liddle, a South Australian senator and an Indigenous senator from Adelaide and, actually, from the...
Yes, for those listening from home, you've got me again. I'm here to represent Senator Kerrynne Liddle, a South Australian senator and an Indigenous senator from Adelaide and, actually, from the Northern Territory as well. Today I rise to speak on the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026 and the associated National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026. At the outset, I acknowledge the seriousness of the issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children today, issues that demand practical action, accountability and relentless focus on outcomes on the front line. That is key. I acknowledge the upcoming anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the members of the Stolen Generations that will be present in the chamber this week for that very sad anniversary. The bill empowers the national commissioner to promote, improve and support the rights, safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children while driving greater accountability for policies impacting this group. The associated transitional provisions bill ensures the continuity of the national commission as it transfers from an executive agency to a statutory authority. But this empowerment will do little. Indigenous Australians deserve more than symbolism. They deserve more than Canberra-centric bureaucracy. They do not need more talk. They do not need more consultation. They need resources and focus to be on the front line.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The opposition will not oppose the Social Security and Other Legislation...
I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The opposition will not oppose the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 in the House of Representatives. However, we do hold concerns on some aspects of the bill before us today. The coalition has always taken the view that Australia must maintain a strong, fair and sustainable social services safety net. Few countries in the world provide the level of support that Australian taxpayers fund for people who are out of work, facing hardship or experiencing a family breakdown. That's something Australians should be proud of. However, we must also never lose sight of a fundamental truth: our social services safety net is not a bottomless resource. It's built on the sacrifice of millions of hardworking Australian taxpayers. It exists because Australians go to work, run small businesses, invest, take all the risks and contribute to the national economy. We therefore have a responsibility to manage this system very carefully and responsibly through disciplined economic management. We have a responsibility to future generations who will be left to shoulder the long-term fiscal consequences of the decisions that we make in this place today. At its core, a well-designed income support system must provide a robust and sustainable safety net. It must protect the most vulnerable. That is how we are judged as a society. It must support people through genuine periods of hardship, and it must enable pathways to independence and self-reliance. Our focus should always be on helping more Australians move into work and contribute to strengthening the economy—that is the Liberal way—not on keeping people permanently connected to the welfare system. Our welfare system must be fit for purpose today and properly equipped to meet tomorrow's challenges. While in government, the coalition demonstrated that it's possible to strengthen the safety net while managing public finances responsibly. Through disciplined economic management, the coalition delivered the largest permanent increase to the JobSeeker income support payment at the time. In April 2021, the coalition increased working age payment rates, including the JobSeeker payment, by $50 a fortnight and permanently increased the income-free areas to $150 per fortnight. These changes were specifically designed to support jobseekers as they secured employment and re-entered the workforce. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the coalition government also provided $32 billion in emergency support payments to protect Australians through an unprecedented economic shock. That support was delivered quickly, responsibly and at scale while maintaining a clear focus on recovery and economic participation and being temporary. The coalition also recognises the integral role that the Child Support Scheme plays when families break down. They're particularly under pressure right now. Child support exists for one reason, and that is to ensure that, no matter where children live or with whom they live, the children affected by family breakdown remain financially secure. The coalition makes no apologies for supporting strong and, where necessary, tough measures to ensure child support is paid. When parents shirk their responsibilities, they're not hurting the system; they're depriving their own children of financial support that helps them live a better life. At the same time, we recognise that most parents do the right thing and of course meet their obligations as parents. Since the scheme was introduced in 1988, more than $33 billion in child support payments has been transferred through the government scheme. When parents do not pay their child support on time, the impact is real and it's immediate. It affects the financial security of single parents and their children. For that reason, the coalition will always support practical measures that improve the administration of the Child Support Scheme and strengthen compliance. Turning to the bill before the House, this legislation is technical in nature and consists of three schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to clarify and validate child support assessment arrangements. Part 1 of schedule 1 adjusts when a new child support period starts after updated tax information becomes available. In some circumstances, commencement will be delayed by an additional month. This is intended to help parents manage financial changes that arise from updated income information. Part 2 of schedule 1 confirms that individuals who have less than 35 per cent care of a child, whether they are parents or non-parent carers, are not entitled to receive child support. Importantly, this applies retrospectively from 1 July 2008 while validating past decisions and leaving historic assessments unchanged. The schedule is designed to clarify technical legal aspects of the current operation of the Child Support Scheme. The coalition recognises that schedule 1 also addresses unintended consequences arising from previous legislative amendments made under both Labor and coalition governments. It restores the original policy intent of the child support framework. In particular, it clarifies that a parent who provides less than 35 per cent care of a child is not entitled to receive child support. This ensures that eligibility settings accurately reflect actual levels of care and of responsibility. Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act to provide clear legal authority for urgent payments to eligible recipients outside the normal fortnightly payment cycle. This schedule establishes a legislative framework for administering urgent payments. It abolishes the current limit of two urgent payments per year and introduces safeguards designed to ensure that welfare recipients have sufficient funds available to cover regular expenses on their usual payment date. It's important to note that urgent payments are not additional assistance. Urgent payments allow eligible recipients to access a portion of their regular fortnightly entitlement in advance in circumstances of exceptional and unforeseen financial hardship. The coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework for those payments. However, on this side we have questions on how the removal of the annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will genuinely exist to prevent harm. Noting that urgent payments merely bring forward a portion of an existing payment, further information is needed on the measures the government will implement to ensure that recipients are not drawn into a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship. The coalition welcomes measures such as access to financial counselling, social work services and alternative payment arrangements, including Centrepay. We are concerned, however, that removing the annual cap on urgent payment requests risks encouraging greater reliance on what was previously a limited and tightly controlled provision. Without effective safeguards, this change may deepen financial stress rather than relieve it, a perverse outcome indeed. We cannot consider these changes to urgent payments in isolation from the broader economic environment in which Australians find themselves. Under the Albanese government, Australians are paying more, simply, for everything. Insurance costs have increased by 39 per cent. Energy costs—as those who are watching from home all around the country, including in my home state of South Australia, who are paying huge energy bills, know—are up by 38 per cent across the country. Rent is up by 22 per cent. Health costs are up by 18 per cent. Education costs are up by 17 per cent. Food costs are up by 16 per cent. These are not discretionary or optional expenses. These are not luxuries. They are the fundamental costs of daily living that all Australians rely on. Against this backdrop, it's hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may be increasingly reliant on urgent payments and other emergency measures to simply get by and to pay those bills. We know, troublingly, that, in 2024 and 2025 alone, 440,000 social security payment recipients were granted approximately one million urgent payments, outlining the urgency of the position that Australians find themselves in. That figure alone should prompt serious reflection by the Albanese government about the impact on Australians from its failed economic policies and about how this government is letting down every Australian because the interest rates are going up and because we find ourselves in a situation where we have to pay more all the time through inflation, every day. Australians are hurting, and Labor has no viable plan to change that. This impact should lead to serious consideration of whether urgent payments are being used to fill systemic gaps in financial stability, rather than serving their intended purpose as an emergency measure. As highlighted in the government's own explanatory material for this bill, urgent payments are primarily accessed by vulnerable people—45 per cent of recipients of urgent payments are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, even though only around six per cent of all income support recipients identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. With this evidence of daily struggle, it's clear that closing the gap is also becoming out of reach. Sadly, this raises serious and legitimate questions about how these changes will operate in practice, particularly in vulnerable and remote communities. The government must explain what concrete measures it has implemented to prevent urgent payments from being exploited or diverted toward harmful activities, including gambling and excessive alcohol consumption, especially in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Remember that I'm representing, in the lower house here today, Senator Kerrynne Liddle, who is herself an Indigenous Australian. The government must also explain how it will ensure that the promised supports, including financial counselling and access to social work services, will be available to all Australians who need them, regardless of where they live. The coalition calls on the government to guarantee that the changes in this bill will not have a negative impact on our most vulnerable Australians—those who need the most help. They need a hand up, particularly those living in remote and regional areas. I'm sure the member for Durack, who is here in the chamber, will agree with all of the words that I'm talking about right now when it comes to the constituents in her electorate. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to clarify how employment income is attributed when calculating a person's rate of social security payment. It expressly provides that income attribution rules may apply to attribute employment income paid to the social security recipient or their partner for the purposes of working out the recipient's rate of pay, regardless of whether the relevant payment is a social security pension or benefit or whether the partner receives a social security payment. It also ensures that attributed income continues to apply for the full attribution period, including where a payment is cancelled or suspended. The coalition accepts that clarity in income attribution rules is essential for both recipients and administrators. Clear language and certainty will reduce errors, disputes and administrative complexity and help ensure that payments are calculated consistently and lawfully. Taken together, these three schedules are designed to provide legal clarity and certainty around practices and policy intentions that have existed for some time. However, notwithstanding our decision not to oppose the bill, we will continue to scrutinise the government's approach, particularly in relation to schedule 2, as is our role as an opposition. Urgent payments are being used at scale because people are struggling under the weight of an economy and a government that is failing them. The government is failing you. Urgent payments are being accessed disproportionately by vulnerable Australians, and they're being relied upon in an economic environment where the cost of living continues to rise. The government must demonstrate that it's put in place robust safeguards to ensure that this change does not unintentionally or inadvertently increase financial stress or hardship for people who are already doing it the toughest. It must also demonstrate that it has effective systems in place to identify repeat use, emerging risk and patterns of vulnerability and that it's actively intervening with appropriate support, not simply processing a higher volume of advanced payments. The opposition recognises the broader intent of this legislation and the need to clarify technical aspects of the social security and child support frameworks. For that reason, the opposition will not oppose the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives today. We do, however, put the government on notice. The government must follow through on its commitments. It must ensure that robust safeguards are implemented. It must ensure that financial counselling and social support services are accessible, timely and available to individuals and families who rely on them during periods of financial stress. And it must guarantee that the changes to urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage, deepen vulnerability or create new risks for the very Australians that our world-class social safety net is meant to protect. Australia's welfare system must strike the right balance between supporting Australians who need it the most and remaining sustainable, responsible and fit for purpose so it can maintain public confidence and long-term viability. That is the expectation of the coalition, and that is the benchmark to which the Albanese government must be held. Debate adjourned.
Government Spending | Private Members' Business | House debates
I would ask that the member direct his comments through the chair.
Economy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I withdraw. This week we saw interest rates rise again, and we saw the Treasurer's 13th interest rate rise since he became the Treasurer. Not happy, Jim! We saw the Prime Minister's 13th interest...
I withdraw. This week we saw interest rates rise again, and we saw the Treasurer's 13th interest rate rise since he became the Treasurer. Not happy, Jim! We saw the Prime Minister's 13th interest rate rise since he became the Prime Minister. Labor has been responsible for the economy for four years and has been responsible for 13 interest rate rises—and Australians are buckling under the stress. Australians should be very unhappy with the Prime Minister and with the Treasurer's very poor performance. Families were already hurting, and with the Treasurer's 13th rate rise, they are going to be hurting even more. And, as the shadow minister for youth, this pain then rolls down to the young, who feel the pinch too, because retailers and small businesses can't afford to employ them, and there have been 41,000 insolvencies since Labor came to power that can no longer employ young people on their books. As the shadow minister for youth, I often talk with young people about what impacts them. Whilst they are sometimes uncertain about what career or what job they might want to go to next, they're very clear on the financial pressures they face and their families face. Last week, I was in Hobart talking to young people. They were unanimous in detailing how hard it is to get a doctor's appointment, never mind a job in small business. If they can find a doctor with availability, then the next hurdle for them is the cost. They also said that the doctor who might have an available appointment is definitely not a bulk-billing doctor. They also said that they have to pay $120 upfront, with approximately $70 for the out-of-pocket fee. Now, that's not one Medicare card; that's two—a Medicare card and a credit card. And guess what? Young people can't get a credit card. Therefore, they don't go to the doctor in Hobart, so their health is suffering, and, as a consequence of their health suffering, so too is their mental health, because they cannot access a GP and certainly cannot access a bulk-billing GP. With the Treasurer's interest rate rise, there will be less money for families, which means going to the doctor just became even more out of reach for young people. Interest rate rises also impact young people in other ways, and the consequences are that landlords will now put rent up because interest rates have gone up, making it even harder for people, particularly young people, to afford housing. Home loan repayments and small business loans for families are making it harder for employers to employ young people and more employees. Who is going to pay for Labor's addiction to spending? Who is going to pay for it? Well, it's the taxpayer. That's why this budget that's coming this year is a blow-out. That is why Australians are now having to pay for this government's reckless spending on our economy. Labor can put spin on their 13th interest rate rise, but Labor's squeeze on Australians is being felt, and will now be felt even harder. We're not happy with Labor, just like we're not happy with Jan—not happy, Jan; not happy, Labor. Just ask any young person and they'll let you know that too. Labor spends, prices rise and you pay for it. They spend, prices go up and you get the bill. Insurances are up 39 per cent; energy is up 38 per cent; rent is up 22 per cent; health is up 18 per cent—that's if you can get a doctor's appointment; education is up 17 per cent; food is up 16 per cent. The more they spend, the longer inflation stays higher, and the more you have to pay the bills. They keep spending and keep asking you to tighten your belt while they spend your taxpayer dollars. Living standards have gone backwards under this government. We've got a $1.2 trillion debt that is going to punish the next generations. You will have to pay for this government's spending, so don't believe a word they say. They spend, prices go up and you pay.
I didn't think it was an unparliamentary word.
The Minister for Small Business interjected when the member for Goldstein was delivering his speech on his MPI. I'd like Australians to know that what she said was that small businesses are...
The Minister for Small Business interjected when the member for Goldstein was delivering his speech on his MPI. I'd like Australians to know that what she said was that small businesses are dodgy. I say the Minister for Small Business is dodgy, I say the Treasurer is dodgy and I say the Prime Minister is dodgy.
The Reserve Bank's latest decision confirms what Australians already know: Labor has lost control of the economy. They've lost control of energy costs. They've lost control of social cohesion....
The Reserve Bank's latest decision confirms what Australians already know: Labor has lost control of the economy. They've lost control of energy costs. They've lost control of social cohesion. They've lost control of our borders. After 13 interest rate rises, families are hurting. Mortgages are up around $1,800 a month, rents are surging, groceries cost more every week and power bills are nearly 40 per cent higher despite repeated promises to bring them down. Australians were told that relief was coming. Instead, they got record prices. Living standards have collapsed at the fastest rate in the developed world. Families are paying 16 per cent more for food, 22 per cent more for rent and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. These are not statistics. These are household budgets being smashed by this government. At a time when Australians are already under pressure, the government's failures are adding further strain to housing, services and community confidence. It all flows from the same problem: an addiction to spending and a refusal to take responsibility. Labor's spending spree has driven inflation higher for longer, forcing the Reserve Bank to act. Instead of getting spending under control, Labor's answer is always the same. It is higher taxes on savings, on houses, on super and on family business, and that is not economic management. Labor spends, prices rise and you pay. (Time expired)
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
I add my heartfelt sympathy for the victims and their families around the events of 14 December at our beloved Bondi Beach. I acknowledge their pain and embrace those impacted; some, we know,...
I add my heartfelt sympathy for the victims and their families around the events of 14 December at our beloved Bondi Beach. I acknowledge their pain and embrace those impacted; some, we know, were here in the gallery earlier this morning. The Gold Coast community send our deepest condolences: shalom aleichem—peace be upon you. My local Jewish communities send their love and support for your loss. We thank those first responders, the emergency services, but also I feel compelled, as the co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Surf Lifesaving, to thanks those volunteer lifeguards—in fact, the 73 of them that day at Bondi who went way outside of their comfort zones, untrained for these matters, to attend to Australians and to save those lives. Thank you to all of those volunteers at Bondi surf lifesaving club. What we saw at Bondi—the loss of 15 lives—was nothing short of horrific. It was a despicable act of terror targeting innocent Australians who were celebrating Hanukkah—people gathered in joy, community and faith whose lives were stolen by hatred and violence. The youngest, just 10, had her future stolen. Our future as a country was stolen. Today we remember those who were senselessly killed. We grieve with their families and their loved ones, and we recommit ourselves to ensuring that such acts of terror, hatred and violence have no place in Australia. But condolences, thoughts and prayers alone are not enough. The Jewish community is rightly angry, and I have words and sentiment directly from the three Gold Coast rabbis, Rabbis Gurevitch, Serebryanski and Cohen, who I joined with my Gold Coast colleagues in solidarity at the Bondi massacre remembrance at the Home of the Arts on 22 December. I was with Rabbi Serebryanski at Hanukkah celebrations when the news of the massacre unfolded. Their words, they say, must be matched with honesty, with leadership and with action. Antisemitism—what should more truthfully be called Jew hatred—has been allowed to fester in this country for far too long, and the fear within the Jewish community is real. Jewish Australians should not need increased security at their homes, at kindergartens or at places of worship. They should not need to scan their surroundings before attending synagogue or sending their children to school. Jews should not feel compelled to hide their identity or think twice about wearing symbols of their faith in public. They should be as free at any other Australians to go about their lives in safety and dignity, yet today Jews are not. When a minority in this country live in fear simply because they are Jewish, it is a failure. The government has failed in its first responsibility: to keep all Australians safe. We do not defend antisemitism as those opposite have done for so long. We attack it head on, directly, unequivocally and without apology. Protecting Jewish Australians and protecting free speech must go hand in hand, because they are not opposing goals; they are inseparable. Free speech is not a luxury; it is vital protection for minorities, including Jewish Australians, who rely on it to defend themselves, to speak out and to challenge hatred wherever it appears. Australia has long prided itself on being a nation where people of all faiths can live freely and securely. Freedom matters because it allows minorities to call out hatred, expose extremism and defend their place in society. But freedom also carries responsibility to condemn violence, reject extremism and stand up for one another when it matters most, and we have seen that from Australian society calling for a royal commission. We cannot focus on only the symptoms while ignoring the deeper problem, we cannot condemn terror in one breath and tolerate hatred in the next, and we cannot continue to celebrate multiculturalism while any minority community feels unsafe in its own country. The victims of the Bondi attack deserve more than remembrance. They deserve resolve, and we must be honest about where antisemitism comes from. It exists on the far left. It exists among radical Islamist extremists. If we are serious about fighting terror and hatred, we must confront all of it head on and without fear or favour. This is not about politics; it's about public safety. It's about moral clarity and what sort of Australia we want to be. For too long there's been a deafening silence while anti-Jewish hatred has been allowed to fester and grow. This parliament must do better. A nation that tolerates hatred through silence will eventually pay a far higher price. May we honour and remember the victims of the Bondi terror attack not only with our words today but with courage, clarity, action and leadership. In the words of Rabbi Adi Cohen, 'Today's compromise is tomorrow's new normal.' So I condemn the hate and antisemitism that continues today on the Gold Coast. It is wrong, and it must stop, and those responsible will be held to account.
Environment | Statements by Members | House debates
The coalition has engaged in good faith with the government to secure environmental law reform—reform that will deliver for the environment and for jobs, industry and investment—in...
The coalition has engaged in good faith with the government to secure environmental law reform—reform that will deliver for the environment and for jobs, industry and investment—in our great nation because Australians deserve environmental laws that are productive, practical and durable. But the legislation in its current form, despite the lofty rhetoric of those opposite, falls well short of delivering the certainty, the balance and the productivity that our nation needs. The coalition have engaged constructively throughout this process and we have put forward a list of seven substantive concerns to the government, which Labor has failed to address in their amendments. They have failed to deal with the core concerns raised by industry and housing stakeholders. The coalition has been clear, the housing sector has been clear and the Senate inquiry has been clear that no-one is asking for lower standards. It is clarity, efficiency and regulatory settings that allow them to build, innovate and grow. We all share the goal of protecting Australia's environment. Environmental protection and national productivity are not mutually exclusive. We cannot risk sending investment offshore, slowing productivity and putting thousands of jobs at risks. If the government continues with its antijobs, antiproductivity and anti-investment pathway then we cannot support the legislation. Australia needs good environment laws, not political shortcuts disguised as reform. We remain ready to work constructively to deliver a better pathway forward for our environment and for our economy. (Time expired)
Labor Government | Questions without Notice | House debates
National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I understand, thank you, that amendment and how technical it is. There are very many technicalities in these bills. There are technicalities in all of the bills. There are administrative bills....
I understand, thank you, that amendment and how technical it is. There are very many technicalities in these bills. There are technicalities in all of the bills. There are administrative bills. There are seven bills in total, in fact, and the coalition hasn't had the opportunity to speak even to the reform bill in the House, apart from the second reading debate. There are many technicalities in this bill, covering many areas of problems. The EPA, the unacceptable impacts, the net gain and the streamlined pathways are all technicalities in this bill that need to be addressed. Judging by its shutdown that we've seen today of democratic debate, this is not a government that looks like it is prepared to do any negotiation at all around these bills. There are technicalities that will have unintended consequences throughout all of these bills, which this government doesn't seem prepared to hear about—on these EPBC reforms. It's important.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and to this set of bills. I wasn't able to speak on consideration in detail on this bill before the House, because the government shut me down....
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and to this set of bills. I wasn't able to speak on consideration in detail on this bill before the House, because the government shut me down. I'm not going to get the opportunity to ask the minister representing the minister for the environment the long list of questions that I had to ask. And now I'm going to be allowed just a couple of minutes to say why we do not agree with these bills in their current form. I understand I'm speaking to a bill around administration that is linked to the reform bill. I understand the procedure and that we are speaking to the amendment. But what I would like to do is highlight the difficulties with this bill from the opposition's point of view. I have stakeholders on both sides—on the conservation side and on business, industry and productivity—coming to me saying that this is not workable for them. And what I would like to put to the House and to Australians across the country is that the coalition has been shut down time and time again today when we've been trying to talk about the flaws in this group of bills. I want to talk to the environmental protection authority, which will now have sweeping powers. It'll have a CEO that will not be able to be fired by the minister. If the CEO of the EPA is not performing very well, there will be no scrutiny from the minister. There are some other problems with this bill. Unacceptable impacts in the bills—
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 | Questions without Notice | House debates
Mr Speaker, it is around relevance, because the minister was not asked about those on this side. The minister was asked about critical minerals, and the Western Australian Premier wandering...
Mr Speaker, it is around relevance, because the minister was not asked about those on this side. The minister was asked about critical minerals, and the Western Australian Premier wandering around begging you all to listen to—
My question is to the Minister for Resources. Yesterday the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, was wandering around parliament, pleading with every minister who would listen to please,...
My question is to the Minister for Resources. Yesterday the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, was wandering around parliament, pleading with every minister who would listen to please, please, please not cave in to the Labor Left dominated backbench on the EPBC bills. Will the minister listen to the Premier of her own state about critical minerals, or to her left-wing backbench here in Canberra?
My question is to the Minister for Resources. Yesterday the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, was wandering around parliament pleading with every minister who would listen to please,...
My question is to the Minister for Resources. Yesterday the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, was wandering around parliament pleading with every minister who would listen to please, please, please not cave in to the Labor Left dominated backbench on the EPBC bills. Will the minister listen to the Premier of her own state or to her left-wing backbench?
I'm aggrieved by this government, which has gagged debate time and time again. We have all been here witnessing what's been going on. What is this government hiding? They did not allow me the...
I'm aggrieved by this government, which has gagged debate time and time again. We have all been here witnessing what's been going on. What is this government hiding? They did not allow me the opportunity to speak in consideration in detail and to ask the minister who is representing the environment minister in this House questions on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the bill that we are now talking about, the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025. We have questions, on behalf of Australians, that this minister will not answer. He will not give the coalition the opportunity to ask questions in consideration in detail. Now, this does not look to me and this does not look to Australians to be a government that is willing to negotiate on the EPBC reform bills. To shut down debate, when I had 50 questions for you, Minister, in consideration in detail, and then to be closed—
I'm seeking the call to speak to the consideration in detail on the EPA bill.