Max Chandler-Mather's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Tropical Cyclone Alfred | Statements on Indulgence | House debates
I'm so proud of the way that our community responded to Tropical Cyclone Alfred and ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. As the cyclone was bearing down on Brisbane and the community started to face what...
I'm so proud of the way that our community responded to Tropical Cyclone Alfred and ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. As the cyclone was bearing down on Brisbane and the community started to face what could be the severe consequences of a cyclone making landfall in Brisbane, we put a big callout for volunteers across our community to help, at first with the sandbagging and knocking on doors to let people know that their houses may well be at risk of flooding. Frankly, the response was overwhelming in its positivity. Hundreds of people signed up in the course of just a few days, which allowed us and my colleagues, Elizabeth Watson-Brown and Stephen Bates, to coordinate one of the biggest volunteer efforts I've been involved in, mobilising hundreds of volunteers across our electorates—at first, just to pack and deliver sandbags. In fact, when the community volunteers got there, the lines for those sandbag operations were sometimes four or five hours long. We got them down to 30 or 40 minutes, and that's thanks to the incredible response from our communities across the Brisbane metropolitan region. We met a lot of incredible people along the way. People who had lined up for four hours to pick-up sandbags for themselves had, by the time they got to the front of the line, decided to stay for another three or four hours to help pack sandbags for other people. A disability support worker, who was technically on leave, waited four hours in line to pick up a bunch of sandbags for all of the disabled people she was supporting and then drove around to drop them off across the electorate. I could spend this entire time covering the incredible stories from our community, but what also became clear over the course of this crisis, as we moved from sandbagging to dropping off food to members of our local community who were particularly vulnerable and in the clean-up afterwards—hauling flood damaged furniture onto the street and taking green waste to the tip for the people who otherwise couldn't do it—is that, time and again, when these climate crises hit, the people most acutely affected are those that are most vulnerable, those who are already struggling in our society. Three stories stand out for me to illustrate how dire the consequences are going to be for the most vulnerable in our society unless we do something serious about climate change—not just do something serious about climate change but also start to take the impacts of climate change seriously and spend real money and resources on mitigation and protecting our most vulnerable. One person I spoke to was a single mum with a kid who was six years old, and that kid is disabled. She was already homeless and sleeping in a friend's room. That room flooded as a result of the cyclone, and she had nowhere else to go. In another case, one of our amazing volunteers, Will, was knocking on people's doors to see if anybody needed help, when he encountered a completely overwhelmed single mum with three kids who couldn't afford to go to the supermarket, not least because her local one was closed. She was at the brink of tears, and all that her kids wanted was Macca's. I will shout out to Will, because out of his own money he went and grabbed Macca's for that entire family, and it was a lovely interaction. But, by pure chance, we knocked on her door. She could have been left completely overwhelmed and alone. Finally, there was a disability support pensioner who had spent most of her income on rent. When we were asked to stockpile enough food to last three days, she realised she didn't have enough money to buy enough food for one night, so we ended up dropping off a food hamper for her, but, again, there are a lot of people that would have fallen through the cracks. Time and again it is our most vulnerable in our society that are impacted. This feels particularly unjust because the major driver for so-called natural disasters like this are the coal and gas corporations who continue to make billions of dollars in profit and do not suffer any of the consequences of the climate crisis that they're causing. We know for a fact that one of the major impacts of climate change in Australia is going to see serious damaging events like Cyclone Alfred move further south. The Coral Sea temperatures where Cyclone Alfred formed in January and February were at record highs. The temperature that you need for a cyclone to sustain itself is more than 26.5 degrees and for one of the first time is ever those with a sea temperatures off the coast of Brisbane. We know for a fact that scientists say that, as a result of climate change, cyclones are going to be more intense, they are going to come further south, they are going to move slower, they are going to hold more energy and they are going to dump more rain. We know for a fact that warming temperatures are going to see the atmosphere hold more moisture and dump more rain when we have these events, just like Queensland may well be facing again as we speak. Again, the consequences are borne by the most vulnerable working people in this country while coal and gas billionaires and big corporations make off like bandits. It bears repeating again and again and again: Australia is the second-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. In this budget there are $50 billion of tax handouts for fossil fuels. Coal and gas corporations often get away with paying $0 in tax and this government has approved over 30 new coal and gas projects, directly contributing to the climate crisis that is going to make things like Cyclone Alfred more frequent and more common. What will it take, genuinely, for this government and both sides of politics to wake up to the fact that Australia will be one of the harshly hit when it comes to climate disasters and climate change and global warming? It is being driven by the refusal from both sides of politics to face up to the fact that it is coal and gas driving this crisis, it is coal and gas profiting off it, it is coal and gas donating to the major political parties and it is coal and gas that seems to run the policy of both major parties when it comes to climate change.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It beggars belief that, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis, a climate crisis and an environmental crisis, in the dying days of this parliament, when Labor could work with...
It beggars belief that, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis, a climate crisis and an environmental crisis, in the dying days of this parliament, when Labor could work with the Greens to pass much-needed legislation to reduce student debt or allow people to see their GP for free, instead what Labor are doing is a dirty deal with the Liberals and Nationals to weaken Australia's environmental laws. It's disgraceful. In the context of a climate and environmental crisis devastating this country, a series of weakening laws will be passed through this parliament in a deal between Labor and the Liberals and Nationals that may well make it easier for coal and gas projects to continue into the future even where the science proves they're having a devastating impact on our environment. Why is this happening? Basically it seems to be about ensuring the destructive salmon-farming industry can continue down in Tasmania, which is leading to the destruction and extinction of a precious Australian species, the maugean skate. The problem is that it's not just this; it's even worse than that, because the way these laws are written is so broad as to weaken Australia's environmental laws and, again, make it easier for the expansion of coal and gas in this country, cooking the planet. Why on earth in the dying days of this parliament has Labor chosen to do this? When an Australian species faces extinction, they should be going out of their way to protect that native species, the maugean skate. Instead, what they're doing is pre-empting legal challenges from environmental groups that could have successfully protected this species and then changing the rules under the feet of these environmental groups just to make sure the salmon industry can continue. What is the point of having environmental laws if, every time it looks like an environmental or climate group might successfully challenge a coal or gas project or successfully challenge the salmon-farming industry and protect a native species, Labor, at the behest of those corporations, turns around, works with the Liberals, changes the rules and screws over our environment, our nature and our climate? Don't take the Greens' words for it; this is what the head of the ACF has said about this disgraceful betrayal of Australia's environment and climate: Labor came to government in 2022 promising to strengthen Australia's failing nature laws, but ends the term rushing through a bill to weaken them … This amendment knowingly risks the extinction of a unique, irreplaceable Australian species. The Maugean skate survived the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, but it may not survive the Albanese government. Carve-outs for particular industries are bad news for nature. The logging industry's broad exemption to this law has resulted in untold damage to nature over 25 years. Just to be clear, in many respects, as a result of these changes, environmental laws were stronger under Morrison than they are under Labor. Not only this but the Labor Party promised to introduce an environmental protection agency, where the Greens had secured a deal, where the environment minister had written to the Greens praising the deal with the Greens. What happened? The mining industry and the WA Premier teamed up to force the Prime Minister and this federal Labor government to renege on a deal to improve and strengthen our environmental laws. That's genuinely shocking because it begs the question: who runs this country? I thought it was meant to be this parliament, not the mining industry, not coal and gas corporations, not the salmon-farming industry. Why is it that, every time the coal and gas corporations or the mining industry ask for something, they get it? What about the millions of Australians right now struggling to make ends meet? The head of Santos can ask for a rule to be changed or the law to be changed in this country, and the Labor government will go out of their way to do it. What about the millions of people in this country begging for more cost-of-living relief or the renters begging for help? They never get what they want. Why is it that, always in this place, big corporations and billionaires get rules changed overnight? This bill is ultimately a demonstration of the fact that big corporations and billionaires wield far too much power over this place, time and again in this term of parliament. When the Greens secured a deal to introduce million-dollar fines for bankers, all it took was the head of the Australian Banking Association, former Labor premier Anna Bligh, to pick up the phone and force Labor to renege on the deal in under 24 hours. Why is it that, when we were pushing to raise taxes on coal and gas corporations and make them pay their fair share in tax, we found out that when they were writing these rules there were representatives from Santos, ExxonMobil and Chevron in the room providing advice on how those corporations would be taxed? Now we come to this. In the last week of parliament the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are bending over backwards to serve the interests of big business at the expense of our environment, our climate and the millions of Australians who just want to see our environmental laws strengthened. It's genuinely shameful. I know there are Labor members in this place who are not happy about this move. As I understand it, there had to be three emergency meetings over the course of the weekend just to convince the Labor caucus to agree to these changes. I understand the need to maintain unity and things like that, but now is the time to speak out. How many times do we have to see the Labor Party renege on the principles they claim to represent for the interests of big corporations before Labor members in this place stand up and speak out against these actions? As long as Labor members refuse to speak out, the Labor Party is not going to change. What's clear now is that, if we want stronger environmental and climate laws in the next term of parliament, if we want to break the hold that the big corporations and the big coal and gas industry have over the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals, and, as a result, this parliament, we need to break the stranglehold that the major parties wield over this place. The only way we are going to get stronger environmental laws, stronger climate laws and a parliament that is prepared to take on the power and interests of billionaires and big corporations is if there is a powerful crossbench made up of progressive Independents and Greens willing to push Labor to properly act on the climate and environmental crisis. That is the only way it's going to happen. There's been one government in the last few decades that has taken real, substantial action on the climate and environmental crisis with world-leading climate legislation, and that was the minority Gillard government, with the Greens and Independents in the balance of power. It took the power out of the factional bosses in the Labor Party, who far too often represent the interests of billionaires and big corporations, and put that power in the hands of the Australian parliament and, ultimately, the Australian people. If anything has been made clear over this term of parliament it is that, as long as the Australian public is forced to rely on the Labor Party, the Liberals and the Nationals, we're not going to get the urgent action we need in this country. And it starts, ultimately, by breaking the power that big corporations wield over this place. Isn't it fitting that, at the end of this term of parliament, once again we are reminded who ultimately runs the Labor Party, the Liberals and the Nationals—not the interests of the environment, not the interests of the climate, not the interests of the Australian people but the interests of big corporations? When they tell the government to jump, the government jumps and if they need to do it with the Liberals and Nationals then so be it. If you wonder why so many Australians are fed up with politics and you wonder why so many Australians are switching off politics right now, it's because they watched things like this happen. They watched the Labor Party get up and say they care about the environment, care about environmental laws, and then do two things. First, they reneged on a deal with the Greens to strengthen our environmental laws, the laws the environment minister praised as a matter of public record in the Guardian. The Prime Minister turned around and killed the deal at the behest of the mining industry and the WA Premier. And now this. Now this! But I have genuine hope that in the next term of parliament we can reverse this disastrous decision and we can start to strengthen our environmental and climate laws, protect the Maugean skate and, more broadly, protect Australia's nature, environment and climate that is currently straining under the pressure of decades of terrible decisions by both major parties in this place. I live in Brisbane, and we have just experienced a so-called natural disaster in Cyclone Alfred, but isn't it abundantly clear to everyone—certainly to all the climate scientists and a lot of the people I speak to—that this is going to happen more and more frequently until this parliament is willing to stand up to the climate-destructive coal and gas corporations and the big corporations, who far too often get their way in this place?
It beggars belief that, in the dying days of this parliament, in the middle of a housing crisis, a climate crisis, an environmental crisis and a cost-of-living crisis, rather than working with...
It beggars belief that, in the dying days of this parliament, in the middle of a housing crisis, a climate crisis, an environmental crisis and a cost-of-living crisis, rather than working with the Greens to pass urgent, much-needed legislation on reducing student debt or ensuring people can see their GP for free, instead what Labor are doing is teaming up with Dutton's Liberals to do a dirty deal to weaken Australia's environmental laws. The weakening of these laws may make it easier—
Federal Election | Statements by Members | House debates
Right now, this country is run in the interests of billionaires and big corporations. While single parents are forced to make tough choices between feeding their kids or paying the rent, Coles...
Right now, this country is run in the interests of billionaires and big corporations. While single parents are forced to make tough choices between feeding their kids or paying the rent, Coles and Woolworths record some of the highest profit margins in the world. While mortgage-holders and renters are up to their eyeballs in rental and mortgage stress, struggling to make that next rent or mortgage payment, the Commonwealth Bank recorded a record half-yearly $5 billion profit off the back of the misery of millions of renters and mortgage-holders. It doesn't have to be this way. It genuinely doesn't. While the people in power and the political establishment may rely on crushing your hope that things can get better, they can. This election, we have a genuine chance to change things for the better. You do not have to choose between going backwards under the Liberals or more tinkering around the edges under Labor. We have a genuine chance to elect a broad progressive minority parliament, where we keep the Liberals and Nationals out but we push Labor to take real action on the issues that matter to people's lives—taxing billionaires and big corporations, bringing dental and mental health under Medicare, starting to treat renters like they deserve to be treated rather than like second-class citizens and taking climate change seriously. If you want all of that, then you have an opportunity this election to vote one Greens and push for real, genuine, positive change.
Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
yes, don't you worry about that!—to help people access early childhood education. It's genuinely extraordinary. Honourable members interjecting— Now we see some animation in the...
yes, don't you worry about that!—to help people access early childhood education. It's genuinely extraordinary. Honourable members interjecting— Now we see some animation in the parliament. Good! Why is it that, time and again in this parliament, the lowest income people in this society, the people who are often the most downtrodden, are told to wait time and again. The government has proposed a 20 per cent reduction in student debt but said we have to wait until after the next election. We know the impact of this activity test disproportionately affects not only low-income people but also First Nations people. One of the other really good things about this bill is that it ensures that First Nations children will be eligible for 100 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight. Great! We've just had a Closing the gap report that demonstrates the huge gaps in educational outcomes between First Nations children and other children in this country. So why not accelerate this bill? To be clear, this is not directed at some of the Labor members in this House, because I know that it was not your decision. But it is deeply frustrating when we have gone privately and publicly to the government and said: 'We will pass this bill unamended as quickly as possible. We will secure its passage through the House and Senate using any means necessary to make this bill law before the election.' That's what we've said. And yet we have seen this government turn around and do a dirty deal with the Liberals on electoral reform instead. The effect of one of the other bills that's being gagged and shoved through right now in the Senate will be cutting the access to and amount of DSP, or disability support pension, of young people aged 18 to 21. That's apparently a priority, but actually helping people in this country to get access to child care is not. To give the human impact of the decision to delay this bill, I'll quote from the ABC: Megan Hunt loves being a mum to her two and four-year-old boys but there's been a sting as she's tried to navigate what she feels is best for her children. Ms Hunt, a nurse, didn't want to return to work immediately after maternity leave and decided to stay home with her sons until they were three. "Parenting young kids is really full on, it's really intense, it requires pretty much everything you've got—emotionally, physically, financially—which I know I would not trade for the world but any parent will tell you they need a bit of flexibility and you do need support," … Before her children were born she worked casually as a nurse and picking up work in the in-demand profession wouldn't be a problem. That's what she thought. When her eldest son turned three, she hoped to return to casual part-time work while her son attended pre-school. But the uncertainty around her hours as a casual employee made it impossible to secure the childcare subsidy (CCS) and the doors to childcare were closed This had devastating impacts on her career. There are a lot of women in particular around the country whose lives could be improved right now if we accelerated the passage of the bill. It genuinely beggars belief. In what is potentially the last week of this parliament before an election where we do not know the outcome, we could accelerate this. Instead, the government has prioritised a stitch-up on electoral laws that will see their party get more public money from taxpayers and a bill that cuts the DSP for young people aged 18 to 21. It would be great if we heard someone from the government explain why electoral law reform that won't even be enacted this year—that is a stitch-up for the major parties—is a higher priority than helping people like Megan get access to early childhood education. And you wonder why people are fed up with politics. Their lives are tough right now. They are doing it tough right now, and our childcare system is in crisis. There is a bill before this parliament right now that could help them. Are we seriously going to suggest that we're going to get through this entire week and not do our jobs to get this bill through as quickly as possible? It's genuinely shocking. Of course, the Greens have a much more expansive childcare policy. We think it should be completely universal and free for everyone because we think that access to early childhood education is just as important as access to primary and secondary school. You wouldn't countenance charging, sometimes, thousands of dollars of fees to prohibit people from accessing primary or secondary school, so why would you do it for early childhood education? Notwithstanding the fact that often when you're trying to get the subsidies under these schemes it's deeply complex, and it almost feels like you need a master's degree to get through it—notwithstanding all of that and our much more expansive policy—we have put that aside and said that we will not demand one single amendment in return for the passage of this bill. We will pass it unamended. I hope that there are ministers and people in charge of the Labor Party watching this right now and understanding that this is our message to the Labor Party here. We will pass it. The choice that the Labor Party has is to take that olive branch and use it to get it through the House and Senate as quickly as possible. Drop the overprioritisation of stitch-ups on electoral reforms. Drop the overprioritisation of cutting the disability support pension for 18- to 21-year-olds to effectively close the loophole. Instead, let's prioritise getting women, children and parents access to good-quality early childhood education, and get rid of a draconian Morrison-era law that effectively cruelled people's access to early childhood education. Indeed, one of the things that Megan said in this article is: The activity test is really tied up in what the parents are doing, when the question should really be, 'would this benefit kids?' Because then it really doesn't matter what the parents are doing. I would argue that the question, 'Does this benefit kids?' applies to everyone in this place, in the Senate and in the Labor Party as well. If they genuinely believe that this bill is important—and certainly the Greens do—then they will roll up and they will accelerate the passage of the bill through the House and through the Senate. It's an easy test that the Government can pass because what I'm about to propose is that we vote on this right now. I move: That the question be now put.
There's a lot of good in the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025—in particular, getting rid of the childcare activity test, a draconian measure introduced by...
There's a lot of good in the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025—in particular, getting rid of the childcare activity test, a draconian measure introduced by the Morrison government. To be clear about what it does—it was introduced in 2018 and requires a parent to work, study or volunteer to qualify for the Child Care Subsidy. The effect is to deny around 125,000 kids access to early childhood education—a terrible, terrible measure. While the Greens want it completely abolished, this bill, at the very least, gets rid of it for three days. That's a positive impact on over 100,000 children. That's great. What is very, very frustrating, deeply frustrating, is that a bill that has been Greens policy for a long time is before this parliament and is being effectively delayed. We have heard from the government—despite the fact that the Greens have come out and said, 'We will pass this measure completely unamended,' instead, what the government have said is that they will not pass it in this sitting week, potentially the last week of parliament before the election. You might think: 'Maybe there's just so much on the agenda, and we can't get to helping children access early childhood education. We can't help mothers and fathers get back to work or live good lives.' What's actually happened today is that the government has proposed in the Senate to ram through and accelerate the passage of a stitch-up on electoral reform. The effect of what we're seeing right now is that government has prioritised effectively rigging the electoral system and donation laws rather than passing their own bill—
Aircraft Noise, Griffith Electorate: Schools | Adjournment | House debates
It's been more than four years since the opening of Brisbane Airport's second runway, and Labor and the Liberals have done nothing to fix aircraft noise that is smashing thousands of Brisbane...
It's been more than four years since the opening of Brisbane Airport's second runway, and Labor and the Liberals have done nothing to fix aircraft noise that is smashing thousands of Brisbane residents every single day. Interrupted sleep is a nightly occurrence for many people in Brisbane, and despite having heard from thousands of people on the issue, Labor and the LNP don't seem to care. People in Griffith are sick of token consultation and window-dressing. The solutions are right there in front of us. They are a cap, a curfew and more flights over the water. They are exactly the same solutions that Sydney airport has had since the 1990s. They haven't stopped Sydney from becoming a global destination, having cheap airfares or hosting the Olympics, but they have helped tens of thousands of people get a reprieve from severe, daily aircraft noise. That's exactly why the Greens introduced a private member's bill into parliament to introduce those same measures for Brisbane. It's been four years, and I still haven't heard a single good explanation as to why Sydney deserves better than Brisbane. Why does the Prime Minister's electorate deserve better than Brisbane? These solutions have precedents in Sydney, and they have the backing of the community that are being affected by aircraft noise, but the Labor Party and the LNP won't give them the time of day. Last November, the Greens brought on a vote for the government just to consider a curfew and cap for Brisbane Airport, and neither Labor nor the Liberals could even approve or support that. It was not to pass the bill but just to consider curfews for Brisbane. For three years, the minister for transport has refused to meet with the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance. Why? We know from the Greens' Senate inquiry into aircraft noise that she meets regularly with aviation industry representatives. She has plenty of time to meet with them, but when it comes to community organisations like the BFPCA—nada. When this government released its aviation white paper, which sets out the government's plan for the aviation sector out to 2050, why was there almost was no mention of how the government intends to manage flight noise and no plan to actually deliver on high-speed rail by 2050? Instead, there was just huge aviation industry growth and private profits. In fact, the government plans to double Australian domestic air traffic as well as allow a five- to six-fold increase of Australian international air traffic by 2050. The truth is that Labor and the LNP have decided they won't do anything which hurts the profitability of Qantas, Virgin or Brisbane Airport Corporation. Perhaps Brisbane Airport Corporation should have never been privatised in the first place. People affected by flight noise deserve so much better than Labor and the LNP. Both are so beholden to the aviation industry. The Greens got up a Senate inquiry that made 21 recommendations into tackling aircraft noise. We have a private member's bill. We've secured more flights over the water and brought this issue to the national stage. We just need Labor and the LNP to come to the table. To the people of Griffith affected by flight noise: I know this has been a long fight, and I know many of you are as frustrated as I am by inaction on this issue. I've been committed to this fight for a long time and will continue to take up the fight in this term of parliament. Every week in four public schools across Griffith, a bunch of amazing volunteers head out to those schools, organised out of my office, to run free school breakfasts. In fact, we have now served over 40,000 free school breakfasts across our electorate. I want to give a special shout-out to a few select volunteers and, in particular, to a grade 6 student who's just graduated last year, Abbie. Abbie at Mayfield State School was rocking up, I think, every single week for almost an entire year. We worked out that she was individually involved in serving thousands and thousands of free school breakfasts herself. She is an absolute stand-out member of the Brisbane community and our electorate. If people want to know, the entire program is funded out of a contribution from of my salary—all up, it's about $80,000 now over this term. Crucially, the only reason this can run is because of the hard work of a bunch of volunteers in our electorate. We have spoken to so many families who are doing it tough at the moment. We know that, of the three million Australians living in poverty right now, 775,000 of them are children. In a wealthy country like Australia, no child should have to go to school hungry, but the reality is far too many do in a country where, at the same time, billionaires have made off with over half a trillion dollars worth of wealth. We'll continue to run and expand these programs in Griffith for two reasons: (1) to help people in the here and now; and (2) most crucially, to make the argument that, if we can do it, so can the federal government.
Taxation | Private Members' Business | House debates
And then we can push for a hopeful vision for this country, one that says we can tax billionaires and big corporations, make them pay their fair share in tax and use that to do things like bring...
And then we can push for a hopeful vision for this country, one that says we can tax billionaires and big corporations, make them pay their fair share in tax and use that to do things like bring dental and mental health for everyone into Medicare so no-one has to skip a meal just so they can fund their kid's trip or their trip to the dentist. We can bring back free university and TAFE so working people in this country can go to university without fear of copping tens of thousands of dollars in student debt. We can tax billionaires and big corporations to build enough public housing in this country so everyone has the home that they need to live a good life, just like people in Australia used to. We can start to bring the energy system back into public hands so we don't have private energy companies ripping us off on our power bills to make massive profits. We can follow Norway and tax our gas industry properly, take that billions of dollars in wealth that is currently going offshore and put it into our country right now to do things like raise the pension above the poverty line, raise Jobseeker and other income support payments above the poverty line, and make sure everyone in this country has a good life. That's what we're fighting for.
A message to Labor: you don't beat the far right and their billionaire and corporate mates by adopting their policies, taking their money in political donations and offering more of the same. We...
A message to Labor: you don't beat the far right and their billionaire and corporate mates by adopting their policies, taking their money in political donations and offering more of the same. We have seen it in the US. Trump blamed immigrants for the cost of living and the housing crisis, and what did the Democrats do? They acted tough on migrants, took donations from billionaires and basically proposed the status quo with a bit of tinkering around the edges. Well, we saw the result of that. Somehow they allowed Trump, a billionaire property mogul backed by billionaires like Elon Musk, to become the anti-establishment change candidate. Now Peter Dutton is blaming migrants for the cost-of-living crisis. What are Labor doing? They're passing some of the most draconian antimigrant laws this country has seen. That's what Labor are doing in response. They are breaking their own policy platform to adopt Dutton's policy proposal for mandatory minimum sentencing, and they're dumping their own environmental policy to please a bunch of massive mining corporations—oh, and taking donations from billionaires like Anthony Pratt, himself a supporter of Trump—and proposing basically the status quo with a bit of tinkering around the edges. Now Labor are somehow allowing Peter Dutton—the guy who rides in billionaire Gina Rinehart's private jet to special parties and thinks mining corporations should pay less tax than they already do—to become the anti-establishment change candidate, just like Trump. Time and again we have seen far-right thugs like Trump and Dutton rise to power in times of economic crisis only after political parties like Labor utterly fail to offer any genuine alternative vision, one that directly addresses the cost-of-living and housing concerns of working people and offers an alternative narrative to the one offered by the far right. People are losing hope because the main opposition party is proposing radical right-wing change and the other party is promising basically more of the same. When more of the same is skipping meals to pay the rent, I can understand why people are angry. But here's the real problem, and, if the Labor Party had guts, this is what they would say. One-third of Australia's biggest corporations pay zero dollars in tax. Meanwhile, two-thirds of all retirees who rent are living in poverty, skipping meals, sitting in the dark to save on their power bills and dreading their next rent increase. The real problem is not migrants. It's the fact that Australia's 159 billionaires more than doubled their wealth over the last few years to over half a trillion dollars, or $584 billion, while one in three single parents and their families live below the poverty line. That is over 300,000 kids with single parents in this country living below the poverty line. The real problem is that, over a seven-year period, five of the largest multinational gas corporations operating in Australia made $134 billion in revenue and, you guessed it, paid zero dollars in tax. Meanwhile, millions of Australians are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage. The real problem is billionaires and big corporations wielding enormous power over our political system, and they use that power to make the vast majority of our lives tougher while using their ownership of giant media companies to blame migrants. The silver lining in this context is that Australia has a very different political system to that of the United States. We aren't forced to choose between a far-right radical like Trump and more of the same in the Democrats. In Australia you can choose something else. Our preferential voting system means you can vote for the Greens and then preference whoever you like after that, and then you can make sure that you keep Dutton out but actually push for a hopeful vision—
Housing | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. In five years, rents have increased by 55 per cent and house prices by 49 per cent. The income a renter needs to buy a median priced house in a capital city...
My question is to the Prime Minister. In five years, rents have increased by 55 per cent and house prices by 49 per cent. The income a renter needs to buy a median priced house in a capital city is $197,000, yet the housing minister says Labor wants house prices to keep rising. Will Labor stop giving property investors with multiple properties big tax handouts that turbocharge house prices and deny renters the chance to buy a home and instead finally phase out negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount?
The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned.
Federal Election | Constituency Statements | House debates
Billionaires have too much power over politics, and it's clear they would love nothing more than to export the same destructive US style politics and Trumpism into Australia. It was on full...
Billionaires have too much power over politics, and it's clear they would love nothing more than to export the same destructive US style politics and Trumpism into Australia. It was on full display at Trump's inauguration: front row seats for Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. They're the richest people in the world. If any of these guys lost 99 per cent of their wealth overnight they'd still wake up billionaires tomorrow. Even if you saved $1,000 a day and you started from the earliest record of first humans—that was 315,000 years ago—you still wouldn't have as much money as any of them right now. If that sounds incomprehensible it's because it's exactly that: incomprehensible. There are 159 billionaires in Australia—the most there's ever been. According to Oxfam, a single average one is earning $67,000 every single hour. Just one is earning $67,000. That's the median salary, meaning that every hour these billionaires are earning what half of the workers across the country earn over an entire year. Many of these workers can barely afford their rent, mortgage, groceries or even to go to the dentist. Is this the sort of country we want to live in—one where billionaires like Clive Palmer can take home 1,300 times the typical wage while over three million people live in poverty? If your answer is 'of course not' then the next question is: how could this happen? You've just got to follow the money. Billionaires donated over $2 million to the major parties last financial year alone. That's a pretty good deal for access and influence. In fact, the opposition leader flew across the country to party with Australia's richest billionaire, Gina Rinehart, who's donated millions to the Liberal Party through the Cormack Foundation. The Liberals' track record shows exactly who they're working for: cutting penalty rates, attacking workers rights and slashing funding for public services like hospitals and public schools all while dishing out tax breaks to big corporations and their billionaire mates. There's no-one they won't scapegoat to do it—refugees, migrants, First Nations people, the queer community, people on income support. This is the opposition leader's playbook: stoke fear and division while his billionaire mates get richer. But we will not let him win. If you're worried about the future, the antidote is fighting for a bold, positive plan to tackle the cost-of-living and housing crises, and the Greens have one. Right now, one in three big corporations pays no tax, but, if we make those corporations and billionaires pay their fair share, we can fund the services everyone needs, like getting dental and mental health into Medicare, ensuring you can see a GP for free, wiping all student debt, 50c public transport fares, making price gouging illegal by the big supermarkets, stopping the tax handouts to wealthy property investors and capping rent increases, all while powering the country with renewables, not new coal and gas. This election we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The last time the Greens were in minority government we got dental for kids into Medicare and world-leading climate legislation. This time we can stop Dutton and push Labor to act.
Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
That's his name, sorry. Whilst we are supporting the bill in this House, we strongly urge Labor to improve the bill by including a presumption of reimbursement and ensuring offshore tech...
That's his name, sorry. Whilst we are supporting the bill in this House, we strongly urge Labor to improve the bill by including a presumption of reimbursement and ensuring offshore tech companies are held to account. Laws to prevent and respond to scams must support the interests of people, not corporations. Labor's Scams Prevention Framework Bill could have been a much-needed opportunity to crack down on the harm caused by scams. Disappointingly, Labor has chosen to prioritise the interests of major banks and multimillion-dollar profits of those banks over the interests of everyday people. As a result, without significant amendments, the bill will fail to adequately prevent scams from occurring in the first place or support people impacted by scams to quickly seek redress. In a joint submission on the exposure draft, a broad coalition of consumer groups, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, calculated that, to seek redress for a scam, a typical person would have to go through an almost 30-step process that would take up to two years. Even worse, at the end of this process, there is no guarantee they will get any of their money back. This is because the bill places an onus on the individual to take on their bank, telco and/or social media platforms to prove that each company did not meet the requirements for the overarching principles or sector-specific code. According to the consumer groups, this is a complex, legalistic, time-draining and resource-draining task for an individual. It sets a near-impossible David-and-Goliath battle between people who have been scammed and the potentially massive corporations they have to take on. If a person manages to make it through this convoluted process, a business is only liable to reimburse them if the person can prove the business did not comply with their obligations under the framework. The Law Council of Australia indicated in their submission to the bill inquiry that the proposed laws would primarily result in compensation being denied. Labor's proposed framework is far from best practice. For years, consumer organisations have consistently called for a model that includes a presumption of reimbursement adapted from the UK's effective approach. Under this model, banks would refund people impacted by scams within 10 days and recover costs from other companies involved in proportion to their liability, including telcos and digital platforms. The Greens support this model because it is evidence based and places the interests of people, not corporations, at the centre. It ensures people who are scammed are quickly reimbursed at the point where they lost their money, and banks, telcos and digital platforms are incentivised to innovate to prevent scams from occurring. The Consumer Action Law Centre indicated in a joint media release that, without reimbursement at its core, Labor's Scams Prevention Framework is simply not going to work. Instead of listening to consumers, Labor has blatantly caved to the big banks. The big banks don't want a presumption of reimbursement, because it would put them on the hook to take responsibility for scams. Given that the largest four banks raked in almost $30 billion in profits in the last financial year, the Greens believe they can afford to be held to account to protect their customers from scams. Treasury documents released under freedom of information state, 'Treasury has met regularly with the Australian Banking Association and member banks to align government and industry efforts in relation to the bill.' Even other industry groups were concerned that Labor prioritised the interests of the major banks above all else. DIGI, which represents the tech industry, noted in their submission to the draft bill: While it appears that there has been intense and ongoing consultation … with the Australian Banking Association … the same level of consultation has not occurred with other regulated industries … It is clear Labor will do anything to support the profits of their major donors. The latest donations data shows that, in the 2023-24 financial year, NAB, CommBank and Westpac each donated over $60,000 to Labor and over $70,000 to the coalition. It's astounding how much influence just $60,000 will buy from the major parties. The Greens also want to bring into the Australian jurisdiction the multibillion-dollar tech companies regulated under the bill. Unless steps are taken to bring offshore digital platforms under Australian domestic corporate, criminal and consumer laws, any reform will be difficult if not impossible to enforce. The inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society heard from many witnesses about the barriers to legal accountability and the ability of platforms to avoid legal redress or accountability for harms done on their platforms. Even the basic service of legal documents on Meta to commence a legal action appears to be almost impossible in Australia. The committee recommended that 'the Australian government consider options for greater enforceability of Australian laws for social media platforms, including amending regulation and legislation to effectively bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction'. The Greens supported this recommendation and further recommends herein that the government act urgently to do so. If the government are serious about reining in the power of the tech giants, combating scams and keeping our kids and community safe online, then they will make sure any legislation is enforceable on those they seek to hold to account. Whilst the Greens are supporting this bill in the House, as we recognise Australia urgently needs regulation to combat scams, we urge Labor to prioritise the interests of people, not multibillion-dollar corporations, by amending the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement and ensuring that offshore tech companies are held to account.
Scams can have a devastating impact on people's lives and destroy people's lives in some instances. The Greens will be supporting the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 in the House because we...
Scams can have a devastating impact on people's lives and destroy people's lives in some instances. The Greens will be supporting the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 in the House because we have listened to key stakeholders, including many organisations that represent the interests of consumers, who are calling for the bill to be passed in this term of parliament. Australia is lagging behind other countries in our response to scams and, as a result, too many people and their families are harmed by scams each year. In 2023, tens of thousands of people across the country lost over $2.7 billion to scammers. Scams wreak havoc on so many people's lives. Australia is lucrative for scammers because Labor and the coalition have, up until this point, failed to implement a comprehensive regulatory framework, leaving it largely to industry to undertake voluntary preventive measures. As a result, protections against scams are piecemeal and inadequate, often leaving people with no avenue to recover scam losses. This is reflected in the data as currently people, not businesses, pay for 96 per cent of scam losses. Whilst we are supporting this bill in the House, we strongly urge Labor to improve the bill by including a presumption— We hear interjections from a Liberal member. Sorry, I can't remember your name. Frankly, it's astounding. You had nine years to fix this, and you have the gall to get up and lecture other people about not doing any work.
Gambling Advertising | Questions without Notice | House debates
On relevance: this is a serious question. It went to gambling reform and actions on reform and cracking down on gambling advertising. The minister is making light of a serious issue that impacts...
On relevance: this is a serious question. It went to gambling reform and actions on reform and cracking down on gambling advertising. The minister is making light of a serious issue that impacts people's lives. I think the people of Australia should expect a reasonable answer. Honourable members interjecting—
Taxation: Resources Industry, Housing, Banking and Financial Services | Grievance Debate | House debates
Something is terribly wrong when a nurse is paying more tax than a multinational gas corporation. In fact, in the last four years, big multinational gas corporations have paid $0 in royalties on...
Something is terribly wrong when a nurse is paying more tax than a multinational gas corporation. In fact, in the last four years, big multinational gas corporations have paid $0 in royalties on 56 per cent of all gas exported overseas from Australia. That's $143 billion in gas, and those big gas corporations paid $0 in royalties—zero! These companies included Santos and Chevron, and, by pure coincidence—I'm sure it's just a complete fluke and this occurred completely by chance—Santos and Chevron happen to have been two of the biggest donors to Labor and the Liberal Party over the last two years. Santos and Chevron have given $290,000 to the Labor Party in donations and $100,000 to the Liberals, which is a pretty good return for those two big corporations because, for instance, Santos, in recent data, in just one year made $6.2 billion in income and paid—you guessed it—$0 in tax. Over a five-year period, Chevron made $43 billion in income selling Australian gas overseas and paid—surprise, surprise—$0 in tax. Now you might think, and maybe some people will argue, that it's just really hard to tax multinational gas corporations. Maybe it's impossible and no country has figured it out—except that's just not true. While Australia exports more gas than Qatar, Qatar collects 20 times more tax from its gas than Australia does. That's 20 times more in tax collection from their gas exports when they export less than Australia. Norway taxes its oil and gas industry at an effective rate of 78 per cent and now has a sovereign wealth fund of close to $3 trillion—$2.9 trillion. In fact, just the interest on that sovereign wealth fund that they have accrued as a result of properly taxing their oil and gas industry helps fund their social programs. They give all their citizens free university education. The Greens have proposed a pretty modest increase to national gas royalties, cracking down on loopholes in the gas taxes at a federal level. Over the next 10 years, that would raise an extra $111 billion in revenue. That's $111 billion in revenue that both sides of politics are leaving on the table in the profit margins of Santos and Chevron rather than in the pockets of ordinary, everyday Australians, who are already doing it tough. How is it fair that a teacher saving up to buy a home is paying more tax than Chevron and Santos in some years? These are companies that make tens of billions of dollars in revenue and often get away with paying $0 in tax. In fact, in the most recent recorded tax year, Santos made over $6 billion in income and paid $0 in income and corporate tax. That means that they gave more in political donations to the Labor and Liberal parties than they paid in corporate tax on $6 billion of revenue. And you wonder why people are fed up with politics! There are pensioners choosing between paying the rent and feeding themselves for a week. There are single parents wondering how they're going to make ends meet at the end of the week after they cover massive mortgage or rent payments. And then you have Chevron and Santos dancing over everyone else, making billions of dollars in revenue and paying $0 in tax. I don't think it's too radical to suggest that we follow countries around the world that properly tax their resource industry, make them pay their fair share in tax and use it to ensure everyone in this country has what they need to live a good life. In the most recent housing data, we have just found out that in Brisbane the median house price has now ticked over $1 million. In the space of a few years in some suburbs, house prices have more than doubled in Brisbane. Basically, that means it's more than triple what someone earning the median income can afford in Brisbane. It's clearly unaffordable for anyone earning an income of less than $200,000 a year. Right now in Brisbane as a result of that price increase, houses in Brisbane now cost 14 times more than the median income. Back when the Prime Minister bought his first house in the early 90s, it was more like five times the average income. The national median price for a house in Australia in capital cities is now $1.2 million—that's four times what someone working with a median income can afford. It's clearly unaffordable for anyone earning less than $229,000 a year. It's 16 times the median income. That's a median house price. Rents in Australia have, since 2022, increased by 40 per cent. We have a situation now where, nationally, in a capital city you have to be earning more than $229,000 to afford price of a home, and in Brisbane you need to be earning more than $200,000. Then you have the federal Labor government say they would like to see house prices continue to increase, and both sides of politics have housing policies that are turbocharging house prices. How is it fair that a property investor, sometimes with 10, 20, 30, 40 or hundreds of investment properties, can collect billions of dollars collectively in tax handouts from this government in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount? In the middle of one of the worst housing crises this country has faced in generations, where so many of my generations are giving up on ever being able to afford a home, you have a situation where the federal government and both sides of politics—both Labor and Liberal—are committing to $176 billion in tax handouts for property investors over the next 10 years. How is it fair that when one-third of this country rents, they have copped 40 per cent in rent increases since 2022? How is it fair that the policies of both the major parties is that they are okay with unlimited rent increases? There is no limit on the amount by which rents can increase. How is it fair that in a country where millions of people are in severe housing stress, this government spends more on tax handouts for property investors than it spends on building public housing? Fixing this housing crisis isn't going to be done by this new wonderful idea or these new complex solutions or this fancy new ideas. All it would take is copying what is done around the world and what Australia did in the past. Start building public housing the way we used to. Stop giving so much money in tax handouts to property investors so that first home buyers and renters actually have a chance. Start putting caps on rent increases the way this country used to and the way countries around the world do. Spain and France both have caps on rent increases. Australian rents right now are increasing at about three times the rate of Spanish and French rent increases. All the Greens are proposing is to take what has worked around the world, take what has worked in Australia in the past, and do it again. I have been in this building now for close to three years, and time and again we have seen the power of billionaires and big corporations win out over the interests of ordinary, everyday people. I'll speak about three moments where that has been starkly clear. One: where the Greens secured a deal with the government to introduce million-dollar fines for bankers who broke the law. You would think that was the bare minimum after the banking royal commission and the devastation that the banking industry wrought on ordinary and everyday Australians. Within 24 hours of that deal being announced, the banking lobby and the Australian Banking Association—headed by none other than former Labor premier Anna Bligh—found out about the deal, and within 24 hours the government had reneged on the deal. That's all it took the banking industry. The Commonwealth Bank earned a $10 billion record profit in 2023—the same year as millions of mortgage holders were in mortgage stress. They get what they want in 24 hours. What about the pensioners who are living in poverty? Why do they have to wait for longer than 24 hours? Why do they have to sometimes wait for years to get what they need? Single parents are choosing between feeding their kids and paying their rent, and they have to wait longer than 24 hours to get what they need. But not the banking industry—no! They get exactly what they want in less than 24 hours, overturning a deal done with the Greens to introduce million-dollar fines for bankers. Then, when it came to gas tax, the government announced the new changes to the PRRT. This is their federal royalty regime that's meant to tax gas corporations. But then we find out that, actually, it raises less money than the government makes from charging interest on student debt. We find out that it carves out a sweetheart deal for Woodside, a major gas corporation in Australia that happens to also have donated to both major parties in the past. And then we come to taxing big corporations. The Greens announced that we'd like to introduce a super profits tax on the big banks and other big multinational corporations. I read the headline: 'Commonwealth Bank CEO labels Greens' tax policy "insidious populism" after firm's $9.8bn profit'. I would argue that what's really wrong with this country is that, in the middle of a massive housing crisis, the big banks can make billion-dollar record profits while millions suffer.
Climate Change | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
We hear the mocking over there. We are honestly getting sick of this. He is a Labor MP, by the way, who was just mocking me and laughing about that. It demonstrates the fundamental disconnect...
We hear the mocking over there. We are honestly getting sick of this. He is a Labor MP, by the way, who was just mocking me and laughing about that. It demonstrates the fundamental disconnect between this political institution and ordinary people out in the world. Because when you think about the consequences of climate change, whether it is lives lost in coal or oil and gas-driven natural disasters, whether it is devastating heatwaves, whether it is sea level rises destroying Pacific communities, whether it is the vulnerable Australians who will be hit first by this climate disaster, that is not something to mock and laugh about. That's something to take seriously. You might find that you disagree with the Greens about a bunch of things, but then go and ask all the climate scientists who say we can't open new coal and gas projects. We would be willing to work with you and discuss a reasonable pathway to phase out existing coal and gas. But, at the very least, let's agree that we can't open more of them and then hand over more billions of dollars to coal, oil and gas corporations. Listen to that passion! Where's that passion for the people who are having their lives destroyed by climate change? Where's the passion for the people who will be destroyed as a result of your party's subservience to fossil fuel corporations? (Time expired)
The science and experts are clear. If we want to stop devastating and catastrophic climate change, we cannot open any new coal and gas projects. It is what the International Energy Agency says,...
The science and experts are clear. If we want to stop devastating and catastrophic climate change, we cannot open any new coal and gas projects. It is what the International Energy Agency says, it is what IPCC climate scientists say and it is what experts around the world say. It is devastating and genuinely difficult to understand how members in this place can get up and pretend like this government is taking climate change seriously when this government has approved in this term of government—and wait for this—28 new coal and gas projects. Australia is the second-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world behind only Russia and ahead of the United States. That alone should be deeply shameful for a country that will face devastating consequences as a result of climate inaction—devastating. We have already experienced them. In my hometown of Brisbane, in the space of just over a decade, we have faced two one-in-100-year floods. I remember going into people's devastated homes, their lives destroyed, and one of the things I thought about is that here in parliament we have two political parties—Labor and the Liberals—who have been utterly captured by the interests of coal and gas corporations. They wield enormous power over our political system. It is not just the millions of dollars in donations that coal and gas corporations make to the two major parties. It is not just that Labor and Liberal resource ministers in the past have gone on to work for the coal, oil and gas industries—before and after their jobs, by the way. It is not just that this government time and time again sings the tune of corporations like Santos and Woodside. But even though Australia is a massive exporter of coal and gas, this country gets a fraction of that revenue in tax—a fraction. It is remarkable that corporations like Santos and Woodside sometimes pay less tax than a nurse. When you look around the world at countries like Norway that get about 60 per cent of taxation revenue from their oil industry and then you look at Australia and it is somewhere closer to nine per cent. Nurses pay a higher tax rate than coal and gas corporations in Australia. That alone should be deeply shameful when we are in a cost-of-living crisis. But let's think about the consequences for a second, such as the devastating floods and heatwaves that disproportionately affect the elderly and vulnerable. In the future their lives will be lost as a result of climate-driven natural disasters, which are hardly natural because they are driven by financial interests in coal, oil and gas corporations that wield enormous power over our political system. It is hard because we speak—
Taxation | Statements by Members | House debates
We all only live once, but so many in my generation are being denied a chance at a good life. So much of our lives is spent working, paying huge portions of our incomes on rents or mortgages, or,...
We all only live once, but so many in my generation are being denied a chance at a good life. So much of our lives is spent working, paying huge portions of our incomes on rents or mortgages, or, worse, living out of a car. Now far too many of my generation will never know the security of owning their own home. In this parliament, over the last 2½ years, the Greens have fought hard for ordinary people, young and old, whose lives seem only to be getting harder day by day. Politics has badly failed millions of people in this country, and it's worth reflecting for a moment on a quote by, of all people, Virginia Woolf, who once reflected on the 'instinct for possession and the rage for acquisition which keeps the stockbroker and the great barrister going indoors to make money and more money and more money, when it is a fact that 500 pounds a year will keep one alive in the sunshine'. With those 500 pounds, she wrote, came the freedom to think and write as she pleased. These days, we certainly need a little bit more than 500 pounds a year, but the point remains. We're not asking for much, and, if we made the billionaires and big corporations finally pay their fair share, we could all have the basics we need to live a good life with security and meaning, full of the things that matter—time with family and friends, to go to the beach and, most importantly, to be alive in the sunshine. We're not asking for much, and I think we can certainly achieve that in this country.