Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026. Of course the coalition will support the passage of these appropriation bills through the parliament. We would not be blocking supply. We are talking here about an additional $12.7 billion to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, broken up into three parts: $9.1 billion for ordinary services, $3.5 billion for non-ordinary services and $9.2 million for parliamentary departments. But it's very important I make this point. While the coalition will not stand in the way of the appropriation bills, the government should not take this to mean that we support the government's ongoing spending.

Spending is out of control in this country, and it is hurting everyday Australians. I am one of many MPs—I dare say right across the chamber—who are dealing with mums and dads, senior citizens and young people who are hurting right now, and they have been hurting for some years. For the first time in memory we have living standards dropping at a much faster pace than that of any other peer nation. Real wages have gone backwards under the Albanese government. The average worker now has less power purchase in their salary. This is the problem. Everyday Australians are hurting.

We all know the impact of higher prices. The Minister for Energy is across the table here. He knows that energy prices have gone up by, I believe, around 40 per cent. The minister is not disagreeing with that—40 per cent under this minister, under this government. This is the problem. It just so happens that this minister is here. If we had another minister here, we'd talk about his or her portfolio. It doesn't matter which portfolio; prices are going up. And this is a government that came to power on the promise that it was going to get prices down. I remember that campaign vividly. They were screaming that prices were going up and that they, the Labor Party, were going to get prices down, and yet prices have soared.

We have mums and dads making trade-off decisions about whether they're going to allow the kids to get new pairs of school shoes and textbooks. Can they pay for that take-out once a week anymore? We've got senior citizens making a decision about whether they turn the air con on or eat. This is what's happening in our country. For the very first time, we have a generation entering the workforce which is going to be poorer than their parents, which breaches a longstanding pact in this country where one generation leaves the next generation more prosperous. That's going to go, and why is that? Because we have the Albanese government which cannot control its spending. This is the highest-spending government in 40 years, outside a pandemic.

The volume of fiscal stimulus being poured into the Australian economy is equivalent to that of the GFC. That's how bad it is, and are we amidst an enormous international economic shock to justify this? No, we are not. This explains why we have seen interest rates go up, because inflation has skyrocketed. The Prime Minister told the Australian people about this time last year, as did the Treasurer, that they had tamed the beast, the dragon, of inflation. But had they done so? No, they hadn't. The RBA now forecasts inflation to peak at about 4.2 per cent. Let us not forget that the target is 2.5 per cent. It's going to hit 4.2 per cent. Why? Because this government keeps pouring more money into the economy and the economy is running at the speed limit. The RBA governor made that very clear when she spoke about the RBA's recent decision to increase interest rates.

Private and public demand has hit the speed limit. When that happens and when the economy doesn't have enough supply to satisfy all the demand—all the things, the goods and services, that people want to buy—the government has a decision to make. The government can either become a smaller government and allow households and businesses to grow and enjoy that supply or the government can say: 'We know best. We need to be bigger,' and they can push households and push businesses out of the way. This government has chosen the latter. This is the crowd-out effect. The government, due to its overspending, is crowding out opportunities for the private sector.

We've had the Treasurer in denial, as he always is, that recent interest-rate rises are due to government spending. I cannot find one credible economist in the country which agrees with the Treasurer of Australia on that count—not one. The Treasurer has cowardly hidden behind the governor of the Reserve Bank by claiming that because she has not explicitly called out the fiscal recklessness of the government then the government fiscal policy must be fine. Name an RBA governor that would ever do such a thing. As an institution, the RBA never picks a fight with the government of the day on fiscal policy. In fact, the governor made it very clear she does not comment on fiscal policy. But the Treasurer wants to take her silence as some endorsement of his fiscal policy, and what fiscal policy is that? Well, the fiscal policy is typically embedded within the budget strategy. The strategy is meant to outline some rules.

Ever since Peter Costello introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty, governments have meant to have rules which contain government spending. So, when all the ministers sit around the cabinet table or they go to the Expenditure Review Committee, they are locked in to a set of rules to stop their spending. Every single Treasurer has had these rules—they're quantifiable rules—except this treasurer under the Albanese government. His strategy reads like a word salad. It's just words. There is not one number in it, and this is why you have had minister after minister rocking up, talking to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and getting tick, tick, tick—'Go spend! Go spend! Go spend!'

The more money they pour into the economy—when you hit the speed limit, the RBA has to come in and pull money out of the economy. Will they stop? No, they won't stop. We know they won't stop, because the Treasurer will not admit his responsibility. If you have a Treasurer who refuses to take responsibility, you can be sure that he will not be capable of fixing the problem. Right across portfolios, they are doing this. To be very clear, the coalition has not been criticising the government where spending in budgets increases due to automatic pressures. If Australians need more health care or education, you don't hear the coalition complaining about those pressures. That's what the expression is—'pressures'. No; far from it.

But what we do criticise is discretionary spending decisions taken by the government separate from those pressures for which the government has not found room in the budget. To give you an indication of the magnitude of this problem, this financial year alone there has been around $50 billion of discretionary spending that the government has failed to find offsets to pay for. Again, we do not criticise any government for making their own priorities when it comes to spending. Indeed, a government has a right to decide what its spending priorities are, but with rights always come commensurate responsibilities. In this case, the responsibility is to find room in the budget to pay for it.

I go back to the everyday Australian family. As Australians sit around kitchen tables and work out their budgets, they know that, if they want little Johnny or little Mary to go to theatre lessons, music lessons or sport, they've got to find an extra few hundred bucks a fortnight. And if they can't afford it? Families are making trade-off decisions. They're cutting back on things. Why is it that the Australian people are doing the right thing while the Australian government refuses to adopt that same principle of living within your means? When they don't live within their means, they have to go after more money to pay for their prolific spending. Do you know who they're coming after? They're coming after everyday Australians.

We have never seen personal income taxes as high as what we see today. Since this government has come in, the average, everyday worker is paying an additional $4,000 a year extra in personal income taxes.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Plus the money they're paying the CFMEU.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And that is in addition to a lot of money that workers are having to pay through to the likes of the CFMEU. I want to recognise the shadow minister at the table here. You know where some of that money goes, of course; it goes to the Labor Party. That's what they do—wholly owned subsidiaries. To get back to where the worker is at—they are paying more money than they ever have. If you look at the trajectory over the medium term of the Albanese government's budget, the only way they go near making balance is through higher personal income taxes. We're talking about around half a trillion dollars more of personal income taxes over the medium term. That's the only way that they can feed their spending addiction.

I correct myself; there's another way—debt. Never before has Australia hit $1 trillion of debt, but we heard in Senate estimates yesterday that we are now literally only a couple of months away. We're going to hit $1 trillion of debt. This is a government which always claims it's doing the right thing on debt, but debt has gone up under this government. For the very first time it's going to hit a trillion dollars—probably $1.2 trillion. Why does this matter? This matters not just for economic reasons but also for moral reasons, because that debt will have to be paid off by the next generation of Australians. It's younger Australians who are going to be slugged with this debt. This restrains the options. There are fewer things they can do and fewer things Australia can do in the future when debt continues to rise because the government continues to spend. There is a moral case for getting debt down and controlling it.

This government has had the greatest revenue windfall in the history of Australia—$400 billion—not due to anything they have done. It was never forecast. This was a revenue variation of $400 billion. What would the average family do if they had a lot of debt and they suddenly inherited a lot of money? I'll tell you what they'd do. Australia's leading banks are saying Australians are probably the best in the world at this—they'd pay down their debt. The Australian people are prudent people. They get ahead of their mortgage payments. Upon receiving a $400 billion windfall, what did this government do? It decided to put its hand in the cookie jar: 'Let's go spend a whole bunch of that and bake it into the budget.' If you win the lotto, you can't assume you're going to win it the next week, the week after and the week after that, but that's exactly what this government is doing.

Who pays? Ultimately, it's the next generation. Right now, it's the current generation. Every single minute that goes by, we're paying an extra $50,000 in interest payments. There's no line item that's growing more quickly in the budget than this. Why? It's because they can't stop spending. What happens when the next external shock does come to Australia? And it will come; we know that. History dictates that we will have more external shocks hitting the Australian economy. When times are good, when you do have an enormous windfall, that's when you need to ensure you're creating a buffer for that next shock. If that shock is to hit anytime soon, we have a situation.

We have the highest-spending government in 40 years, outside of the pandemic. The spending-to-GDP ratio has risen from 24 to 27 per cent. That doesn't create a safety net to handle an external shock. We're going to have debt of over a trillion dollars. That doesn't create the buffer you need to handle an external shock. We have living standards performing poorly compared to every other advanced economy. It's completely out of control. At the household level, the economy has shrunk under this government. Every single day, Australians are getting poorer. The economy is getting weaker, and that's just day-to-day business as usual. If an external shock hits our country, this government has left us entirely exposed. Why? It can't stop its spending.

I go back to the budget strategy. Despite calls not just from the coalition but also from Australia's leading economists, this government and this Treasurer refuse to introduce fiscal rules into their budget to contain their spending, and this is just going to continue. That should be step 1: have rules to control your spending. Secondly, they should ensure that they are driving more efficiency in government itself, but they're not doing that. We've seen a complete blowout in the cost of government itself. Even with future potential tools, such as artificial intelligence, all we have from this government is timidity. The government will proudly boast about the majority they have in this parliament—and they do have a whopping majority; I can see that. But, instead of using it to advance the cause of the Australian economy so it can lift all boats and enrich all households, they're frozen when it comes to real economic reform. So, if the first thing is rules, the second thing they need to do is drive more efficiency. The third thing is to go line item by line item through that budget and find opportunities for savings.

You cannot tell me that we've got the highest spending government in 40 years, outside of a pandemic, and there isn't waste there. Again, we've got one minister at the table at least—the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I'm grateful he's here. Look at his portfolio. The idea of the fringe benefits tax carve outs for electric vehicles—what a whopping waste of money, a complete waste of money. It has blown out. I look at the minister now. Is it five or is it now 10 times what was budgeted for? The minister wants to ignore. That's okay; he can answer if he wishes. That's how bad it is. Why did the government say they were introducing FBT relief on electric vehicles? It was to reduce emissions. Now, this side of the chamber supports reducing emissions. Unlike the government, we have a track record of actually doing so, of actually getting emissions down. The government does not. They talk about it, but, if you look at the scoreboard, they don't deliver it. That's the reason this minister is spending all this money—to get emissions down. Well, here's the thing: it is one of the most economically inefficient ways to reduce emissions.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Productivity Commission, which has made that crystal clear. Do Labor care? No. It's not their money. Whose money is it? It's the hardworking Australians'. The same Australian families who go home each night and don't know how they're going to pay the bills are the ones who're paying for this stuff. Look at that very measure again. Do you know who gets the biggest subsidy? I'm happy for the minister to interject if I'm wrong here. The wealthier you are, the bigger the subsidy you get. How about that?

If you go to your mobile phone and you say you want to take a lease out on a Tesla—go to the Tesla website and look at model Y—what you'll find when you want to take a lease out of electric vehicle is that they'll actually ask you how much money you make. 'What's your income?' That's a bit bizarre; why would they do that? Because that's the way they can understand how much the government—in other words, the Australian people—will subsidise your lease of your vehicle. If you're a nurse and you're on $90,000, you put in $90,000; if you're a lawyer and you're on $250,000, you put in $250,000. The lease is cheaper for the lawyer who's on $250,000 than it is for the nurse on $90,000. Why? Because this government is subsidising, through this fringe benefits tax policy, the more wealthy Australians, at the very time that real wages are going backwards. They've gone backwards by over two per cent under this government. At the very same time, those same people who are struggling to pay the rent or to pay off a mortgage—those who have a mortgage. They have seen the average mortgage holder increase their mortgage payments by $23,000 a year. This year, after the last interest rate rise, the average mortgage holder in Australia will pay $23,000 more a year in interest payments alone under this government.

Can you imagine? There you are working your tail off for your family—to put food on the table and make sure you've got a roof over your head—and, under this government, you're copping an extra $23,000 in your interest payments. Under this government, you're forking out an extra $4,000 in personal income taxes. Under this government, you're paying an extra 40 per cent on your energy bill. You're paying well over 35 per cent on your insurance. Everything has gone up, and the Reserve Bank, you here, says: 'You know what? It's only going to get worse.' Prices are only going to go higher than they are today, probably peaking at 4.2 per cent. The market is pricing in further interest rate rises.

You've got these bizarre policies like the EV FBT carve outs, which means—for your household, with all of that pressure on you—the government is now using more of your money to subsidise high-wealth individuals so they can lease an EV. Don't tell me that's because it's going to be good for the environment. It is the most inefficient way to drive down emissions, which is why the Albanese government has failed on that count too. Yet, despite all of this, we will have the Treasurer and the Prime Minister claim responsible economic management. That is not economic management worth claiming any wins over.

The Australian people are becoming poorer. Our economy is becoming weaker. As a result, Australia is becoming far more dependent on foreign supply chains—because our capabilities are eroding. There is an alternative. That alternative lies with the Liberal-National coalition. Under leadership of this side of the parliament, you will see an Australia where the people are not poor but prosperous, an economy which is not weak but strong and an Australia which is not overly dependent but fiercely independent.

The starting point is good economic management. It's all about putting the economy at the centre. That is why we as Liberals, and with our Nationals counterparts, have always prided ourselves as being the better economic managers. That's not because we think economics is the end game. It is the means. A strong economy is the means by which that struggling family at home don't have to pay so much in personal income taxes. A strong economy is the means by which that struggling family at home don't have to pay so much on their interest payments. A strong economy is the means by which that struggling family at home can have Johnny and Mary doing their extracurricular activities at school, while still having a bit of take out and going on holidays. A strong economy is the means by which the living standards, the way of life, of everyday Australians can be enjoyed with health, happiness and fulfilment.

A strong economy isn't the end game; it's the means by which everyday Australians can have the freedom to pursue whatever opportunity they wish to pursue in this country. A strong economy is what unleashes innovation. A strong economy is what unleashes young Australians to become entrepreneurs, tradies or academics. A strong economy is the only way that we build a future for Australia which will see the next generation of Australians with more money in their pockets when they go home after another fortnight of hard work. It's a strong economy that will allow everyday Australians to have the opportunity to call a place a home of their own. A strong economy is the only thing that's going to allow Australia to remain a strong, secure nation in a very volatile, uncertain Indo-Pacific.

This is why a strong economy matters. It's about people. It's about our future. It's about the younger generations. It's why we are so determined on this side to fight on all things economics—because we know, despite the continual spin from the Treasurer, the way the Australian people right now feel is what matters. They are feeling poor because they are. While the government might like to blame international factors, the thing is that, when you talk about international factors, they affect everybody internationally. But when you are performing so poorly compared to other countries and when you have peer nations reducing interest rates but here they're rising, you know there's something wrong locally. Previously that's been referred to as homegrown inflation—and, indeed, that continues to be the case, which is why opportunities are missing us by as a country. That breaks my heart because I would have thought all of us, regardless of our political stripe, are here to build a better Australia for tomorrow. But every economic indicator says we're becoming a poorer country, and the next generation are not going to have the opportunities we had.

When the world changes there are a lot of things you can't control, which means you need to double down on those things you can control—and what you can control is your own economic discipline. If the families of Australia have been asked to live within their means—and they are—it's not too much to ask the government to do the same. That is why we'll continue to fight on all issues regarding the economy.

This government has to stop its spending spree. It has every right to decide on its spending priorities, but it has an obligation to find room in the budget to pay for them. When it doesn't, it drives up interest rates and the Australian people pay through higher mortgages, higher prices in the supermarket, higher taxes and higher debt. It's no coincidence that the only economic reform proposed by the Treasurer last year was to tax unrealised capital gains and superannuation—coming after more tax, breaching a red line in Australian tax law. They're dying to go after more tax.

As the coalition stands here today, we will support the appropriation bills; we're not going to block supply. We are the party of economic stability. We're the party that believes in responsible government, and thus the government will enjoy our support on the passage of these bills. But I make these remarks today to make it crystal clear that the coalition rejects the economic approach of the Albanese government because it is making Australians poorer and our country weaker and more dependent. We need to make Australians prosperous, strong and fiercely independent.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After listening to the member for Fairfax, I have one question: what are you going to cut, mate? The member for Fairfax has spoken again and again about the budget. The member for Fairfax has said that those opposite are an alternative government. The member for Fairfax has said that he rejects the economic approach this government is taking and that the budget needs to change. If that's the case, he needs to stump up, he needs to front up and he needs to tell the Australian people what he is going to cut.

How do we know this is a coalition that cuts? It's because they cannot help themselves. It's because this is what they do year in, year out. It's in their DNA, and we have seen cut after cut.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because we don't suck on the teat of the CFMEU Labor cartel of corruption!

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for McMahon?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government listened to the nonsense from the member for Fairfax without interjection. The member for Goldstein should provide the same courtesies to the member for Moreton.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the minister's point. However, in my time in the chair I have witnessed a lot more interjections than what the member for Goldstein has done, and it's been let slide by many Speakers. I'll be monitoring it, and, if it's enough, I'll pull him into line.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a coalition that has spent years cutting from the budget. This is a coalition that has in its DNA, to its core, the want to cut, the need to cut and the track record of cutting from the support that Labor governments have provided to the Australian people.

The member for Fairfax said we need to go line item by line item through the budget. The real question, when they go line by line through the budget, is: what is on the chopping block? I understand the coalition are busy right now trying to cut down their first female leader, but we're going to have to take a guess at what they might cut. Are the coalition going to cut from health care? We've seen that movie before. We've seen them try to introduce a co-payment so that everyday Australians would lose bulk-billing and would have to stump up out of their own pockets just to go to the doctor. We've seen them cut from health care billions and billions and billions of dollars that go to make sure that our Australians are better and have the ability to get better. We've seen them when it comes to housing. Do they want to cut five per cent deposits, which allow young people and people with families to get into their first home? Do they want to cut from education? We've seen that movie before too. One of the reasons that I became involved in Labor in the first place was that John Howard was cutting tertiary education. Do they want to cut support for the manufacturing industry? Again, we've seen this before too. They sent the vehicle-building industry overseas. They sent those jobs offshore. Is that what they're going to cut this time? Do they want to remove the tax cut that this Albanese Labor government has provided to every taxpaying Australian? Is that what they want to do next?

The reality is that we don't know. What we know is that they want to change the approach that we are taking, an approach that is focused on addressing the cost-of-living concerns of every Australian. So, if they want to change that approach, it's only going to be with more cuts, and Australians had better watch out because, when they get that axe and swing it down, it will mean cuts to education, cuts to health and cuts to the other things that Australians need the most.

Let's think about the economic landscape. The economic landscape is clear. Unemployment is low. It's 4.1 per cent. Inflation has gone from having a six in front of it under the coalition down to having a three in front of it. Wages are up. We know that, when it comes to taxation, this is a coalition that wants to tax Australians more. Not only is it a coalition that wants to tax Australians more but we should be reminded that the coalition, indeed, formed the government which has been the highest-taxing in this country, the Howard government. We should remember that this is a coalition that formed the highest-spending government in this country, the Morrison government.

When I am out doorknocking in Moreton, chatting to people over the fence or talking to people at a barbie, one thing is clear. They talk about three core things over and over again: they talk about health services, making sure that they have accessible and affordable health care; they want to know what government is doing when it comes to housing, because people deserve to have homes and to be able to build their future; and they want to know what governments are doing about cost of living. The Albanese Labor government has its eye firmly fixed on all of those things. The risk to our progress on cost of living, on health care and on housing is a coalition opposition obsessed with cuts. So today I thought I'd highlight these three particular areas, areas that are critically important not only for the people on Brisbane's south side in Moreton but around the country.

At the end of last month, National Cabinet agreed on a way forward to meet the growing challenges across the health and aged-care systems. The federal government is investing an additional $25 billion in public hospitals like the QEII Jubilee Hospital in Moreton, and this means that Commonwealth funding for public hospitals will reach a record $219.6 billion between 2026-27 and 2030-31. It's triple the amount of additional funding under the previous five-year agreement. Is that what the member for Fairfax wants to cut?

That comes on top of the Albanese Labor government's rollout of 137 urgent care clinics across the country. As of October 2025, Australians had made more than two million free-of-charge visits to urgent care clinics. In my electorate, that means an urgent care clinic at the bottom of the PA and it means an urgent care clinic in Oxley, at the bottom of the Canossa Private Hospital. Having visited those two urgent care clinics recently, I can say that what is clear is that our community wants that service. Urgent care clinics—is that what the member for Fairfax and the coalition are going to cut? For me, like thousands of other parents around the country, it's an incredible relief to know that, if it's out of hours for our GP, we can take our little girl to an urgent care clinic. I know that families across the south side feel the same way.

This week we have celebrated the one-year anniversary of Labor's investment in women's health, a $792.9 million package which has led to more choice and more affordable health care for women. This investment recognised that women's equality depends on the strength of women's health, and this is why the Albanese Labor government has prioritised it. I had the great pleasure of going with the member for Cooper and talking to local people. I know how much work she has done in setting up this space, which is now under the member for Lyons and Minister Butler. We talked to locals in Fairfax about how important these changes are when it comes to contraception, when it comes to menopause, when it comes to ensuring that women have the support they need in health. The package included the first new listings of contraceptive pills on the PBS in more than 30 years, and more than 660 women have together filled more than two million cheaper scripts for these contraceptives. Is this what the member for Fairfax and the coalition are going to cut? Are they going to cut women's health?

I want to talk about bulk-billing, because no health update is complete without mentioning the largest single investment in Medicare ever. From 1 November 2025, general practices were able to bulk-bill all patients. This initiative is expected to support around 18 million additional bulk-billed visits each year. The numbers came in, the national bulk-billing stats: there are 3,400 bulk-billing clinics across the country, an 81 per cent increase in how many people are being bulk-billed. In my local area, 11 practices have moved from mixed billing to fully bulk-billing, and that is good news. It's good news because it means southsiders in Brisbane and people across this country can go into either an urgent care clinic or a fully bulk-billed practice and only present their Medicare card. Is this what the member for Fairfax and the coalition want to cut? Do they want to cut bulk-billing?

On five per cent deposits, late last year one of my staff members had a big milestone moment in his life: buying his first home. He and his partner were justly proud and excited when they received the keys. They had worked hard and saved hard, but, until the Albanese Labor government introduced the five per cent deposit scheme, buying their own home was out of reach. The Minister for Housing said:

The 5% deposit program is not just a housing policy, it's thousands of families:

Five per cent deposits—is this what the member for Fairfax and the coalition are going to cut? As at the end of January, 965 people had purchased a home in Moreton under the five per cent deposit scheme. What will the member for Fairfax do with them?

I want to talk about the Housing Australia Future Fund, one of Labor's initiatives. Round 3 is now open, and it's the largest yet. Labor will deliver more than 21,000 new social and affordable homes across the country, and this will bring the total number of new social and affordable homes to 40,000 by the end of the round. It means Labor is progressing to meet our commitment to deliver 55,000 of these homes by mid-2029. It's worth looking at the four HAFF pathways. These streams ensure that the program is supporting the people it's designed for. The partnerships at scale stream is focused on partnership with industry. The housing diversity stream is set up for the Australian Defence Force and veterans. The third stream, the state and territory stream, enables expanded co-investment opportunities to fast-track housing delivery. The First Nations stream benefits from $600 million in funding and additional concessional loans to support projects delivered by or in partnership with First Nations organisations.

We are streamlining the National Construction Code to speed up building. We are reforming environmental approvals and working with states and territories to reform planning systems through the National Planning Reform Blueprint. Is this what the member for Fairfax and the coalition are going to cut? The Albanese Labor government won't stop with our drive to build more homes, to support more Australians into homeownership and to ensure the fair treatment of renters.

Labor recognises that so many Australians are still doing it tough, and that's why continuing to deliver measured, responsible support to ease cost-of-living pressures is our No. 1 priority. There is no single solution to addressing cost-of-living pressures. Our strategy involves coordinated measures across multiple sectors. I've already outlined the initiatives in the health system—from increased bulk-billing opportunities to more affordable medicines and to expanded urgent care clinics. I have also detailed the housing reforms that are helping to make homeownership achievable for thousands. We cannot forget that Labor is also continuing to implement our tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. From 1 July this year, all Australian taxpayers will receive two further rounds of personal income tax cuts. This follows on from the first round of tax cuts, which commenced on 1 July 2024. As well, when taxpayers go to do their tax returns, they'll be able to claim instantly from the new $1,000 instant tax deduction.

I could go on. We could talk about the three-day childcare guarantee. We could talk about the fact that, under this new guarantee, every child who needs it is eligible for three days of subsidised early learning each week, no matter what their parents do.

But I want to come back to what the member for Fairfax talked about just before. He talked extensively about the fact that he rejects the economic approach. If Labor's economic approach is—as it is—focused on cost of living, on people and on making sure that we're addressing the things that Australians need, then the only alternative option for the coalition is to cut. They need to stump up and tell us exactly what it will be.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've just heard a diatribe from one of the members about the magnificence of the Albanese government. The case that has been put forward is that everything that they touch turns to sunshine and gold, and everything that the coalition wants to do is a problem. In fact, a question was consistently asked over and over and over again: what do people who want to see inflation come down—that means lower interest rates—wish to remove from the budget? I don't know why Labor members keep asking this question, because we have answered it consistently.

We absolutely believe that $15 billion of Australian taxpayers' money should not flow from Treasury coffers into the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption. We absolutely believe that that money going towards organised crime and bikie gangs—it's laundered into marketing expenses and, eventually, donations to the Labor Party—is not just a matter of criminal activity or laundering of money. It's an issue of moral importance for this country because Australians are paying the cost; it's financed mostly through debt. This is the morality of this Labor government. They literally borrow from your children's future, stoke up inflation on Australian households today and then, of course, force you to pay higher interest rates so they can finance organised crime, they can finance bikie gangs and they can finance money that goes through a sophisticated CFMEU-Labor cartel all the way through to corruption. I'm completely happy to say that I believe that should be cut out of the budget, because I think it's a moral crime, a political crime, a breach of trust and a form of corruption. And every Labor member, unfortunately, through the sophisticated system of CFMEU-Labor corruption, stands to gain. I'm shocked that they want to keep asking this question, but, as we all know, it was detailed yesterday in a report that was handed down by the Prime Minister's hand picked CFMEU administrator. The title kind of gives it away. The title is Rotting from the top.

On the CFMEU in Victoria, what has been revealed—and we all know this—is that Victorian premier Jacinta Allan, in particular, has knowingly allowed and tolerated public money going into public projects to then go on and finance organised crime. It's extraordinary, and not a single member on the Labor benches seems the least bit bothered by it, but we know why. It's because, when the money goes from organised crime and bikie gangs to the benefits of the CFMEU, it finds its way also into Labor Party coffers. This isn't some sort of contest or debate. Once it was revealed that bikie gangs and organised crime were actively engaged with the CFMEU to extract cartel kickbacks, the Prime Minister had the audacity to say to the Australian people that the Labor Party would no longer receive cartel kickbacks and donations from the CFMEU.

Last week, there were revealed AEC disclosures which went through what political parties received what donations in what timeframe, and there was a donation in the tens of thousands of dollars from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. Some of the members sitting on the other side of the chamber right now are part of that division that enjoyed the benefits, and they're nodding along as I say it. I would not be proud of saying that to the members opposite. I would be embarrassed and ashamed and repudiating not just the conduct of your state secretary but also the Prime Minister for continuing to tolerate the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption. It is the most disgraceful thing I think I have ever seen in this parliament's history, yet the members opposite do not even bat an eyelid. They seem enthusiastic and almost nod along.

Let's go through the report that was eventually provided by the CFMEU administrator to the Watson inquiry into criminal activity, violence and corruption in the CFMEU in Queensland. The report identified a number of key factors that drove the corruption within the CFMEU connected to the Labor Party: the open and deliberate defiance of the law; how the big build in Victoria, and big money in Victoria in particular, became the liquidity for the corruption that financed the CFMEU-Labor cartel kickbacks that went all the way into the Labor Party's coffers; how they actively sought to undermine the practices of other unions who were trying to do the right thing for their advantage; and, of course, the individuals involved.

You just need to go through the subheadings and the headlines in this report. The first one is 'Introduction'. Well, that's very administratively justified. The second one is 'Power and corruption'. The third one is 'Violence'. The fourth one is 'Threats and extortion'. The fifth one is 'Systemic corruption'. It goes into 'The introduction of the outlaw motorcycle gangs' and 'Manipulating the enterprise bargaining system'—you know, that industrial relations system that Labor loves and sets up to advance the liquidity in the cartel kickback scheme of the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption. There's 'Manipulating the rise of labour hire', meaning they actively undermined people being able to be contracted onto work unless it suited them and bribes were paid. There's 'The appointment of unwanted and unnecessary delegates', meaning costs for public projects went up to feed the union and its corruption. There's 'The appointment of friends and family to lucrative jobs'. Let's just call that 'nepotism and corruption'. There's 'The Building Industry 2000 slush fund'. That just talks about one slush fund; we know that the CFMEU separately uses its own redundancy fund to facilitate cash flows to corrupt other institutions as well.

Then there's a whole chapter just on ad hoc corruption. You've got threats of extortion and systemic corruption. Then we have a chapter exclusively on outlaw motorcycle gangs. Then, of course, there's one on enterprise bargaining agreements. The subchapter to that is on bribery. The subchapter to that is on the black market—the buying and selling of EBAs, where, essentially, rights on worksites were used to trade and get ill gotten gains which found their way through the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption into Labor Party coffers. Then we had awarding EBAs to friends. I think that's considered the discount chapter. There were third-party EBA brokers. That's, obviously, people who clip the ticket along the way in EBAs being sold off through the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption. Then we got one which was excluding enemies from EBAs. That's basically people who stood in the way of the corruption. Then there's another subchapter on misuse and abuse of social procurement schemes. In every single thing they touched, they found a way to steal money from taxpayers. Then there's misuse and abuse of Aboriginal business EBAs, so don't think there's any virtue sitting behind their trying to advance the best for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption looks at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as a pathway to indulge their practice of corruption further.

Then you have labour hire. Is money the root of the problem? Well, that's pretty obvious. How wide was the corruption spread? I'll give you an answer: pretty wide. It was systemic across the entire industry. In fact, I think I used the expression yesterday 'industrial scale'. Then we have a whole section just on ghost shifts. That's people getting paid and not doing anything. Then we have organised crime, crime figures and criminals favoured by the CFMEU. Another subject chapter could be called 'organised crime methods associated with the CFMEU'. Then there's a whole section—and you can't but laugh because there's literally nothing else you could say—called 'a crossover with the tobacco wars'. You have organised crime financing a tax on small businesses engaging in the practice of illegal tobacco. We know exclusively where this money goes—not just into organised crime and not just into criminal gangs but actually into terrorism to do things like finance the Iranian government's state sponsored terrorism and antisemitism to blow up Australian synagogues. The cartel kickback circle of life that sits at the heart of the CFMEU-Labor project is nothing short of disgraceful and finances crime. It is connected to organised crime and bikie gangs and is complicit in financing domestic terrorism. One of the Labor members on the other side of this chamber, when I mentioned it before, nodded along.

I don't know about you, Deputy Speaker, but I accept that from time to time we have differences of opinion in this chamber. But when you actually get an independent report from an independently commissioned entity to look into a systemic issue of organised crime and corruption, maybe you shouldn't whitewash it. Maybe, if you were part of the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption, you'd probably want to know about it, and you'd probably want to make sure that it was stopped. But yesterday, in the lead-up to question time, I simply asked to table the report so that it could never be whitewashed again, and the Leader of the House objected to me doing so. I can't understand why on earth you would want to stop this report being published let alone make sure—as unfortunately we found happened—independent corruption investigators are asked to delete sections of the report. We know it took the Wood inquiry in Queensland to have this report made public, because the minister wouldn't release it. We wrote to her. We asked for copies. We FOI'd it. We wrote to the Fair Work Commission; we asked for copies and FOI'd them. But everybody seemed to want to be part of the cover-up. This is not governance in the best interests of Australia.

What we have is a systemic problem of corruption that's connected all the way from the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption back, ultimately, to the Australian government. Worse than that, in the meantime, in Victoria and nationally, we have anticorruption commissions who seem to not want to see this corruption, hear about this corruption, speak of this corruption or, frankly, do anything about this corruption, because it is hiding in plain sight and it connects directly back to the Australian government and the Allan Labor government in Victoria.

There is another way. We have a choice as a nation about the type of country we want to be. We can choose an alternative path led by a united coalition government that wants to stamp out the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption and stop the kickbacks, and I can tell you some of us are willing to fight for it. After I lost in 2022, people said I was done and that, to win again, circumstances were impossible, but we won because we fought for the community and their future. The Liberal Party's situation now is no different. The Australian people passed judgement on the energy and the focus of our economic strategy at the last election. You reveal what you stand for by what you fight for, but, more importantly, you reveal who you're for by who you fight for. We need someone with a proven track record of turning an impossible situation into an improbable victory, because we know who we are fighting for. We know we're fighting for the Australian people—for families, for small businesses and for communities. We want an Australia that we love that's built on respect, where hard work pays off and Australians are in control of their lives. Making history requires leadership, and I can see a path where we can deliver that and build a better nation. History is there to be made, but critical to that is expelling the Labor CFMEU cartel of corruption, the taint it leaves on the Australian government and the Australian parliament, and, of course, the cost to the Australian people.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't even know where to start after that. I must thank the member for Goldstein. I feel he walked into the wrong meeting. That meeting's down the docks on a Wednesday night, my friend. He's forgotten what we were actually here to speak about.

I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. Taken together, these bills give effect to the government's additional estimates for the 2025-26 financial year. They authorise the expenditure required to meet the costs that have emerged since the budget, reflect updated demand driven programs and ensure that the parliament, the Public Service and the essential national systems continue to function effectively and responsibly.

At their core, these bills perform a fundamental constitutional role. Under our system of responsible government, no money may be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the authority of the parliament. Appropriation bills are the means by which the parliament exercises that authority. They are not vehicles for policy intervention. They are instruments of democratic accountability, ensuring that decisions already taken by government are properly scrutinised and transparently funded. That distinction matters. These bills do not create new rights or obligations. They do not, of themselves, establish programs or impose duties. What they do provide is the legal authority for expenditure that supports Australians in real and tangible ways through health care, disability services, defence capability, climate resilience, housing supply and the proper functioning of our democratic institutions. That constitutional role is particularly important in the context of additional estimates. Additional estimates exist because budgets are forecasts, not crystal balls. They respond to changes in economic conditions, updated demand for essential services and decisions taken after the budget that nevertheless require parliamentary authority to proceed.

Importantly, these bills demonstrate the distinction between fiscal discipline and fiscal neglect. Discipline means making responsible decisions, clearly explaining them and funding them transparently. Neglect is failing to act when costs rise, needs change or circumstances deteriorate, and then pretending that inaction is a virtue. The measures contained in these bills reflect careful consideration by government as to where additional resources are required and why. They are accompanied by detailed portfolio statements that allow this House and the public to assess whether those resources are aligned with stated outcomes and priorities. For that reason, appropriation debates are not merely technical exercises; they are an opportunity for the parliament to test whether expenditure decisions are coherent, justified and consistent with the values we claim to uphold—fairness, security, opportunity and responsibility. These bills meet the test.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 seeks approval for approximately $9.2 billion in additional funding for the ordinary annual services of government. This funding reflects updated costs and demand pressures across a range of portfolios. A significant portion of this funding is directed to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. As a member of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, and as a former electrician, I have seen firsthand the importance of ensuring that funding in this portfolio is targeted, accountable and responsive to real-world pressures. Continued investment in programs such as cheaper home batteries and emissions reduction measures is not abstract climate policy; it is about lowering household energy costs, strengthening grid resilience and supporting Australia's transition to a cleaner and more secure energy system. In my electorate of Moore, that transition is already underway. As of 8 February 2026, 1,792 household batteries have been installed across the electorate. Families investing in storage to manage their power bills increases resilience during peak demand and contributes to a more reliable grid.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 also provides $1.5 billion to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. This includes substantial funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, ensuring participants continue to receive reasonable and necessary support. It also supports reforms to strengthen Medicare, protect access to medicines and improve the coordination and delivery of health services across Australia. As a kidney transplant recipient, I am acutely aware of the importance of a strong, accessible health system, including reliable access to essential medicines. Supporting the NDIS through additional estimates is not a failure of planning; it is an acknowledgement of reality. As the participant numbers grow and supports evolve, funding must keep pace. Anything less would undermine the confidence of participants and their families, and erode the trust that underpins the scheme itself.

In my electorate of Moore, these pressures are not abstract. My office serves families navigating the NDIS, older Australians managing chronic conditions and health professionals working under sustained strain. That includes constituents relying upon the Joondalup Health Campus for complex and acute care as well as follow-up treatment and ongoing medication in the community, underscoring the importance of stable funding arrangements across the health system. For them, the difference between timely funding and delayed funding is the difference between certainty and anxiety, between continuity of care and disruption. In suburbs across Moore, from Joondalup to Gwelup, these pressures are felt not in isolation but across households, workplaces and care networks.

These bills provide the legal authority and funding frameworks that support continuity in essential services. They help reduce the risk of services that Australians rely on being left vulnerable to administrative gaps or funding shortfalls simply because demand has increased since the budget. That is what responsible government looks like, including in such areas as defence and national security.

In defence, additional funding supports the implementation of the 2024 National defence strategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program. In an increasingly uncertain strategic environment, maintaining credible defence capability is not optional. It is a core responsibility of government and is one that requires sustained, disciplined investment. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 also supports funding for the Department of Home Affairs, including resources to respond to security threats and maintain Australia's cohesive and multicultural society. This is about protecting Australians while upholding the values that define us as an open, democratic nation governed by the rule of law. The defence investments supported by these bills align with the government's stated strategic priorities and with the need to ensure that capability acquisition and sustainment can proceed as planned. Delays in funding often translate directly into delays in delivery—with long-term consequences for workforce planning, industry confidence and national readiness. Likewise, funding for Home Affairs reflects the reality that security challenges do not operate on a fixed calendar. Whether responding to emergency threats, maintaining border integrity or supporting social cohesion, government must retain the capacity to act decisively and lawfully.

Recent events, including the tragic attack at Bondi and the terrorist incident in Perth, are stark reminders that security threats can emerge suddenly and can have devastating impacts. They reinforce why agencies must have the resources and flexibility to respond swiftly, professionally and within the rule of law. Importantly, none of these measures exist in isolation from oversight. Expenditure is subject to audit, scrutiny through estimates and ongoing parliamentary review. Appropriations authorise spending; they do not remove accountability for how that spending is carried out. This parliament must always guard the balance between responsiveness and restraint carefully. These bills strike the appropriate balance. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-26 complements this by authorising approximately $3.5 billion for services that are not classified as ordinary annual services of government. Constitutional requirements demand that these expenditures be dealt with separately, but their purpose is no less important.

This bill includes further funding for defence capability delivery, for environmental water purchases under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and for housing initiatives initiated through Housing Australia. In particular, the provision of loans to support social and affordable housing projects recognises that housing supply constraints are a national challenge that demand coordinated, sustained action. For communities like my electorate of Moore, these investments are not theoretical. Housing affordability pressures are felt acutely by young families, key workers and older Australians seeking to downsize. Federal support for social and affordable housing, when combined with state and local action, helps ensure that growth does not come at the expense of fairness or opportunity. For communities like Moore, access to stable housing supports workforce participation by enabling people to live closer to their jobs, care networks and essential services. That local experience underscores why infrastructure, housing and environmental investments funded through these bills demonstrate the interconnected nature of modern policy challenges.

Housing supply, environmental sustainability and economic participation cannot be addressed in isolation from one another. Support for affordable and social housing through Housing Australia is a practical intervention that complements state and local efforts. It recognises that market forces alone will not meet the full range of housing needs—particularly for vulnerable Australians and essential workers. Environmental investments include water recovery and reflect the long-term responsibility governments bear to manage shared natural resources. These decisions require patience, consistency and funding certainty across multiple financial years. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) ensures that the commitments already made in these areas are properly resourced rather than left to be exposed to delay or dilution.

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-26, while modest in dollar terms, is equally essential. It provides additional funding to the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services to support the operations of this parliament for the remainder of the financial year. This funding underpins the practical work that allows members to represent their constituents, committees to conduct inquiries and the parliament to function securely and effectively. In an era where democratic institutions face increasing global pressure, properly resourcing the parliament is not an indulgence; it is a safeguard. Across all three bills, there is consistent emphasis on accountability. The appropriations are supported by the portfolio budget statements and portfolio additional estimates statements, which provide detailed information on how funds are allocated and the outcomes they are intended to support. These documents form part of the interpretive framework of the legislation and are essential tools for parliamentary scrutiny.

It is also important to note that these bills replenish the advances to the finance minister and the presiding officers, ensuring that the government retains the capacity to respond to urgent and unforeseen circumstances. This mechanism is not a blank cheque; it is tightly constrained by law and subject to reporting requirements. It is a necessary feature of responsible fiscal management in a complex and dynamic environment.

For the people of Moore, the measures supported by these bills have real impacts. These bills reflect their government responding to changing circumstances with discipline rather than delay, with transparency rather than improvisation. They recognise that good fiscal management is not about refusing to act but about ensuring that the parliament authorises that action openly, transparently and in line with national priorities. I acknowledge that the appropriation debates are rarely glamorous. They lack the rhetorical flourish of major policy announcements, but they are among the most important debate this House conducts. They are where theory meets practice and where parliament discharges its most basic constitutional responsibility.

Finally, I want to address the broader context in which these bills are considered. Australians rightly expect governments to manage public money carefully. They also expect honesty about why spending is required and what it is intended to achieve. These bills do not pretend that challenges can be solved without cost, nor do they attempt to obscure expenditure behind vague authorisations or opaque mechanisms. They set out, clearly and transparently, the amounts required and the purpose for which they may be spent. That clarity strengthens trust in public institutions. It allows the House to do its job, and it allows Australians to judge whether the government is acting in their best interests. On that measure, these bills deserve support. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 and related appropriation bills. Let me be clear from the outset: the coalition won't oppose or delay the passage of these bills. While we don't support all of the policies and programs funded in this budget, these appropriation bills are necessary legislative mechanisms to fund decisions that the government has already made. But just because we're not opposing these bills does not mean we will remain silent on the reckless spending and bad choices that sit behind them. These appropriation bills authorise a further $12.7 billion in spending—$9.1 billion for ordinary services, $3½ billion for non-ordinary services and just over $9 million for parliamentary departments—on top of what was already a big-spending budget.

In the broader context, let's reflect on the fact that, this week, we've seen $15 billion siphoned away in CFMEU cartel mismanagement and corruption. We've got a $1.2 trillion debt bomb gestating under this government, and there's a whole range of inappropriate expenditure, mismanagement and poor decision-making that we see on a daily basis. While families in my electorate of Monash are being asked to tighten their belts—and many of those families have to make weekly decisions on whether to buy groceries and put food on the table for their families or to pay their bills on time—this government is not living by the standard that it preaches to ordinary Australians.

While this debate matters, I want to go into some examination of the flagrant spending that we are seeing under this government, because it is getting worse. It is putting Australian families at a disadvantage, it is hurting regional communities like mine and it is also putting us well behind the eight ball on our international competitiveness. We've got record levels of revenue in this country, and, I might add, a lot of that is thanks to our mining and resources sector, which funds the roads that we drive on, the hospitals that we rely on and the schools that educate our young people. We've got record levels of revenue. In fact, in the 2024-25 year the Commonwealth raised $717 billion in receipts. That's 25.9 per cent of GDP—the highest level in 25 years.

Despite this river of revenue flowing into Canberra, Australians across the country, particularly in electorates like mine, are staring down strong deficits. Why? Because record revenue is being completely outstripped by record spending and record spending growth by a government that treats taxpayers' hard-earned money like a credit card with no limit. You cannot run a household budget like this. You would have your shutters pulled down if you were a small business that operated like this. Yet, again, the standard the government expects of ordinary Australians is not adhered to by its own management.

The government is now the highest spending government, outside of a pandemic, in 40 years. Spending is growing at four times the rate of the economy, and national debt is heading towards $1.2 trillion. That is a debt bomb that generations of Australians still yet to come will be paying back. They are at a disadvantage before they even get a start in life. Since Labor came to office, spending has gone up by $160 billion. That is, when you think about it, about $16,000 for every household in this country. And the government has added $100 billion to the national debt in just a single term. This is not restraint. This is recklessness, and the consequences of that recklessness are showing up where Australians feel it most—at the checkout, on their power bills, in their rent and on their mortgage repayments. We've had 13 interest rate rises under this government. I would not be surprised if we see a 14th, which the RBA have left the door open to.

When you listen to people like Philip Lowe, a highly respected person, who served previously as the RBA governor—he has said that inflation is a homegrown problem and that inflation is being driven by government debt. On 28 January, the ABS confirmed that inflation rose to 3.8 per cent in 12 months to December. Trimmed inflation is at 3.4 per cent. Both of these figures are well outside the RBA's target band. After nearly four years of Labor, Australians are paying more for the basics. Insurance has gone up 39 per cent. I go around my electorate of Monash and I speak to community groups and not-for-profits in particular—those sporting teams and clubs that put so much back into our community and that live off the smell of an oily rag—and one of their chief complaints is the cost of insurance continuing to rise. It puts them at such a disadvantage. They work very, very hard to live within the constraints of a very tight budget. But these things have real impacts on communities like mine.

Energy has gone up by 38 per cent. How many times, member for Mallee, have we heard the government talk about their $275 bill reduction? I think we're nearly up to 100 times now. Energy has gone up 38 per cent. We've seen rent go up 22 per cent. I heard a very sad story during the election, when a lady came up to me outside one of the little IGAs that I was doing a listening post at, and she said her son, who was a truck driver—he's a single dad with a few kids. He was nearly homeless because—I won't mention the town, but in West Gippsland. He had to couch surf with friends because he could not get a rental property, and that was impacting his kids and the broader family. He moved back in with his mum for a period of time, but there are very real consequences for Australians who are doing it tough, who work hard, who do the right thing, who squirrel money away and who don't spend recklessly. They are hurting.

Health is up 18 per cent. How many times have we heard this prime minister say 'all you need is your Medicare card'? Health is up 18 per cent, and your Medicare card is not paying for that. People's credit cards are, and their savings are. Education is up 17 per cent. I thank Trudy, who wrote to me recently about the living away from home allowance. That is the same amount for kids living in metro and city areas as regional kids. Her children are doing it really tough. To the tradie who wrote to me and said he wanted to get some additional training and education to, as he put it, better support his family—he said the cost of supplies and reading materials for the course that he was doing on construction was the real cost killer for him. These are real people with real stories, and they're really hurting.

Food's up 16 per cent. I had a lady come out of the Coles supermarket in Drouin during the election campaign. She held up two bags of groceries and said, 'Mary, I can't get two bags of groceries for under $100 anymore.' It's just going up and up, and these are not luxuries; they're essentials. They're everyday costs that families, pensioners and small businesses cannot afford. I spoke with a group of financial counsellors in my electorate recently. We were talking about shoplifting from supermarkets increasing, and it's not luxury items. It's not entertainment items. It's meat, it's fruit and vegetables—essentials—because people are in desperate circumstances, turning to desperate measures.

It's not some global mystery, this inflation problem. Australia's inflation rate is now higher than in comparable economies like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and the Eurozone. Economists have been clear about why. I'll quote AMP's Diana Mousina, who has said, 'The government has been directly adding to inflation through record public spending.' Shane Oliver, a well-known and well-credentialed economic commentator, has said that many of the drivers of inflation relate to government spending. HSBC's Paul Bloxham has said that the key driver of inflation is not private demand but strong public demand driven by government spending. It could not be clearer. I'll go back to the Reserve Bank governor. Recently, there's been a lot of attention on her comments. Michele Bullock was at Senate estimates recently and again before the Standing Committee on Economics, where the governor confirmed that excessive aggregate demand, including public spending, is contributing to inflationary pressures.

What happens when inflation stays high? Interest rates stay higher for longer. The government is forcing the hand here of decisions that are being made on interest rates, and it is hurting everyday Australians. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been quick to take credit when interest rates have come down. They need to take responsibility for the fact that their spending decisions are making life harder for people in my electorate of Monash who are trying to pay off a house or, if they're a young person, trying to get a foot in the door and buy their own home.

While I'm speaking about my electorate, I will turn to some other points of these appropriation bills. In that context, I'd love to give a shout-out to some local wineries in my electorate. I love to say that, in Monash, we have world-beating products made by world-leading people. We've got the Phillip Island Winery, the Gurdies Winery, Purple Hen in Rhyll, Harman Wines at Wattle Bank, Dirty Three Wines in Inverloch and the Gippsland Wine Company in Loch. These producers are not just businesses; they are part of the fabric of our region. On behalf of the electorate of Monash, I say thank you for employing people, for bringing people to our region, for making world-class products and making all of us so proud of the very fine things that we grow, make and manufacture in the Monash electorate.

Across South Gippsland and Bass Coast, we've got wineries like Waratah Hills Vineyard in Fish Creek, Fleet Wines in Leongatha, Bass River at Glen Forbes, Silverwaters Vineyard at San Remo, Wild Dog Winery in Warragul and Brandy Creek Estate. They continue to showcase the very best of regional wineries anywhere in Australia. They're family run, small to medium producers. They employ locals. They support tourism. They provide hospitality experiences to draw visitors to our towns who spend money at our cafes, shops and accommodation providers. They continue to grow the identity and reputation of the Gippsland region as a premium food and wine destination.

But these businesses are being squeezed from all sides: higher energy costs, rising freight and transport expenses, increasing insurance premiums, labour shortages, declining discretionary spending as families tighten their belts. These businesses are resilient, but those banks of resilience are depleting, and the power bills keep coming. The compliance and red tape keep rising. Many of these businesses are struggling to keep their heads above water.

While this government pours billions into poorly targeted spending, it has already failed to provide meaningful relief to industries, like the wine industry, that are under pressure from inflation, cost-of-living pressures and weakening consumer demand. My local wineries, like any small-business sector, are not asking for special treatment. They're not asking for a handout. They're just asking for a fair go—a fair go to employ people and put back into their communities. They want inflation brought under control, they want interest rates to come down, and they want a tax system that encourages them to invest, employ and grow. Instead, they're getting a government that borrows more, spends more and taxes more.

Small businesses tell me they've never worked harder and faced more risk and red tape. It's a really tough time right now to be an Australian small-business owner, and I want to say to every small-business owner out there, right across Australia—in the Monash electorate and beyond—I am with you. The coalition is with you. We see the hours that you put in, whether it's servicing customers after hours, employing young people, sponsoring local sporting teams and community groups or getting involved in service clubs. We see what you do for the community. We back you, and we'll be there for you every single time.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the 2025-26 additional estimates appropriation bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. Before making my remarks, I acknowledge I am making these remarks on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging and to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons who have joined us in the gallery today.

These bills propose additional annual appropriations to address funding requirements that have emerged since the 2025-26 budget and to support the implementation of government decisions that have been subsequently made and that have financial impacts in 2025-26. The bills include provisions to replenish the advance to the finance minister and the advance to the responsible presiding officer provided in the appropriation acts, which is a longstanding practice. These acts include the following advance to the finance minister and the advance to the responsible presiding officer provisions: $400 million in act 1, $600 million in act 2 and $1.9 million in parliamentary departments act 1, plus amounts allocated under the presiding officer provisions.

These bills contain funding for critical initiatives like 1800MEDICARE, free mental health services, environmental projects, support for multicultural communities, and other local community endeavours. Thanks to 1800MEDICARE, which launched in January this year, Australians now have even better access to free health advice. The registered nurses at 1800MEDICARE are there 24/7 to provide advice, assurance and care and to refer callers to the health service that they need, whether that is a regular GP, the local hospital or a Medicare urgent care clinic. These triage nurses will listen to concerns, assess symptoms and advise on next steps, so Australians who are feeling unwell, caring for someone or unsure of whether to seek medical help can call 1800MEDICARE. Triage nurses can also connect callers to a free telehealth session with a 1800MEDICARE GP via phone or video, with this service available all weekend and weeknights between 6 pm and 8 am. So, if required, by phone and in the comfort of your own home, a 1800MEDICARE GP can provide free care, like an emergency prescription for your regular medication or treatment for illness or injury. Just like urgent care clinics, 1800MEDICARE was deliberately designed not only to provide health care to Australians but to take pressure off hospitals. Estimates are that around 250,000 Australians will avoid a trip to a hospital emergency department each year, because of the health advice and services provided by 1800MEDICARE.

The Albanese government's Medicare Mental Health Check In is also a program the bills currently before the House are designed to support. Medicare mental health check-ins are now online, giving easy and free access to early support for Australians experiencing mild mental health challenges. This service forms part of the Albanese government's commitment to ensuring Australians can receive free mental health care when they need it. Over time, it is expected to help more than 150,000 people each year.

It is healthcare initiatives like 1800MEDICARE and Medicare Mental Health Check In that make the appropriation of funds in these bills so important. Sustainable investment in health care is a key item of this government's policy agenda, because it is the single most important factor in building the foundations of a productive economy. A healthy population underpins a healthy economy, and that healthy economy can stretch and grow and become more productive. This government's policy agenda is driven by the understanding and knowledge that health is an economic proposition and that propositions to promote better health for all Australians are economic imperatives. To cut or reduce health care would be to do a disservice to the Australian people and to the Australian economy.

Promoting and supporting local community endeavours is also a feature of this government's policy agenda because, when local communities thrive and grow, the country thrives and grows. In my electorate of Sturt, the fruits of this agenda have recently been realised in connection with educational facilities, climate resilience preparation and grassroots sport.

Last weekend, I attended the opening of the upgraded facilities in the St Morris Reserve. Thanks to the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters Council, those who attended the celebration enjoyed free gelati and a sausage sizzle, but they did so in the knowledge that the $20 million upgrade to the reserve would protect their properties and streets in the event of a significant flood or storm event.

The federal government contributed $9.9 million to this project as part of the Preparing Australian Communities Program, which targets projects that improve resilience against natural disasters. Through this program, the federal government is funding 158 projects to help Australians cope better with bushfires, floods and cyclones. These projects will make it easier not only to plan for disasters but to educate local communities about risks and to build, improve and protect buildings, roads, bridges and natural areas. This is designed to reduce the impact of disasters, to handle disasters better when they occur and, importantly, to recover faster when disasters happen. The first two months of 2026 have seen natural disasters take place across Australia, and climate change is making them worse. The targeted funding for this program is absolutely necessary to reduce the damage caused by disasters and to make recovery efficient and cost-effective.

There are four key elements to the Preparing Australian Communities Program: the social environment, which helps people work together to keep important services running; the economic environment, targeted at helping local businesses survive disasters; the built environment, protecting infrastructure like roads, houses and powerlines; and the natural environment, looking after nature such as forests and rivers.

In 2019 the future-focused council of the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters completed comprehensive city-wide flood plain mapping, identifying areas at risk of flooding. The mapping incorporated a range of future scenarios, including infill development and the continuing effects of climate change. Like the Albanese Labor government, the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters relies on the science and knows that climate change is real, and I am proud to be part of a federal government that partners with local communities to invest in resilient strategies so that the effects are minimised.

This project involved the construction of a detention basin in the reserve to temporarily detain water in the event of a major storm, to alleviate the risk of flooding to properties in the direct area and downstream. The construction of the detention basin altered the landscape of the reserve, making an ideal opportunity for the existing assets to be upgraded. The result is more green space, trees, a new playground, a public toilet, a basketball court, barbecues, picnic shelters, furniture, paths, landscaping and irrigation in a climate-resilient setting. Residents now have a one-in-100 risk of flooding and flood damage, compared to a one-in-20 risk prior to the project. That is targeted government funding with a discernible, sustainable outcome.

Also in my electorate of Sturt is the Burnside City Council, which is home to the mighty Kensington District Cricket Club and Burnside Rugby Union Club, which currently occupy separate ends of the same clubrooms, centrally located in beautiful Kensington Wama/Kensington Gardens Reserve. The existing clubrooms were constructed in two parts in 1950 and 1970, and I can attest firsthand that they are in a less-than-satisfactory condition and in dire need of an upgrade. Modern amenities are non-existent there, and they are just not suitable for the growing cohort of female cricket and rugby players.

The federal government has contributed $3.6 million to the upgrade of these new facilities, which will sit on the same footprint. Not only will the new facility be the home base for both the cricket club and the rugby club; it will also be beneficial to the community because of the breadth of what is happening. It will include six change rooms meeting universal design standards; accessible facilities including an elevator and ramp; a medical room; clubrooms with integrated bar and kitchen; and a gymnasium. The broader community will benefit from use of the gym and changing facilities; use of the main clubroom space, which can be configured for use as both a function venue and a flexible fitness and training studio; and, of course, access to the bar and canteen.

This development is being undertaken with the maximum possible benefit for the community as the key driver. Importantly for the growth and facilitation of women's sport, the new facility will enable greater participation for women, which has been limited for decades because of the poor condition of the current facility. Women play cricket and rugby too, and they should not have to do so in a substandard environment which screams 'afterthought'. The Kensington Wama redevelopment is a further example of this government's policy agenda with respect to health and fitness, community connection and active support for women and girls to play sport. It is deliberate, targeted funding which will have positive impacts for the broader community. I'm looking forward to attending the sod-turning ceremony next Tuesday, 17 February 2026, and to watching this development take shape.

What is really important to this government is to continue to find savings in the budget—noting that we've found $114 billion worth of savings to date and that finding savings of this magnitude is incredibly difficult. But we will continue to do this and continue to find ways to create efficiencies through restructuring government programs and drawing on new technologies. This is important because efficiencies and savings are preferable to cutting programs, which is the tone of the free advice that is often given to this government, often couched in the oversimplified suggestion of 'just cut spending'. The initiatives that I have outlined in health care, community climate resilience and grassroots community sports are the product of deliberate, targeted spending that no Australian wants to see reduced or cut. No Australian deserves that it be reduced or cut. The government has a duty to the people of Australia and to communities to provide these types of programs, and this government intends to continue to fulfil that duty. It is not frivolous spending that can just be cut. To the contrary, maintenance of that spending requires an offset of savings and creation of efficiencies in the budget to ensure it is sustainable, which is standard practice for this government.

The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have quite rightly been absolutely clear and that we are looking at where we can find savings and efficiencies, and we will maintain the discipline to make absolutely sure that budget pressures are managed to ensure the continuity of these critical programs that Australians deserve. Health care, infrastructure, education, grassroots sports and community climate resilience are what Australians expect and what Australians deserve. Quite rightly, as a feature of good economic management, targeted savings, efficiencies and restructure will be a key part of the May 2026 budget.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.