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

It has never been more important to do two things: ensure that the brave men and women of our defence force are properly equipped and ensure that Australia's strategy of denial is more than just words—that it's actioned for the good of the Australian people and their long-term sustainable safety and security.

Defence is focused on a number of things. First and foremost, it is increasing efforts to develop greater self-reliance over the longer term so that we can more ably and independently deter our adversaries—a strategy of denial. We are prioritising capability acquisition and then sustainment plans to deliver this strategy of denial. Ghost Bat, Ghost Shark, Mogami class frigates, landing craft heavy, landing craft medium, Virginia class nuclear propelled submarines and SSN-AUKUS boats—this will all strengthen our national security and our sovereign defence industrial base, the heart of which is in my great state of South Australia, and build stronger, more diverse international industrial partnerships.

We are increasing coordination with our regional partners to promote regional stability and to collectively deter actions against our interests and against the interests in our region. We have done this in spades—Indonesia, Fiji, Tonga and Papua New Guinea—and we have built on the relationships that we've established in the region during the fuel security crisis that has been experienced due to the conflict in the Middle East.

Through the 2026 Integrated Investment Program, our government is investing almost half a billion dollars over the decade to deliver accelerated capability for the integrated, focused force that we need. This includes a larger and more lethal navy with more surface ships and conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. We are a maritime continent; it is absolutely imperative that our maritime capability reflects this, not only from a defend-and-deter perspective but to protect our valuable trade and supply chain routes, to protect undersea cables, to protect the Australian people and to protect our economy. We're also developing an air force that can provide air support for integrated operations, strengthening cyber capabilities to protect networks and systems, and we are enhancing our space capability—space being the fifth defence domain to provide space-based situational awareness and communication capabilities.

Why are we doing this? We are in a changing world, with liberal democracies under significant pressure. It is more important than ever that we have a properly thought out strategy of denial that promotes Australian security and regional stability, and we are doing this in partnership with our friends around the region. We have a down payment of $3.5 billion at the Osborne Naval Shipyard, in my home state of South Australia. That is a $3.5 billion down payment for the enabling works that will facilitate the record amount of infrastructure that will need to be built to facilitate the build of the SSN-AUKUS. I have been out to the shipyard and can attest firsthand to the incredible amount of work that is going on at the Osborne shipyard and also to the dedication and commitment of the men and women who are building that infrastructure.

There is also a $12 billion down payment at Henderson in Western Australia to help us forge ahead with our strategy of denial. I had the privilege recently of spending a week on HMAS Stirling meeting some of the incredible men and women who will be operating the capability that we are investing in as part of Australia's strategy to defend and deter—our strategy of denial—including Captain Amy Braun of the new ship Eyre; submariners John Lee, Justin Cloney and Byron Williamson; future submariner Dave Court; and MLO Gagan Singh. That is why we invest. We invest because these men and women are putting their hands up to defend our country, and they are doing excellent work on HMAS Stirling. That is why we invest and we will continue to invest in the interests of the Australian people.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have every respect for those members opposite—the member for Sturt, the member for Gilmore, the member for Swan and the member for Spence, who is actually a veteran of three years as Australian Army reservist, Puckapunyal, and I certainly thank you for your service, Member for Spence. But this is about consideration in detail for the Defence portfolio. The member for Sturt didn't ask a question, but, if she had, there's no minister here to answer any such questions. I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence is not in the parliament today, but the Minister for Veterans' Affairs certainly is and so is the Minister for Defence Industry. Why are they not in this chamber, respecting the process and the protocols long held and answering questions that the opposition rightly asks?

And there are a lot of questions to be asked in the Defence portfolio in the veterans' affairs space. Our veterans at the moment have white hot anger. They have white-hot anger about the cap on allied health services—a $5,000 cap on those services which were once uncapped. The veterans are going to be consulted, or so the government tells us. They're going to be asked about what they feel and the changes that they might think are necessary before the allied health cap comes into place on 1 July 2027. But we know that this government whitewashes everyone who questions the veracity of its policies, we know that this was a budget of broken promises and we know that the veterans who do put forward quite reasonable suggestions as to what changes should be made won't be listened to, because that is the Labor way. That's Labor's view of consultation, but it's far short of what is needed. At the moment, these services which provide essential health care for our veterans, for those men and women who gave their all, who put their lives and bodies on the line for our nation, for our people, so that we could be safe and secure and protected and sleep at night—when they hang their military uniform up, when it comes time to have their backs, what does the government do? It ignores them. It turns its back on those who protected us, those who served us, those to whom we should say, 'Thank you for your service' but instead say, 'We're putting a cap on your allied health services.'

What will the government do about this? I genuinely ask the minister in absentia. Are you going to legitimately and rightly do a backflip on this particular question as you have done with the Invictus Games funding, as you have done with the medallic recognition late last year—the moratorium that you and your department and your government placed on this. The veterans' affairs minister also should do a backflip as he did with Doug and Kaye Baird's travel entitlements—$3,000. I mean, it's loose change when it comes to the multibillion dollar veterans spend—a multibillion dollar veterans spend which is justified. But this is not justified. This $748 million saving is cruel. It's mean spirited and it's wrong. Is the minister going to review his decision to cut veterans' affairs departmental staff by 111? We know that when there are public servants shed, they are the public servants we should have on the frontline taking calls, taking inquiries and doing the right thing by our veterans who did the right thing by us.

Unfortunately, our veterans are being ignored. Unfortunately, those veterans, who now want to see a psychologist and who now need the services that were once uncapped, are now going to be capped at $5,000 per year. It's simply not good enough, Minister, and what, Minister, are you doing to rectify this error? What, Minister, are you doing to rectify taking away more than 100 public service jobs in the Department of Veterans' Affairs? You have plenty to say about it in question time. You have plenty to say about it elsewhere. Why aren't you here, Minister to answer the coalition's very justified questions on behalf of the veterans of Australia, who feel very hurt and very betrayed right now.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We are living through a period of genuine global uncertainty. The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global fuel supply chains. The pace of military change in our region is unlike anything we've seen in recent times. As a trading nation surrounded by oceans, Australia's security is inseparable from our ability to keep sea lanes open and supply chains stable. This budget meets that moment. The 2026 National Defence Strategy sets out what is required: a more self-reliant Australia, a stronger sovereign defence industrial base, better national preparedness and deeper cooperation with allies and partners. The total funding in the defence portfolio reaches $887 billion through to 2035-36. This is not just expenditure. It's investment in jobs, the industries and the capabilities that will underpin Australia's security for decades.

But what does that monumental investment look like on the ground? My home of Western Australia is a great example. Henderson is the centrepiece of Australia's naval shipbuilding future in the west. The $12 billion committed to the Henderson defence precinct is a significant down payment on what will be continuous naval shipbuilding capability in Western Australia for generations to come. That funding underpins the construction of the army's landing craft, the domestic build of Australia's future general purpose frigates subject to the successful consolidation of facilities for surface combat sustainment, contingency docking for our future nuclear-powered submarine fleet from the early 2030s and depot level maintenance including graving docks. Over the next two decades, tens of billions of dollars will flow into defence capabilities in Western Australia, supporting 10,000 well-paid, high skilled jobs, and the work being done at Henderson is not just about submarines. It's also about the foundation for the next generation of Australia's surface fleet.

The Australian Albanese government has selected the Japanese upgrade of Mogami class frigates as the preferred platform for the Navy's future fleet of 11 general purpose frigates. The first three vessels will be built in Japan, but the remaining frigates will be built in Western Australia once the successful consolidation of Henderson is complete. These ships will help secure our maritime trade routes and Australia's northern approaches.

Now to AUKUS and what it means for Western Australian workers. Up to $8 billion is being invested to upgrade HMAS Stirling and the support of the implementation of the Submarine Rotational Force-West, creating around 3,000 direct jobs. It's great to hear that the member for Sturt has visited the HMAS Stirling very recently. The upgrades include wharf upgrades, operational maintenance and infrastructure support to increase port visits by the UK and the US. The jobs for subs program is recruiting and upskilling over 200 new entry level positions for graduates, apprentices and trainees in engineering and fabrication trades through the Australian Submarine Corporation. Australian businesses are already entering the global supply chain. The government has announced a pilot program with Huntington Ingalls Industries, the largest military shipbuilder in the United States, to help Australian companies qualify for the Virginia class submarine supply chain. Less than six months later, 2022 Australian companies have progressed in the accreditation pipeline. Eight have already been fully qualified to supply components into that supply chain.

More than 4,000 Commonwealth supported places have been allocated across 16 universities for the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Student Pathways program from 2024 to 2027. In my electorate of Swan, we have Curtin University, which has 320 places, with a further 56 at the University of Western Australia and another 50 at Murdoch University. For those that want to build their skills through a trade, the Shipbuilding Employment Pathways program offers a four-year paid apprenticeship. This is a direct pathway for the nuclear-powered submarines and naval shipbuilding workforce that has a nationally recognised qualification at the end of it, because the best way to build a skilled workforce is to build those people right now. This is the biggest diversification in WA's economy for a very long time.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) | Link to this | Hansard source

I was very fortunate, when I was elected, to come in when the coalition was in government, and I want to say that, when we did consideration in detail, the ministers showed up every time. When the member for Durack was the minister for defence industry, she came in here, sat down, took notes and would stand up and answer the questions. The member for the Riverina has also, as a minister, come in here and taken notes, because this is important. This is the time, during the consideration in detail, when the opposition gets to ask the minister questions. I'm extremely saddened to see not any of the defence portfolio or the Minister for Veterans' Affairs show up for this important time. It is disrespectful for the brave men and women who wear the uniform to have this contempt by this Labor government. We hear all the time that we face the most challenging, strategic, dynamic and dangerous time that we've ever faced, yet we can't get a minister to show up to consideration in detail. This is the worst I've ever seen it, and this Labor government should absolutely be ashamed of themselves.

We've heard the minister, when in opposition, want to talk about 'name all these projects that aren't running through' or 'name this stuff that you're not going to continue with', but, under this defence minister and this Labor defence team, all we've heard is: 'Well, that's commercial in confidence. We can't talk about the cuts or the chaos. We're happy to go get a photo op.' What we haven't seen is any follow-up, and that is not good enough when we're talking about the defence of our nation.

On top of the cuts and on top of the deferrals, we've already seen the fourth squadron of the F-35s, the infantry fighting vehicles that should be rolled out now, cut from 450 to 129. The self-propelled howitzers, the Hunter class frigates, military satellites, integrated air and missile defence—that's not trimming around the edges. That's hollowing out the capability. This minister needs to be honest with the Australian people and with the parliament and provide certainty of our defence industry and of our brave men and women who serve this nation and tell the parliament what defence capabilities will be cut, because lost capability, lost time and a defence force being stretched thinner is a more dangerous world.

At the same time, the government claims they are spending 2.8 per cent of GDP on defence, but it's buried in the fine print, in a single line, that that is not true. This Labor government is eroding the Defence Force capability and the trust that the Australian people should have in them. We get told by experts and by this government. They say that the threat is urgent and is at our doorstep, but this Labor government and its funding is acting like it isn't. It's not just future capability at risk. It's our sustainment. It's our personnel.

People are getting out at a higher rate because of the lack of certainty. We're not fit to fight. We can't fight today because, every time there is funding allocated, it is stripped away or hidden in the fine print. Somehow veterans' welfare and services are wrapped up into the defence budget that says that this is now exceeding the 2.8 per cent of GDP, which is clearly not true.

There is no decision about what's happening for the east coast submarine base for AUKUS. Just $30 million has been allocated to kickstart a $12 billion project. It doesn't match the scale. This government needs to answer questions. We need to back private capital to deliver defence projects. What happens if the investments don't come through from the government? The government is banking on private capital to deliver key defence projects. What happens if they don't come to the table? Does the government step up or does Defence take another hit?

This government has a lot of answers, but the ministers can't even be bothered to rock up. I've got pages and pages of questions. But, if the minister can't be bothered rocking up, the opposition will stand here and ask him and it'll just go off into the ether. I am disgusted by how this government is behaving when it comes to defence. The minister should be in here talking about what they're doing, what's been in their budget, so we can ask the questions and get the answers on behalf of the Australian Defence Force. Shame on this Labor government. You're not fit to lead.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start by thanking the member for Riverina for his kind acknowledgement earlier. I also acknowledge the member for Herbert and his service to this fine country and also yourself, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, for your service.

In a world that is becoming more uncertain and less predictable, Australians expect their government to ensure our Defence Force has the people, equipment and capabilities needed to keep our nation safe. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering. After years of chaos and dysfunction under those opposite, including 24 different ministers across the Defence portfolio in less than a decade, this government has provided the leadership and long-term planning our national security demands.

The 2026 National Defence Strategy and the 2026 Integrated Investment Program set out a clear vision for Australia's future security. They recognise the need for greater self-reliance, a stronger sovereign defence industry, improved national resilience and deeper partnerships with our allies and partners. Most importantly, they back those objectives with funding. The 2026 Integrated Investment Program includes an additional $14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has increased defence spending by $30 billion across the forward estimates and $117 billion over the next decade. These investments are not just about keeping Australians safe; they are about creating highly skilled Australian jobs and supporting a future made in Australia.

A key part of that work is AUKUS. AUKUS represents one of the most significant strategic and industrial undertakings in our nation's history. It is helping deliver the next generation of submarine capability while creating opportunities for Australian workers, manufacturers and businesses to participate in global defence supply chains.

Already, South Australian manufacturer and northern suburbs local Century Engineering has become the first South Australian company to receive a purchase order from the United States under the program. That is a tangible example of how AUKUS is creating opportunities for local industry, developing supply chains and helping build sovereign capability here at home. We want Australian businesses to play a central role in this once-in-a-generation investment, ensuring the economic benefits are felt not just in Defence precincts but across communities throughout the country.

In South Australia, the $200 million Deep Maintenance and Modification Facility is strengthening our sovereign capability while supporting hundreds of local jobs. Right next door, at the RAAF Base Edinburgh defence precinct, almost $312 million has been invested to upgrade critical infrastructure and sustain Defence operations into the future. Through investments like these, the Albanese Labor government is ensuring Australia remains secure, resilient and prepared for the challenges ahead while creating the skilled jobs and industrial capability our nation will rely on for decades to come.

Just as this government is investing in the capabilities, infrastructure and workforce needed to keep Australia secure into the future, we are equally committed to supporting the people who have worn our nation's uniform. A strong defence force is measured not only by the equipment it operates or the ships and aircraft it acquires but also by how well we care for serving personnel, veterans and their families before, during and after their service to our country. Supporting our veterans is one of the most important responsibilities of government, and the Albanese Labor government is backing that responsibility with real investment and real reform.

When we came to office, the Department of Veterans' Affairs had been left underfunded and underresourced, with almost 42,000 new claims sitting untouched and veterans waiting far too long for the support they deserved. By properly funding DVA and increasing staffing, this government has cleared that inherited backlog and ensured new claims are now being looked at within 14 days of submission. The investment has been substantial, with $37.9 billion spent on veteran compensation and treatment during our first three years in government.

But this is about more than funding alone. The Albanese government is delivering once-in-a-generation reforms to simplify veterans' entitlements, implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and build a system that is easy to navigate and faster to access. In the 2026 budget, more than $770 million was committed to implementing royal commission recommendations, including the largest increase in allied health funding for veterans in two decades. These changes will improve access to physiotherapy, psychology and other critical services while reducing unnecessary red tape and making it easier for veterans to receive the care they need.

Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise during the consideration in detail of the defence portfolio appropriations to address what is arguably the first responsibility of any federal government: the defence of our nation. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since the end of the Second World War. The Defence Strategic Review made that clear. It warned that the assumptions which have underpinned our security for decades can no longer be taken for granted. It warned that the prospect of major conflict in our region can no longer be dismissed. It warned that Australia faces a far more uncertain and dangerous future.

Against that backdrop, Australians expect honesty from government. That is why serious questions must be asked about this budget and the government's claims about defence spending. Despite the warnings of the Defence Strategic Review, defence spending remains around two per cent of GDP under the government's current funding profile. At a time when the strategic environment is deteriorating, Australians are entitled to ask whether that is enough. Recent reports have suggested that the government's headline defence spending figures include items such as military superannuation, veterans' income support payments and funding for agencies outside core defence capability expenditure.

Australians strongly support our veterans and those who have served our nation. They should. But Australians are entitled to know whether the government is inflating defence spending figures while the capabilities needed to defend Australia today continue to face delays and deferrals. The question is not how large a headline figure can be constructed. The question is whether the Australian Defence Force is becoming more capable. The question is whether our defence personnel are getting the equipment, resources and support they need. The question is whether Australia's deterrent capability is strengthening at the pace demanded by our strategic circumstances.

I want to be clear: I support AUKUS, and the coalition supports AUKUS. The coalition has committed to lifting defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP. We believe Australia's strategic circumstances demand it. We support AUKUS, but we also recognise that submarines alone are not a defence strategy. Australia needs stronger capability across the board. We must have military precision in our defence procurement. The development of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine capability is one of the most significant defence investments in our nation's history. But the Albanese government must do better than force Defence to choose between AUKUS and capability, because we need both.

We will need nuclear-powered submarines in the decades ahead, but we also need a defence force today that is fully equipped, properly resourced and ready to respond to the strategic risks identified by the Defence Strategic Review. Yet concerns continue to be raised that projects critical to Australia's immediate capability have been delayed, reduced or reprioritised while funding is increasingly concentrated on the AUKUS pathway. The challenge for government is not simply to fund AUKUS; the challenge is ensuring that AUKUS does not come at the expense of other critical capabilities that strengthen deterrence before the first submarine enters service. That includes guided-weapons production. It includes autonomous systems. It includes cyber capability. It includes logistics, sustainment and force readiness. And it includes ensuring that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have access to the equipment and resources necessary to meet their extraordinarily high standards of service.

The government frequently speaks about a future Defence Force, yet the difference between two per cent of GDP and 3 per cent of GDP is not simply an accounting exercise; it represents additional investment in capabilities that strengthen deterrence now, not just decades into the future. So my question to the minister is this: if the government genuinely accepts the finding of the Defence Strategic Review that Australia faces its most dangerous strategic environment in decades, why does this budget ask the Australian Defence Force to wait years for much of the capability it needs, and how can the government assure defence personnel and the Australian people that the defence of our nation is being strengthened now, rather than simply promised for the future?

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the appropriation bill, what this budget means for Australia's defence capability—and I'm pleased to be joined by the Minister for Defence Industry and my other defence colleagues this evening—and what it means not only for the Hunter region but for the thousands of defence personnel, veterans and defence industry workers who call my electorate home. When we discuss defence spending in this place, we are talking about much more than figures on a page or equipment needed to defend a country; we're talking about men and women who serve our nation, the families who support them and the communities who help deliver the capabilities Australia needs to remain safe and secure in an increasingly uncertain world.

Our people are our most sophisticated and valuable capability. Unlike the member for Herbert, who most disingenuously just said in this place that we are 'not fit to fight'—I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. I say we have never been recruiting better and we are retaining more people in our great Australian Defence Force. They are most certainly fit to fight and defend their nation, as they do most professionally.

In my electorate, that story begins at RAAF Base Williamtown. Williamtown is one of Australia's most significant defence bases and is home to around 3,500 defence personnel. It is a critical capability, it is a hub for Australian defence, it is the premier F-35 base and it is also the proud home of Australia's E-7A Wedgetail, which is an aircraft that has earned an international reputation for excellence and demonstrated its value in operations both at home and abroad. Today, around 85 Australian Defence Force personnel are serving in the United Arab Emirates on that Wedgetail aircraft deployed to the region. Those personnel represent the very best of Australia. Their service reminds us that defence capability is ultimately about people, dedicated Australians, prepared to serve their country wherever and whenever they are called upon. And, while we recognise those serving overseas and around the country, we also recognise the partners, the children and the families here at home who carry their own burden of service and sacrifice while they wait for their loved ones to return safely. I give a big shout-out to all the kids at Wirreanda. It is the place across Australia where we have the most defence children at a public primary school.

Australia's security can no longer be taken for granted. Strategic competition in our region is increasing, global instability continues to create uncertainty and nations around the world are investing heavily in their defence capabilities. That is why this budget continues the government's commitment to ensuring Australia has the capabilities, workforce and industrial capacity needed to protect our national interest now and into the future. The government's National Defence Strategy provides a clear plan to ensure Australian defence is equipped, trained and supported to deter, protect Australia's interests and respond when required. In recognition of these challenges, our government is providing an additional $14 billion over the next four years and an additional $53 billion over the decade through defence funding, estate modernisation and other investments. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has increased defence spending by $30 billion over the forward estimates and around $117 billion over the decade. These are substantial investments because Australia faces a more complex security environment than at any other time in recent decades. But these investments are not only about defence capability; they are about jobs, they're about industry, they are about our own sovereignty and they are about economic opportunity in communities like mine and further afield.

One of the most significant examples of this is taking shape right now at Newcastle Airport. The Newcastle Airport defence and aerospace precinct is rapidly becoming one of Australia's most important centres for sovereign defence manufacturing. The Albanese government has committed up to $850 million in partnership with Kongsberg Australia to manufacture and sustain naval strike missiles and joint strike missiles in the Hunter. Construction of the new facility is well advanced and nearing completion. This project is exactly what a future made in Australia looks like. It means advanced manufacturing jobs in our regions, Australian workers building critical defence capability here at home and a stronger, more self-reliant Australia.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget commits Australia to record levels of defence expenditure, including an additional $14 billion over four years and some $53 billion over the decade. Defence spending will reach more than $425 billion over 10 years. Accountability in defence spending must also include accountability in decisions by Defence, especially around its decisions on critical capabilities and managing defence assets.

This is a live issue in Warringah, where Defence proposes to partially divest HMAS Penguin. Following its Defence estate audit, the government has determined that some capabilities of HMAS Penguin are critical and will remain onsite, including the clearance divers unit and the underwater medical unit. However, the government has also determined that other capabilities are noncritical and may be relocated, which has led to the proposed partial divestment of parts of the site, including the remnant bushland.

Along with my community, I strongly oppose this decision to partially divest HMAS Penguin. I've submitted freedom-of-information requests to seek the evidence behind this proposal, including the cost-benefit assessment used to justify relocating so-called noncritical capabilities and partially divesting the site. To date, there has been no clear explanation of what is proposed to be divested. Is it the remnant bushland? Is it parts of the built environment? What buildings would be affected, what are their maintenance costs, and what assessment has been done to ensure they do not fall into disrepair?

My questions to the minister are: Will the government release the cost-benefit analysis behind the proposed relocation of noncritical capabilities and partial divestment of HMAS Penguin? Will the government release the environmental, cultural, heritage and capability assessments underpinning this decision? Will the minister clearly identify which parts of HMAS Penguin are proposed for partial divestment, including whether remnant bushland or significant buildings are included? Will the minister guarantee that public interest will be prioritised, that the remnant bushland will be protected for conservation and that any buildings will not be sold for private commercial development? Will the minister guarantee my community that this important public asset will not simply be sold off into private ownership?

The UK intelligence agencies recently released a report that found all critical ecosystems were on a pathway to collapse. Will the Australian government release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence's climate risk assessment and properly recognise climate change as a core national security threat? Will Defence release any advice in relation to national security and capability assessment that it has provided the government in relation to climate risk and its impact on our national security?

National security does not begin and end with military spending. The government continues to take a myopic view of security by committing hundreds of billions to defence while leaving climate resilience severely underfunded. Security experts consistently identify climate change as one of the greatest threats to Australia's long-term stability. The government's own national climate risk assessment highlighted the seriousness of the risks we face, yet just $117 million was allocated to climate adaptation and disaster resilience, with most of it going to emergency response. Climate resilience is a national security issue, and, if we fail to invest now, Australians will pay far more later and will not be safe—no matter how many submarines you buy.

Finally, as discussed during the MPI today, Australians are entitled to much more clarity when it comes to the AUKUS agreement. The public has no confidence that there is going to be any value for money to the Australian people. Despite billions of dollars being transferred, as yet there is no guarantee that anything will be delivered to the Australian people. So I again ask the government: Will the government provide full transparency on any changes to the AUKUS pathway, including cost, delivery risk and sovereignty implications? What guarantee can the government provide that Australia will not face a submarine capability gap after the Collins class submarines retire in 2040, particularly if US shipbuilding capacity does not increase or a future US administration decides not to transfer the promised submarines? With more than $10 billion transferred to date, and much more being committed into the future, the Australian public deserves to know what guarantees Defence and the Australian government can provide that the capability will be available.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud and privileged to sum up consideration in detail for the defence portfolio estimates. It goes to competing choices of governments, whether to support national security and support defending the nation or whether to support dry media releases and rhetoric.

What we saw from the coalition was a raft of talking points with no substance, which, to be fair to them, they are consistent in. In government it was all about talking points and media releases, and in opposition that's all they are. The truth is that the coalition has always been weak on national security—whether it was bringing us into the second Iraq war on a lie, whether it was bringing us into Vietnam on a lie, whether it was Bob Menzies arguing for appeasement of Nazi Germany not in 1933, not in 1935, but 10 days after Hitler invaded Poland; Bob Menzies argued to do a peace deal with Nazi Germany—and it always will be. This is the quality of the Liberal and National parties on national security. Big on chest thumping, weak on delivery, weak on actually protecting Australia.

We saw that the last time they were in government as well. For all their talk about 'muscling up' and the 'drums of war', what did they produce in terms of increased defence funding? In 2016 they announced a $30 billion increase over a decade—$30 billion. Two years later, they cut $20 billion of the $30 billion. Again, more talk. On GWEO—guided weapons and explosive ordnance—a lot of talk. What did they produce? Two media releases. That is literally all they produced on guided weapons when they were in power for that long 9½ years. For AUKUS, we had a press conference and nothing else. They are big on talk; hopeless on delivery.

In contrast, the Albanese Labor government is committing the resources to defend this nation. Over the last two national defence strategies, we have increased defence funding by $117 billion above the trajectory we inherited—importantly, $30 billion over the forward estimates. This year's budget alone saw a $53 billion increase over the decade. This means, when compared to the trajectory we inherited, we're seeing an average year-on-year increase in the Defence budget of 7.6 per cent per annum each year. This is driving investments across all of the domains of the ADF. This myth out there that AUKUS is gobbling up everything is just not substantiated by the facts.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjection from one of the 3,000 defence industry ministers the last government had. Defence ministers lasted shorter than goldfish under the last government.

Let's look at the facts for funding. Increases in LAND funding by 34 per cent. Investment in the Air Force increases by 24 per cent. Maritime above the water—so non-submarines—increases by 11 per cent. Investment in GWEO is doubled to $36 billion. We are more than doubling funding for counterdrone defences. Drone manufacturing is up 50 per cent. Missile defence is a 66 per cent increase in funding, including increasing active missile defence by an order of five times. So we're funding not just AUKUS, we're funding air, LAND, sea, missile production, counterdrone production, drone production and missile defence because this government is committed to defending this nation.

Acquisition funding increases in the four years from $21 billion to $27 billion. I heard the member for Herbert talking about sustainment—again, not based in facts. This year we will spend $18.8 billion on sustainment. Over the forward estimates alone, it grows to $24.4 billion, a one-third increase in sustainment funding in four years alone. We're driving the biggest increase in peacetime funding for the defence Force. We're seeing equipment coming with speedy delivery of things like Ghost Shark, the fastest acquisition of a major capability in recent history. The Mogami class is going to be very fast as well. At the same time, we're growing the Australian defence industry. Employment in manufacturing in the Australian defence industry grew by 11 per cent in the last year alone. So we're growing jobs, we're growing capability for the ADF and we're driving the resources that the ADF needs to defend this country.

What we see from the opposition is chest-beating. They're always proud to talk about it, always proud to be in shots with people in uniform, but, when it comes to backing up the ADF with the resources they need to defend this country, they go missing in action just like Bob Menzies always was.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Health, Disability and Ageing Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $64,077,874,000

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

To every person on the NDIS and people with disabilities across our country: I just want to let you know that the two ministers for the NDIS are not here to listen to this speech and answer questions. They've sent in their assistant minister. Right now, people with disability who rely on the NDIS are terrified about what their future holds. Just last week I heard from a man who's been in a wheelchair for 27 years—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are interjecting. They might like to listen to this story about this man in a wheelchair who's been there for 27 years. He has an acquired brain injury and very limited movement in his arms and needs 24/7 care, yet he's fighting for his slashed supports to be reinstated. He's been told his plan is in the implementation stage and it can't be internally reviewed until that process is complete. When he spoke up about his unsafe wheelchair tyres, do you know what the planner said? 'Use the wheelchair less.' This is what participants on the NDIS are dealing with today, and, if this is what's happening today, before the Albanese Labor government's changes happen, is it any wonder they are scared?

Senate documents released last week now reveal the changes proposed by the government to the eligibility rules will result in around 346,000 fewer people on the NDIS by 2031. Of that number, 240,000 people are already receiving support through the NDIS and will be moved off the scheme. This is a far cry from the 160,000 fewer participants Minister Butler has allowed the media narrative to run on, and only after pressure by the parliament to provide modelling has the Albanese government provided the sparsest three A4 pages. The changes proposed by the government are significant, and three pages of data hardly constitutes providing the economic modelling or being transparent about where the $185 billion in savings will come from. If this is the extent of the modelling the government has undertaken, it is no wonder the disability community are concerned.

Minister Butler, who is not here, where will the 346,000 people who will no longer be supported by the NDIS go? This is the question I and my team are being asked each and every day by participants and their families, who are scared of what their future will look like. And I've got no answers for them, because the Albanese government doesn't know.

State and territory ministers have the same questions, and they are pushing back. The New South Wales Labor premier, Chris Minns, says:

… we can't provide equivalent care in the state system, and it's not because we're mean or stingy, or we're trying to push people away. It's because we're flat out providing basic health care in our schools and our hospitals.

The South Australian premier said their health system 'doesn't have the capacity to take on an additional burden'. Burden? These are the words being used to describe people with disability. These words are a dismissal of people's needs and take us back to dark times where people felt unsafe, unheard and unseen—a time before the NDIS was established.

While the Albanese Labor government has spent the last few months shuffling numbers on a spreadsheet to try and make their near-trillion-dollar deficit look more manageable, they have failed to consult with the disability community or state governments about how and where people will be supported moving forward. Hot tip, Minister: good governments consult before, not after, the fact, and good governments do the hard work before they announce changes that will have far-reaching consequences for vulnerable people.

There is no denying that the NDIS has grown far beyond what was originally expected 13 years ago. A scheme designed to support 410,000 Australians is now supporting 760,000. A scheme originally expected to cost $13.6 billion is now approaching $50 billion a year and growing. We need to be honest about that, but this is now the Albanese government's third attempt to rein in spending. They promised growth would be reduced to eight per cent—they failed. Then it was five per cent—they failed. Now it is two per cent, and growth is currently sitting at over 10 per cent. Whilst addressing growth is necessary, so too is addressing the rampant fraud. So I want to ask the minister: when will you provide the disability community with the answers they are so desperately seeking, and what are you going to do to address the rampant fraud through the system? The NDIS must be there for Australians with significant and permanent disability, exactly as it was intended. But the Albanese government has left the disability community fearful, while criminals are ripping off the NDIS and getting off scot-free.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

For far too long, women's health was overlooked and underfunded. There was a government—a 9½-year-long government—that failed in exactly this place. I stand tonight to applaud this budget, because too many women struggled to access affordable treatment, too many conditions were poorly understood and too many women were told to simply live with the pain. This was despite women from the former government raising issues about pelvic pain and endometriosis. But there was never a program or funding to follow until Labor came to government and we made women's health a priority. That commitment is reflected in our landmark women's health package, representing an investment of almost $800 million to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women and girls across Australia. We are building, budget to budget, in this space.

These reforms, importantly, are already making a difference. Since the package was introduced, more than 700,000 women have accessed cheaper PBS prescriptions. Women are paying less for contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapies and treatments for conditions such as endometriosis. This government delivered the first new contraceptive pill listed on the PBS in more than 30 years and the first new menopausal hormone therapies listed in over 20 years. These are reforms women had been waiting decades to see, and it took a majority-female government to deliver on them. For women living with endometriosis, the impact has been significant. More than 7,000 women have accessed around 30,000 PBS scripts for endometriosis treatments, saving an estimated $5.7 million.

But improving women's health is about more than cheaper medicines; it's also about ensuring women can access the care and support they need through a stronger Medicare system. Already, more than 71,000 women have accessed Medicare-funded menopause health assessments. This is breakthrough stuff. We've introduced new Medicare items and increased rebates for gynaecological care, making specialist treatment more affordable and accessible. Around 430,000 additional services have been delivered for women experiencing endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, chronic pelvic pain and other gynaecological conditions. We've also made it easier and cheaper to access long-acting reversible contraception, including IUDs and contraceptive implants.

Importantly, this government, under Minister Butler, Assistant Minister White, Assistant Minister McBride and Assistant Minister Cooper in the last term have established a national network of endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. Recently, we announced an additional 11 clinics across Australia, including one in the heart of my community, in Werribee. This brings the total number of clinics nationwide to 33.

I've had the Prime Minister visit and I've had Assistant Minister White visit our local clinic. During both visits, we heard from clinicians who spoke directly about the differences these services are making. What impressed me most about those conversations was hearing that it is actually building the entire GP network's understanding and capacity to treat and support women in these spaces. I know that the clinic in my community is, as we speak, reaching out to GPs in my community to include them in these networks. This is, powerfully, going to change health treatment for women across our country, not just in these clinics.

For too many women, years of pain were dismissed. Too often, women were told their symptoms were normal or that they simply had to live with them. These clinics provide understanding, support and a pathway to diagnosis—and, more importantly, treatment. We cannot underestimate the economic impact of the pain that these women suffer from and the lack of treatment compounding that. This is what happens when women's health is treated as a national priority. It means cheaper medicines, it means a stronger Medicare and it means better access to specialist care.

These reforms sit alongside our broader investments in Medicare, including in Lalor—the over 35,000 visits to our Medicare urgent care clinic. This budget is making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent feature of our health system. We've also doubled the number of fully bulk-billed clinics to 41 clinics across Lalor so locals can see a GP for free as long as they have their Medicare card. Our cheaper-medicines policies have saved locals in Lalor $13 million on over 2.1 million scripts. (Time expired)

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) | Link to this | Hansard source

Regional health equity is just not front of mind for this Labor government. Unsurprisingly, there were no significant new measures for regional health in the 2026-27 budget. This government continues to invest in its pet projects that are not fit for purpose in the regions, like urgent care clinics. Urgent care clinics are city-centric with large throughput models as their basis and very expensive at $216 per visit, compared to just $42.85 for a level B GP consultation. They also take GPs away from regional clinics into urgent care clinics. It makes no sense. It is not increasing the workforce. It is not solving the actual problems that we have.

On that note, where is the mapping to demonstrate the government's claim that, soon, four out of five Australians will live within 20 minutes drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic? Where is the map—

of approximately 5.6 million Australians not able to access a UCC? Member for Durack, I hear what you're saying, and it is very true across Mallee, bar one town.

In this budget, public hospital funding was increased by $25 billion over five years. How much of that will go to the regions? I'd love to know, and that is my question to the minister, but I doubt that there will be an equitable share for the 25 per cent of people who live out in the regions. Hospitals in the regions continue to struggle to recruit and retain the medical, nursing and allied health workforce they need to provide care close to home. This frequently results in rural people travelling vast distances to access care in cities or large regional centres. Yet state based travel reimbursement schemes like the Victorian Patient Transport Assistance Scheme, VPTAS, have for many years been criticised for being woefully inadequate in their support of rural patients travelling to access care. And guess what the Victorian Labor government have done to that scheme. They've cut it again. So, for the people who live six hours away by road: 'Well, too bad! If you're 80 and you're sick, you're just going to have to get in a car and travel along those awfully bumpy roads to get to Melbourne to get the care.' It is an outrage that the Labor government does not give any respect or dignity to those who live in the regions—and it is on repeat.

Labor is all talk and no action when it comes to delivering outcomes for regional Australians. The National Health Reform Agreement's addendum 'Schedule F—better health equity for rural and remote communities' is a first. It is a step in the right direction, but if the government is serious about improving health equity for rural, regional and remote Australians why doesn't the new agreement include clear KPIs to that effect? So much for transparency!

How does the government intend to measure performance against the high-level commitments and principles contained in schedule F, if at all? Does anyone really think that the states and territories will deliver just because there are a few principles included in a document? I don't think so. Not only are there no performance measures; there is no funding attached to the schedule. Truly, it makes my head hurt. It actually makes my heart hurt for all the people who live in regional and rural Australia and who are being done over by Labor governments who do not give a rat's for their existence, their wellbeing, their health and their quality of life. It is honestly outrageous, and this schedule is another virtue signal.

One hundred additional Commonwealth supported places were allocated in last year's budget to train doctors, with the intention to increase the likelihood that graduates will work in primary care in rural, regional and underserved metropolitan areas in particular, yet there was no tangible objective mechanism to ensure universities recruited rural students or programs to align with the evidence base and deliver end-to-end training in truly rural locations. In the same vein, the 2025-26 budget expanded GP training, and while the data shows that GPs are in shorter supply in rural and remote, MM 5 to 7, areas—shock horror!—no training places were allocated to the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine. What is that about?

Jess Teesdale (Bass, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about aged care, but more importantly about dignity. We don't see aged care as just a line in a budget; we see it as being about people. It's about the person who has lived in the same home for 40 years and who wants to stay there a little longer. It's about the daughter trying to organise care for her mum while watching someone she loves become more vulnerable. It's about the aged-care worker who notices when something's not quite right and offers comfort in moments of real vulnerability. Across Bass, families, carers, older Australians and aged-care workers continuously tell me the same thing. They want older people to be safe, respected and supported where and when they need it. That's not too much to ask. It's the most basic promise we should make as a country.

For too long, Australia's aged-care system did not live up to that promise. It was criminally neglected. Too many families experienced long waits, too many older Australians did not get support early enough, and too many workers carried a system that did not actually value them. That's why this reform really matters. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, has made aged-care reform a priority. We're investing $3.7 billion to deliver more aged-care beds, more home-care support and better care. It's not just a box-ticking exercise. We know that there is much more work to do, but we are working on it. In Bass, it's the access that matters in particular. It matters whether there's a suitable place close to home, it matters whether a family can visit without driving for hours, and it matters whether someone can stay connected to their community and the people that they love.

This investment is reaching Bass directly. At Respect Group's Fred French facility in Launceston we've invested $2.84 million to convert an unused wing into an 11-bed memory support unit, at Calvary Sandhill in Launceston we're investing $1.75 million to create a 12-bed memory support unit, and at Southern Cross Care in Low Head—a stunning location—we are investing $666,000 to refurbish four unused staff villas, which will bring those spaces back into service. These are not infrastructure projects to me; these are rooms where families will visit, they're places where people with complex needs will receive more appropriate care, and they're practical investments in dignity, safety and comfort. Too many families know the heartbreak of dementia. They know how hard it can be to keep someone safe and they know that love alone is not always enough. Families need specialist care. They need services that understand dementia and respond with patience, with skill and with compassion. I look forward to those rooms opening in the very near future.

When we look at aged care, we know it's not just about residential care. For many older Australians, the strongest wish is simple: they want to stay at home, in their own bed, in their own chair, in their own garden, with their own community. We're working towards making that more realistic. From 1 October, our personal care services will be fully funded by the Commonwealth for people who need that support. These are not luxuries, and we know this; they're basic human needs. They go directly to dignity. The new Aged Care Act places the rights of older Australians at the very centre of that system. We've strengthened the quality standards and transparency. We've ensured there are more nurses in aged-care homes, increased the care minutes and backed aged-care workers with significant pay rises. It's the aged-care workers who do essential work, and for far too long that work was very much undervalued. They were overlooked. They were poorly treated.

There is so much more that we need to do, but we're working on it now. No-one pretends that the aged-care system can be fixed overnight, but we should recognise that progress is being made. We have more beds, more home care, more dementia support, more nurses, better pay for workers and real investments, particularly for my electorate of Bass. Every Australian deserves to feel safe, supported and respected. Every family deserves confidence that their loved one is receiving high-quality care. Every aged-care worker deserves to be valued. That is what the people of Bass deserve, and that is absolutely what we are working towards.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

As the shadow assistant minister for the NDIS and for mental health, my phone has certainly been running hot over recent weeks, with a lot of stakeholders in both areas who are deeply disappointed with the government's budget.

After denying reality on the NDIS for many years, in this budget Labor have finally recognised that the NDIS is not sustainable on its current growth trajectory. The coalition is prepared to work constructively with the government in relation to the NDIS reforms that have been built into the forward appropriations of this budget, but I am highly sceptical of the Labor government's capacity to truly deliver the reform that the scheme needs.

In the last quarterly report, scheme growth was up from 10.3 per cent to 11.3 per cent. It's getting worse as we go along. That's despite the fact that at the start of this financial year the government was aiming for a growth trajectory of eight per cent, which then became five per cent and is now sitting at two per cent. While they've been setting all these targets, it's actually been growing in the wrong direction.

They're failing to land many of the reforms that they had promised previously that were going to bring the scheme under control. They've delayed the implementation of the ICANN tool. No stakeholders know anything about the Thriving Kids initiative, which is supposed to kick off in October. The shadow minister for the NDIS touched on the massive fraud issues that we're seeing across the system, and the government's inability to deal with those issues.

Many of the reforms that the government is now proposing are things that the coalition has been supporting for years, including functional assessments, stronger registration and digital payment controls. These are all measures that the Labor government, in opposition, previously opposed. Our concern is that Labor is rushing cuts and eligibility tightening, while the real integrity reforms that we want to see in the scheme are going to be delayed for years and probably won't be fully implemented beyond the forwards of this budget.

I note that neither of the NDIS ministers are present here today, but I have several questions. Will the government detail how the projected $37.8 billion reduction in NDIS payments growth will be achieved? What specific assumptions are being made regarding participant numbers, plan growth, eligibility changes, foundational supports and fraud savings? When last in government, the coalition was ready to launch a new digital payment system. It was something that the former minister, Bill Shorten, threw straight in the bin. Is the government using that as a basis for the design of the new digital payment system? How was the $300-plus million price tag on this initiative estimated? Given the change to functional assessments, how will the government define which children will be eligible for Thriving Kids support and what thresholds or assessment tools will be used? Will access to Thriving Kids access be based on functional assessments or on diagnosis? With the October start date just around the corner, what is the specific design of the Thriving Kids initiative, and how will there be uniform implementation of services across each of the state jurisdictions? What specific services and supports will be delivered under the $3 billion Foundational Supports program outside the NDIS? How will they differ from existing NDIS funded supports, and how much of this funding is being directed towards the Thriving Kids initiative? These are the questions that stakeholders are asking, and I hope the government members are nimble enough to try to provide some level of answer tonight.

In relation to mental health, this budget does not inspire confidence about the government's ambition for mental health reform. At a time when the sector is putting all hopes on the next national mental health and suicide prevention agreement, the budget papers are remarkably thin and only give more uncertainty. Only 12 months of extension of funding has been committed for the agreement. The government claims negotiations are ongoing, but there is no clear funding envelope in the forwards for the agreement to continue, let alone be expanded. That is concerning because demand for mental health services is, of course, rising. Providers are under pressure and too many Australians are still missing out on critical psychosocial supports. The last thing that anybody wants is vulnerable Australians falling through the cracks during periods of major system change. That's the worst possible time for them to get the settings wrong. The sector deserves far more certainty than what is being delivered through this budget.

In relation to mental health, these are answers that the sector and I are both crying out for. Given that many of the sector are pinning their hopes on a new, more ambitious agreement, why is the government not anticipating any new funding for the next years of the agreement? Does the absence of funding beyond 2026-27 indicate the government has no ambition for a new mental health and suicide prevention agreement?

Matt Smith (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was 21, I was playing in South Carolina. I went baseline on a guy, took off and went to dunk on him. He grabbed my shoulder and tore it right through, shredded my labrum and took out a couple of tendons. I was out of the game for nine months. I needed a full reconstruction. I went to sleep thinking I was getting a scope, and I woke up—

Basem Abdo (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

And you thought parliament was dangerous!

Matt Smith (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Parliament's very dangerous, Bas. I woke up and a bit of my career had disappeared. The scary thing was not the injury. The scary thing was not the rehab. The scary thing was not being unable to lift a one pound weight. The scary thing was the bill—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Putting me to sleep and waking me up alone cost my university $120,000. If I had been forced to pay for that, if my parents had been forced to pay for that, we would still be paying it off today. There is zero chance of us being able to clear that debt. I was lucky because I was injured in the course of fulfilling my duties to my school.

Last week, I had to get some more scans done, this time in Cairns. Don't let this fool you. I'm being held together by hope and duct tape. It was free, completely bulk-billed. The follow-up consultation was completely bulk-billed, and that is the pride of Australia. There is a reason that the Medicare card is green and gold. It's because of who we are—

An honourable member interjecting—

I can show you them if you like. My back's out. It's a complete mess.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

This isn't the place for a discussion across the floor of the chamber.

Matt Smith (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

But the bulk-billing is what has made Australia great. Because if you don't have your health, you don't have anything. This $8.5 billion investment in bulk-billing has made bulk-billing more accessible for people right across the country, including 53 fully bulk-billed GP clinics in my electorate of Leichhardt, including Cooktown. It is very regional and very remote, but a lovely part of the world. It used to be mixed billing. Now it is bulk-billing.

The reason for that is this investment in the medical community committing to bulk-billing. They understand that they won't be sought after or have their rebates frozen time after time, effectively creating a pay cut, making it harder and harder for them to deliver for the communities that they love. Don't make any mistake about this—the medical community loves the communities they serve. They work long hours. The rural GP is a place of pride. It is something that people talk to. They become a leader within their community. And the work that this government has done, this Albanese Labor government, in restoring Medicare and bringing Medicare back has allowed those doctors to restore their place of pride within that community and to offer free, Medicare bulk-billed medical appointments. Not everybody can afford a gap, and your health is what is the most important.

In an electorate such as mine, there are some lower socioeconomic areas. They shouldn't have to compromise. They shouldn't have to look at themselves and ask: 'Do I go to the doctor this week or do I get food for the kids? Do I pay the school fees or the electricity bill? Do I make sure that my medicine is taken up?' If you have a chronic illness or a mental health illness and you need that medicine on a monthly basis, we're here to help. The PBS change freezes things at 2004 levels—after my shoulder reconstruction, I was back in the league by then—and makes life easier. It gives people dignity. It lets them know that Australia cares for them.

Every single bulk-billing patient is us telling the nation that we care for you, that we care for your health, that we care for your family. We want to make sure that you get to be the very best version of yourself, because that's what Medicare can mean. It can mean the difference between an undiagnosed mental health illness that drags you into the dirt or living your best life. It can stop bronchitis becoming pneumonia and then becoming something much, much worse. It means that we have the security and safety of knowing that our children will get the medical attention they need and they deserve.

This $8.5 billion is the best investment we have ever made. It's an investment in Australia; it's an investment in our future; it's an investment in our children. I am so very proud to be part of a government that has delivered this for the nation.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the opportunity speak in consideration in detail stage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, specifically regarding the health, disability and ageing portfolio. Today I would like to focus particularly on health expenditure.

The aim of this funding, as Budget Paper No. 4 states, is to:

Better equip Australia to meet current and future health needs … through … evidence-based health policies; improved access to … health care; … protecting the health and safety of the … community

I welcome the much needed investments in the budget for public hospitals, for cheaper medicines, for urgent care clinics and for health and medical research. But in this budget there is also a missed opportunity to invest in common sense, evidence based prevention policies that would improve the health and wellbeing of Australians, save lives, reduce pressure on hospitals and generate billions in savings.

Australia is still fundamentally a treatment focused system. Most health funding is spent after people get sick. Hospitals and Medicare dominate spending, while prevention remains only a fraction of total health expenditure. Yet every dollar invested in prevention yields $14.30 in healthcare savings and broader economic benefits. Despite this, Australia only invests around two per cent of its health budget in prevention, significantly less than comparable countries like the UK and Canada. And we know the consequences. Around 6.4 million hospitalisations each year, or 55 per cent of total, are due to chronic diseases—costing about $82 billion annually. Half of these are preventable. It is estimated that lost labour force participation from chronic disease will cost the economy more than $67 billion by 2030.

Commonwealth health spending is projected to rise from 4.2 per cent of GDP in 2022-23 to 6.2 per cent in 2062-63, so why are we not seriously investing in chronic disease prevention measures? Modelling from 2018 suggests that banning junk food advertising on TV between 6 am and 9.30 pm could generate $778 million in healthcare savings over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population. The Australian Medical Association's modelling suggests a 20 per cent reformulation levy on sugar-sweetened beverages could raise $4 billion over four years. This could be invested into preventative health or other government services like education or disability supports.

The UK introduced their so-called industry levy on sugar-sweetened beverages in 2018, and, importantly, the revenue raised from that levy goes to fund school sports programs. Australia is lagging behind on these policies. More than 130 countries around the world have adopted levies on sugar sweetened beverages, and over 40 countries already regulate junk food advertising. As a result, these countries are seeing improved public health, including reduced obesity rates and decreased hospital visits.

A well-designed gambling profits levy would also generate billions from the large profits of the gambling industry. Remember, the Murphy report recommended that we view the harms coming from gambling as a public health issue. These funds could be directed into public health campaigns, community support services, mental health care and addiction treatment.

Reforming the wine equalisation tax into a volumetric tax model is sound tax policy that could reduce alcohol related harm. The Productivity Commission has called for a national prevention and early intervention framework. Its chair called for this budget to commit $1.5 billion in evidence-backed preventive interventions, alongside a national partnership agreement to support intergovernmental collaboration.

Too often, prevention misses out because budget and political cycles favour short-term pay-offs over long-term gains, but the stark reality is this: we cannot fund our way out of the growing demand without preventing illness in the first place. So I asked the minister: if prevention saves lives, reduces hospitalisation and delivers strong returns, when will the government adopt these revenue-generating and budget-saving measures, and will the government commit to a dedicated national prevention and early intervention framework?

Alice Jordan-Baird (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I couldn't be prouder to stand here in this chamber to speak to the work the Albanese Labor government is doing to improve access to health care for Australians right across the country. I stand here today for one reason, and that is that Labor has always fought and will always fight for accessible health care.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was first introduced by the Chifley Labor government in 1948, introducing a revolutionary principle to Australia—that no Australian should go without necessary treatment because of cost. In 2013 the Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS, a generation-shaping reform to support Australians living with significant disability, and their carers and families. In 1984 the Hawke Labor government established our universal healthcare scheme, Medicare. It's one of the reasons I joined the Australian Labor Party as a teenager. And today the Albanese Labor government has made record investments in Medicare, because we know that access to affordable health care is in the interests of every single Australian.

For my community, I know this is making a real difference to people's lives. I represent Melbourne's western suburbs, where you'll find some of the fastest growing communities in Australia. There are more than 50,000 families across the electorate, and new ones are being created every single day. As families move in and build their futures, there's an increasing need for accessible healthcare services.

Families deserve regular access to a GP appointment, and not one that costs so much it turns people away. That's why I'm so proud of our Medicare bulk-billing clinics. I'm so excited to report that in my community there are now 24 Medicare bulk-billing practices, up from 13 before our bulk-billing changes were introduced. That means that at 75 per cent of clinics in my electorate of Gorton you can see a doctor for free—75 per cent! This is all thanks to Labor's record investment in Medicare. It really does make a difference for busy families juggling supermarket shops, energy bills and rent or mortgage payments.

Access to affordable, quality health care takes a huge load off the household budget and improves health outcomes for our community. That's why we've made medicines cheaper, capping the cost of PBS listed medicines at just $25. In my electorate of Gorton, that's a total saving of more than $9.1 million. It's why we've doubled the number of medicines now available for a 60-day prescription, as well, and why we've introduced more medicines to the PBS, including new contraceptives.

We know that women's health care matters and women deserve to have their health prioritised by their own government—something those opposite have not done before. We've added the first new contraceptive pills to the PBS in 30 years, and we've introduced first new menopause treatments to the PBS in 20 years. We're ensuring better access to IUDs and birth control implants as well. This comes along with our commitment to open 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics right across the country, including one near my community, in Werribee. Thanks to these initiatives, Australian women and their families will save thousands of dollars on health related costs across their lifetime.

Also, I couldn't be prouder than to be one of the youngest members of the House of Representatives, representing an electorate made up of young people. The median age in my electorate is 35 years old, just a little bit older than me. Our younger generations face unique pressures that our parents' generation did not experience, including increased rates of mental health issues. Access to mental health services is an issue raised regularly with me by locals, and it's why we've launched our Medicare Mental Health Check In. This free service connects you with professional mental health support over the phone.

For many in my community, a free service like this is a lifeline, and it's guided by the same principle that underlies every one of our government decisions on health. Health care should be there when Aussies need it, regardless of your postcode or your bank balance. It's guided Labor governments for generations, and it continues to guide the decisions of the Albanese Labor government today, because we know that quality, accessible health care is not a privilege. It's a right for every Australian.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Those members opposite talk about being the doyens of health care and about providing health services to Australians. There's one thing in the budget that I think I really need to point out to them. I'm very pleased that the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care is here, but I am very disappointed that the her boss, the Minister for Health and Ageing, is not, because one of the challenges that arose out of this budget was a ripping away of the private health insurance concessions for the over-65s.

Now, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, you're probably of a pretty similar vintage to me. You were told by successive governments: 'Before you turn 30, get private health insurance. You'll get it at a concessional rate, provided you do it before you're 30. Pay your premiums. You'll have access to a cheaper form of private health insurance. You'll have the ability to choose your doctor, go to a private hospital and, effectively, be treated much more quickly than you would through the public system.' And we relied on that representation—on successive representations from successive governments. Relying on those representations was not an unreasonable expectation of the Australian people. Yet deep within the bowels of these budget documents lies the ripping away of these concessions for the over-65s.

I put out a petition a couple of weeks ago. More than 6,000 people have signed this petition. I was at the Maleny show on the weekend. People were coming up to me and complaining bitterly about the budget in general, but older people were talking to me about the ripping away of these concessions, because it's just blatantly unfair. It is a breach of trust from this government. The whole budget is a breach of trust from this government, but if we're now talking about health related matters, it is specifically a breach of trust about how people chose to care for and invested in caring for their own private health needs.

And it was an investment, because we—'we' being the older generation, and I suppose I'm in those ranks now—made that decision decades ago and paid premiums for decades based on the assumption that future governments would abide by that decision. Now this Albanese Labor government has ripped that away from older people. You might say, and I've heard members opposite say, 'Oh, it's only a couple of hundred dollars.' No, that's not right. If you are a couple and you happen to be on the gold standard of private health insurance, it's about $1,630 extra that these people have to find. When they're on fixed incomes, it's really hard to find an extra $1,600 a year for your private health insurance. It's really hard—

An honourable member: You can shop around.

I'll take the interjection from those opposite saying 'shop around'. We have a situation where small private hospitals, particularly in rural and regional Australia, are saying, 'If these changes are brought in'—they're already doing it tough, some of these smaller private hospitals—'and we see an exodus of people leaving private health insurance once they're over 65, it will make our business models financially unviable.' That means job losses; it means a lack of access to health care rather than better access to health care like those members opposite so often tell us that they're so good at. I don't understand it. No-one has been able to explain to me why this magic age of over 65 is a trigger. Why is it that when you need private health insurance the most, as you get older and more frail, that this government is ripping away the access to private health insurance? Prime Minister, why are you doing it? (Time expired)

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address a couple of things there immediately. I have five minutes to be able to talk about the government's record on health, but it's almost impossible. But I would just like to say a couple of things there. One is that the government is investing $25 billion extra in public hospitals to take the pressure off the public hospital system. The speaker before me mentioned a figure of $1,600. If you're paying $100 for a shower when you're on an aged care package, which is what some people are doing at the moment, it takes 16 showers for that $1,600 bucks to be used up. And so the government's decision to move showers from independent living into clinical care will actually save an enormous amount of money for not just pensioners but also self-funded retirees who desperately need that clinical care.

That's because it is the Labor Party and only the Labor Party and this government that really has the values which Australian people want, which is why they consistently vote for parties that that defend that defend Medicare. It is inherent in the values of the Labor Party and inherent in the values of this government. And there are two things I'd like to say on that. One is no matter how hard workers fight on the shop floor for wages and conditions, which is something that they can achieve, there are some things that you need control of the government in order to be able to deliver for your community, and having control of the government to deliver good, affordable healthcare is one of those things. The other thing I would say is that the philosophy of the Albanese government really, I think, is summed up by two things I've heard the Prime Minister say recently. One is that nobody is left behind and nobody is held back. But he also said, a lot more eloquently than I'm going to say now, 'When you come across a problem in policy, do you just throw your hands up and say, "There's nothing I can do about it? I'm only the Prime Minister."'

And so I think it is in healthcare, in aged care and in disability care that we see a government that is prepared to make the tough decisions but makes them through Labor values, which are about making sure that our community is looked after and always kept front in mind. The decision was a tough one. It cost a lot of money to fix bulk-billing. But I have never, in all the time that I've been a participant or an observer of Australian politics, seen a policy have such an immediate and positive impact as the tripling of the bulk-billing rates for doctors who bulk-bill. Overnight in November in the electorate I represent, Forde, the number of bulk-billing clinics more than doubled from nine to 21. It is something which is on top of a commitment to provide cheaper medicines. It is something that is on a commitment to spend more money for the PBS to fund all of the medicines which the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee suggests need to be funded. These are tough decisions that the government needs to make to be able to afford these things which benefit the whole community.

Of course, it's not just in healthcare. As I said, it is in aged care and disability care as well. We have in aged care one of the biggest demographic problems that an Australian society has ever faced. I don't know the numbers exactly, but these are the rough approximates to make the point. Something like 10,000 people turned 80 in 2010. This year, something like 90,000 people are turning 80, and we're going to have that number again and again and again over the next 15 years or so. This is a cohort of people that have worked hard for this country and that deserve to have good, decent aged care. I think that, with the decisions that the government has taken to see those waiting lists starting to come down in terms of assessments and the waiting lists coming down in terms of packages being funded, we are seeing some real progress there—again, founded in Labor values.

Finally, on disability, yet again, it took a Labor government to introduce the NDIS, and it's going to take a Labor government to fix it, because all of those problems that we saw exist in 2018 as the NDIS began to grow scaled up with the NDIS as the NDIS scaled up in itself. Problems that could have been dealt with easily in 2018 have been left to this government to deal with now, where they going to cause much more anxiety in the community than they would have if they were dealt with at the time. Again, it takes a Labor government to make tough decisions. But, with a Labor heart, they are decisions which are grounded in what's best for the community, and I think that the government's record on health is an excellent one.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the actually quite eloquent member for Forde for their contribution.

Rebecca White (Lyons, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

When we came to government in 2022, we had a situation where it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall after a decade of cuts and neglect, and that's why strengthening Medicare was such a key focus for our government.

Today, we've heard members opposite give an impression that they don't support Labor's investment in the Medicare urgent care clinic network. It's staggering to hear this, given how successful and how important they've been, but also not surprising to notice their lack of enthusiasm when you look at their history and realise that it shouldn't be difficult for us to understand why they're coming at it the way they are. When this coalition were in government, they froze the Medicare rebate for several years, ripping billions of dollars from primary health care, and proposed a co-payment to go and see your GP. That was under former prime minister Tony Abbott, the same person the Liberal Party has now appointed as their president. If that doesn't speak to their priorities, then I don't know what does.

Then, of course, we had a period during the last election where, certainly in my electorate, the candidate for the Liberal Party couldn't say whether Medicare urgent care clinics would remain open, let alone remain free. Those opposite don't value Medicare. They never have. They don't understand the importance of access to affordable health care. The Labor Party does. We build it. We invest in strengthening Medicare, and what we have been able to deliver for Australians has made their lives easier.

More than three million Australians have been able to visit a Medicare urgent care clinic, getting free access to urgent care. We've seen a significant increase in the number of bulk-billing GP practices right around the country. There are over 3,800 GP practices that have now moved to fully bulk-billing, and that number continues to grow every week. On 1 November last year, 1,400 of those 3,800 were mixed billing, so we have seen a significant number of them move to fully bulk-billing, and that is improving access to health care not just in metro and urban areas but in our regions and in our rural communities. We know that what this means now is that approximately 97 per cent of the population are within a 20-minute drive of a bulk-billing practice. This is helping more Australians afford the health care that they deserve. We've also seen improvements in people being able to access cheaper medicines, with millions of Australians being able to access medicines capped at $7.70 if you hold a concession card or $25 for other medicines listed on the PBS.

We've also invested in the workforce. We value our staff and those who contribute to the Australian health sector. We've invested over $662 million, and that workforce package is supporting people right across regional parts of our country to participate in GP training. By 2028 we will fund 2,000 new GP trainees every year, and we are delivering these courses from regional universities. In my own home state of Tasmania, you can now do end-to-end training at campuses in Burnie, Hobart and Launceston, and that is really important for us to be able to grow our own workforce and for them to remain working in our regional communities in particular.

I'm also really proud of the work we've done in women's health. This has been a significant commitment—nearly $800 million—that has supported women right around our country to be able to afford the medicines that previously were not listed on the PBS and to be able to access the care they need through our endometriosis and persistent pelvic pain clinics. All 33 of those clinics that we promised are now open. We've also been able to launch a menopause and perimenopause public awareness campaign, which is destigmatising a thing that happens to every single Australian woman and is improving access to good, accurate information about where they can access the help that they need. We are investing in aged care by providing dignity to older Australians and making sure that they are able to access the care that they need as they get older in their own community. The funding of $3 billion that we've provided in this budget is on top of other commitments that we've made in previous budgets.

There has also been a significant investment in reforming the NDIS. We know that the system has not been working for Australians, and that is why we are working very hard to improve it to make sure that it is, and that it remains, one of Australia's greatest human rights achievements. It is great reform, and we are committed to strengthening it to make sure that Australians who rely on it can continue to access it. The budget investment that we have been able to deliver in health for our community is good not only for the individual Australians who rely on it but for our entire economy. It improves access to participation, and I feel very proud to be part of a government that values health in the way that ours does.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Ordered that consideration in detail of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:27