Angus Taylor's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Cost of Living | Constituency Statements | House debates
I would like to respond to some of those comments of a moment ago, but I realise this is constituency statements and so I will stick to that. Under Labor the cost-of-living crisis is getting...
I would like to respond to some of those comments of a moment ago, but I realise this is constituency statements and so I will stick to that. Under Labor the cost-of-living crisis is getting worse, not better. Families in my electorate of Hume don't need economists or modelling to tell them that there is a cost-of-living crisis—that their standard of living has been trashed by a Labor government that has mismanaged the economy. They feel it every single week. They see it at the checkout when they pay their grocery bills. They see it when their power bill arrives. They see it when they fill up their petrol tanks at the bowser. They feel it when their rent goes up again or when they're left trying to pay their mortgage every month. Under Labor, the cost-of-living crisis is getting worse, not better, and families in Hume are paying the price. This Treasurer promised that we'd beaten inflation—that it was all over. And what do you know? Up it surges. In fact, the Reserve Bank this week has told us that it is on its way up again—a huge increase in their forecasts. The Reserve Bank raised interest rates, of course, on Tuesday this week, and there's every expectation that there will be more increases in interest rates because of the failures of this government. Labor have treated Australians' money like it was their own, overspending on policies that did not ease the cost of living in any meaningful sense for Australians. And they've left the Reserve Bank to do the heavy lifting. We've got the government with the foot on the accelerator, and so the Reserve Bank has to put the foot on the brake—and that wrecks the engine, and that is exactly what has been happening under this Labor government. Meanwhile, the supply side of our economy is completely broken. They've clogged it up. They've clogged up the private sector with more regulation. They're driving energy policy based on ideology, not based on affordable, reliable power—and it's good to see the energy shadow right here, who knows this better than better than anyone. They are allowing the construction sector to be held to ransom by the CFMEU. This is how you end up with an economy that's sending out the red lights and the warning bells by saying that inflation is going up and interest rates are going up. And Australians are suffering. Our standard of living is going backwards, at exactly the time when other countries around the world are seeing theirs improving. This Labor government has failed hardworking Australians.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill and move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following...
I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill and move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to remove any references to a notification of the Chief of the Defence Force, considering the impact this would have on a member's right to privacy and access to care". The coalition will support the passage of this bill because it's necessary to keep the veterans' compensation reforms on track and to ensure the transition to a single, simplified compensation and rehabilitation framework operating properly from 1 July 2026. I want to begin with a simple message to every veteran and every service member who might be watching this debate. To every Australian war fighter and every veteran warrior who has worn the uniform: we see you, we respect you and we will fight to make sure the system that's meant to support you actually works for you. This, for defence personnel, is not abstract. It's not theoretical. This is a person in uniform deciding whether to put their hand up for help. This is a partner filling out paperwork late at night. This is a family trying to navigate a system in the worst week of their lives. Now, the coalition supported the royal commission's push to simplify and harmonise veterans' compensation arrangements, because the current multiact system is complex, difficult to navigate and too often confusing for veterans and for their families. That's why we supported the primary reform legislation and that's why we continue to support the objective of a single ongoing framework under the MRCA, reducing duplication, improving administrative consistency and making entitlements, claims and review pathways easier to understand and to access. This bill is largely technical and consequential, but technical does not mean trivial when you are the person living with the consequences. These provisions go to continuity, clarity and certainty. Our priority throughout this process has been simple: no veteran and no ADF member should be disadvantaged during the transition, and review rights and entitlements must be preserved. This bill makes important clarifications to ensure the new single-scheme framework functions properly and fairly in practice. It clarifies and preserves review and appeal rights, including internal reconsideration and external merit review pathways, including through the Veterans' Review Board. It tightens transitional rules for claims and decisions spanning the commencement date to reduce legal uncertainty and inconsistent outcomes. It ensures dependent compensation is not distorted by timing technicalities, clarifies funeral benefit rules, aligns education assistance under the consolidated framework and clarifies impairment and additional disablement payment rules so assessments and payments remain correct and consistent. It also preserves key allowances in decoration payments, clarifies coverage for treatment related injuries and diseases, maintains non-liability healthcare arrangements and improves offsets in deductions to prevent duplication while protecting overall entitlements. That is what good legislative housekeeping looks like—making sure the intent of reform survives contact with reality. But we should be frank. Parts of this bill are required to complete or correct the government's original package. Now, these are not new policy ideas. They are core implementation details that should have been settled the first time, and veterans and their families deserve stability, not rolling legislative corrections that add uncertainty to a system we're supposed to be simplifying. The coalition's amendment is saying trust and early help must come first. While we support this legislation overall, the coalition's amendment goes to a fundamental principle, which is trust. It calls on the government to remove the mandatory legislative requirements to notify the Chief of the Defence Force when a serving member lodges a Veterans' Review Board application or accesses non-liability healthcare. Let me be clear about this principle. It's incredibly important. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, it should be up to the war fighter whether defence is notified when they make a health claim. We recognise that there will be extraordinary circumstances where a member of the Defence Force makes a claim and the health condition they are facing may have consequences for them or for their colleagues and for others that that deserves notification. We are not blind to that set of circumstances. But there are many circumstances where it's just completely inappropriate that notification be mandatory to the Chief of the Defence Force when a member of the Defence Force makes a claim. If you want a force that is ready, resilient and lethal when it needs to be, you have to have a system where people in uniform can seek help early and with confidence, not late and in silence. The government's rationale is operational—that notification supports defence requirements and helps access medical records—but it fails to take seriously how real people respond to perceived career risk and stigma. They will not seek care when they need it. The evidence is plain. Some serving members are reluctant to seek mental health support or other support when they believe it could affect their career progression or deployability. If you bake automatic notification into legislation, you risk reinforcing that fear, and you risk deterring early care. We know so well that in health, in so many different areas, early care is the key to pre-empting much greater care requirements down the track. This is a well-understood principle of health care, and it should absolutely be applied to those incredibly brave men and women who are prepared to put themselves in harm's way in the right circumstances for our great nation. When early care is deterred, problems get worse—as we know. Families pay the price, units pay the price and, tragically, in some cases, the nation pays the price. If you're designing a system with the objective of preventing unnecessary health problems down the track, the test is simple: does this reduce the barriers to care, or does it add to them? And our view is simple: automatic notification in every circumstance is a barrier. We recognise that there are occasions when it's necessary, but automatic notification is a barrier. So we stand ready to work with the government on fixing this either through a clearer threshold—a consent provision—or, indeed, if appropriate, removing the clause entirely. But what we're proposing here immediately is to seek to refer the bill to a short Senate inquiry to work through the detail of this issue. We certainly hope that the government will work with us to make sure that we get the right outcome for our defence personnel. Leadership in this place is about doing the hard work—the hard and sometimes unglamorous work—to make systems perform under pressure for the people who rely on them. There are a few groups in the country who have earned that seriousness more than the men and women who serve, the veteran warriors who have served and the families who serve alongside them. The coalition has a strong record of backing veterans and their families from establishing the veterans' covenant, to expanding Open Arms, to non-liability mental health care, and to employment initiatives and wellbeing centres across the country. That record reflects a simple belief that service deserves respect and respect must be practical. So we won't stand in the way of technical amendments, but we will hold the government to account for incomplete delivery, and we will push for reforms that make one thing absolutely clear to every serving member and veteran—to every war fighter and veteran warrior—that you should never have to choose between your career and your care. You should never have to fight your own system for the support you have earned, and you will always have our respect.
Energy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
National Security | Adjournment | House debates
I rise to give attention to a sobering fact: Australia is under sustained attack, not a conventional war with tanks and troops but a campaign of coercion and interference, with cyberattacks on...
I rise to give attention to a sobering fact: Australia is under sustained attack, not a conventional war with tanks and troops but a campaign of coercion and interference, with cyberattacks on our banks and hospitals, espionage in our institutions, coercive trade measures, dangerous provocations against our servicemen and women, and assaults on places of worship. This is a warfare without a formal declaration but not without victims. Australians feel it when their data stolen, when services are disrupted, when communities are pitted against each other and when they are made to feel unsafe in their own homes and suburbs. Our security agencies have made clear we face the most dangerous circumstances since the Second World War. Great power competition has returned, and its centre of gravity is our region. It's a contest between open societies and the axis of autocracies. Russia, Iran, North Korea and the Chinese Communist Party are working together more closely than ever and using every lever of power short of open conflict: manipulating international rules; funding proxy crime and terror groups; coercing smaller nations through trade, technology and energy; and waging persistent cyber and information campaigns against countries like ours. Australia sits in the eye of the storm, pulled by two powerful forces—a weakening economy and rising threats to our sovereignty. In such a moment, what we need most is clarity of leadership—clarity about the threat, our alliances and about the national priorities. Leadership starts with telling the truth, even when it is uncomfortable, yet Labor still struggles to name the threat plainly and consistently. We are not getting clarity from this government. We should be crystal clear about the world we face. We oppose Russia's illegal and brutal war in Ukraine. We welcome early steps towards a peace deal and the government's confirmation that more assistance is soon to be announced. That assistance must be substantial, timely and focused on learning the lessons of this conflict to better protect our great country. Turning to our region, it is vital to strengthen trade relationships with the Chinese people. But the Chinese Communist Party is a strategic competitor, with flares fired at our aircraft, live-fire exercises off the coast, foreign interference on our soil and state-sponsored cyberattacks on our infrastructure. In recent days, we have seen coercion directed at our great friend and trading partner Japan for merely asserting its right to self defence and peace in our region. At the same time, we must never confuse the threat posed by an authoritarian government with the contribution of its diaspora. From Ballarat to Young, Chinese Australian communities have helped build our towns and our prosperity. Our disagreements lie with the authoritarian states that seek to upend the rules based order on which our freedom and prosperity depend, not with Australians who have come here seeking the freedom and prosperity and who yearn for their families to enjoy the same freedoms at home. Labor has weakened our standing with Israel, a long-standing democratic partner, and too often dragged its feet on AUKUS, leaving our servicemen and women waiting for the capabilities they need and denying Australian industry the jobs, skills and innovation we know AUKUS can deliver. But national security doesn't exist in a vacuum. We cannot defend our country with a weak economy. We cannot build unity and resilience in a nation where too many Australians are locked out of the opportunity of homeownership and rising living standards, and that is why prosperity and sovereignty live hand in hand. They are twin national priorities, not competing goals; they depend on each other. A stronger economy gives us the resources we need to invest in defence, intelligence, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure, and to defend that critical infrastructure. Greater sovereignty in energy, industry and technology protects our prosperity from coercion and threats. Our path forward should be clear: Australians are entitled to leadership that levels with them about the risks, sets clear priorities and that has a credible plan to restore prosperity and strengthen our sovereignty. That is the test that a government must meet to rebuild our strong economy, a sovereign nation and a safer future for our children; to move on from rhetoric to readiness; and to ensure Australia stands on its own two feet while standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies.
Dissent from Ruling | Motions | House debates
Hume Electorate: Giving Tree Appeal | Statements by Members | House debates
As Christmas approaches, families look forward to a season of celebration, but for an increasing number of households the festive season brings more stress than joy. Rising grocery and power...
As Christmas approaches, families look forward to a season of celebration, but for an increasing number of households the festive season brings more stress than joy. Rising grocery and power bills, higher rents and mortgages—the general squeeze on everyday expenses means that Christmas has become increasingly difficult for too many Australians. In the cost-of-living crisis under Labor, more households are struggling to afford the basics, let alone the extra expenses that come with Christmas. That's why initiatives like Wests Group Macarthur's Giving Tree Appeal in my electorate are so important. This year Wests Group has once again partnered with Big Yellow Umbrella, a local charity, to run the 2025 appeal, an effort that has become a lifeline for families who are doing it tough. My electorate office is proud to support the appeal and help encourage local generosity. From early November through to 7 December, people across the region can drop off new, unwrapped gifts at several Wests locations, including at my electorate office in Camden. These go directly to children, parents and carers who, without this support, may have very little to unwrap on Christmas morning. Even small gifts can have a profound impact, especially for families who are feeling the weight of these cost-of-living pressures. I want to recognise everyone involved—the volunteers, the partner organisations, the donors and the staff—for their enormous effort. At a time when so many Australians are feeling forgotten or left behind, this appeal shows that generosity runs deep in the community.
Consideration of Legislation | Business | House debates
He's good: that's it; it's in Hansard!
Hume Electorate: Tahmoor Colliery | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise today to speak about the Tahmoor Colliery, a coalmine that has supported generations of workers and families in my electorate of Hume, the future of which now hangs in the balance. About...
I rise today to speak about the Tahmoor Colliery, a coalmine that has supported generations of workers and families in my electorate of Hume, the future of which now hangs in the balance. About 400 people and many more service providers and contractors worked there, and it supported countless local and regional businesses right across the Wollondilly Shire and beyond. Recently, a decision was made to stand down 250 workers, around half the workforce, which was tough blow, not just for workers but for the families of any small businesses that rely on the mines. It is disappointing and, frankly, a line needs to be drawn in the sand. For months the community has been patient—hopeful that GFG Alliance, the owner, would deliver on its promises, but patience has worn thin. GFG needs to be upfront about the future of Tahmoor now. As the local member I can't stand by and watch this continue. Last week I wrote to the mine's owner, Mr Sanjeev Gupta, and told him that enough is enough. Their management is not providing the stability, financial integrity or long-term certainty needed to keep the operations running. GFG needs to either restart the mine or sell it to someone who will. This mine is the heartbeat of our community—hundreds of jobs, local businesses and families depend on it. Let's be honest. It didn't shut down because it wasn't profitable; the problem lies with financial issues in the broader GFG group. That's what's driven this outcome. Tahmoor is a good mine. It produces metallurgical coal—the kind that's essential for steelmaking—which goes by rail down to Port Kembla and a significant portion of it is used in the steel mill down there. It's a key link in that supply chain, supporting local jobs and our domestic steel industry. There are buyers out there. People are looking at this mine and saying: 'You can make money from this. There is no need for the workers to be stood down.' The royalties from Tahmoor are important to the New South Wales government, and here's the thing. The mine doesn't need government subsidies. It's been operating for over 40 years and has a proud history in the region, as does coalmining more generally in the Burragorang Valley nearby. The miners just want to get back to work. They deserve better than what they're seeing now. We need a resolution and we need it quickly. The next step is simple: pay the workers, stabilise the operation and restore confidence. Tahmoor Colliery is a vital asset, not just for our region but for Australia's steel and resources industries. With the right leadership and investment I believe it can thrive again—creating jobs, supporting local businesses and delivering long-term benefits to the community.
Camden Country Women's Association: 95th Anniversary | Adjournment | House debates
I rise today to shine a light on the Camden branch of the Country Women's Association, which is proudly based in my electorate of Hume. Recently I had the pleasure of attending their...
I rise today to shine a light on the Camden branch of the Country Women's Association, which is proudly based in my electorate of Hume. Recently I had the pleasure of attending their 95th-anniversary luncheon at the Camden Estate Cafe. It was an absolutely wonderful celebration of the branch's rich history and the incredible work that they've done over many years. We had branch members from many of the surrounding branches, at Picton, Campbelltown and elsewhere, which made the day even more special. I can't stress enough how important it is across these branches that they network with each other, and they do that in a way where they share knowledge, lend a hand and work together on a range of projects. Over the years, the CWA has made a well-earned reputation for wonderful scones and tea, and they do that brilliantly—but there's way more to the CWA than that. At its heart, it's about improving the lives of women and families, especially in rural and remote parts of Australia. But Camden, on the edge of Sydney, is one of those places where it has had an impact for a long, long time. Through fundraising and community service advocacy, it continues to make a real difference. During World War II, the CWA, including the Camden CWA, stepped up in a really big way by knitting woollen garments, making blankets and preparing food supplies for service men and women on the front lines and elsewhere; and they even made camouflage nets to help conceal equipment and personnel from enemy aircraft. Many of the founding members had already been active in World War I through other women's organisations, and their legacy of service runs deep. But their work didn't stop there. Beyond wartime efforts, the CWA has been a quiet force behind so many local initiatives: supporting schools and hospitals, and providing disaster relief during floods, droughts and bushfires. We've had our share of those in that area in recent years. They're always there when help is needed. This is an organisation that's the real deal. It's about genuine people taking real action and speaking with honest voices. I'm thrilled to say the Camden branch is looking ahead, as well. It was fantastic to see a number of junior members actively involved in the anniversary luncheon. Their energy and ideas are vital and, of course, will be the underpinning of an organisation that has a great future. The branch isn't just about service; it's about a way to make new friends. New members are always welcome. They come from all walks of life and all age groups. This week, it held its annual general meeting, and a big congratulations to Darlene Burkhardt, who was re-elected as president. She's backed by a passionate committee of volunteers who give their time and energy to keep the branch thriving. They meet on the third Tuesday of every month, and I encourage anyone interested to go along. I'm also proud to share that CWA Camden was recently nominated for the 2025 South Western Sydney-Macarthur Volunteer Team of the Year. That was celebrated at the Campbelltown Catholic Club just recently—a fitting tribute to 95 years of service. I left the luncheon feeling genuinely inspired by the stories of resilience, the unwavering commitment to community, the positive mindset of the members—and the absolutely fantastic food, which is what you always get at a CWA. I'm really looking forward to joining them in five years time, looking ahead, to celebrate their centenary. The countdown to 100 is officially on. It's organisations like these that hold our wonderful community together.
Personal Explanation | Statements | House debates
Last night in the Federation Chamber, the member for Kooyong claimed I had failed to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 or move my second reading...
Last night in the Federation Chamber, the member for Kooyong claimed I had failed to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 or move my second reading amendment to the legislation. The member should be aware that I did speak on this very important bill 10 hours earlier at the dispatch box right here in the chamber, where I also moved the amendment. Thanks to the very fine work of the Hansard office, my remarks were published by 3 pm, four hours before the member for Kooyong rose to speak. If the member for Kooyong is so eager to scrutinise defence, perhaps she could start by scrutinising the Hansard.
I have been misrepresented most grievously.
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 and move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to...
I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 and move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since World War II, increasing the importance of bipartisan support for our ADF and strategic priorities; (2) AUKUS represents a generational opportunity to: (a) transform Australia's defence capability and industries; (b) create highly skilled jobs; and (c) deepen investment links between Australia and our security partners; (3) the scope of Australia's strategic challenges will require increased defence spending over the next decade; (4) membership of this committee should be predicated on support of higher spending on defence, a recognition of the threat environment, and support for the success of AUKUS; (5) this bill has been modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has operated consistently and successfully scrutinised Australia's intelligence community on a bipartisan basis for decades with membership exclusively composed of the Opposition and Government parties of the day; and (6) any breaching of similar appointment conventions would represent a serious departure and politicisation of our defence force at a time of increasing danger for our region". This is an important piece of legislation, not just for what it seeks to achieve but how it stands to be implemented. Australia faces the most dangerous set of circumstances since the Second World War, a fact that mas made clear in the government's own Defence Strategic Review but also confirmed recently by Defence officials at estimates. We see increasing cooperation between an axis of dictatorships, theocratic states, that seek to upend the world order and reshape the institutions and principles that have delivered an era of great peace, prosperity and liberty to billions around the globe. The war against the West that commenced during the early 2000s has spread from one led by non-state actors to one championed by dictatorships. Every day, Australians read and watch with sadness the great human cost of conflict in Europe and the Middle East. As defence officials made clear to Senate estimates, Australia is not immune to these conflicts. Whether it's the foreign interference of Iran launching attacks on Australia's Jewish community or the cyberattacks of the Chinese Communist Party highlighted in ASD's latest threat assessment—and, let's be clear, it's been attributed; it is very clear that the Chinese Communist Party was involved in those cyberattacks—or the startling revelations about the importation of sanctioned Russian oil, Australia cannot ignore the realities of a more dangerous world or the new reality of modern strategic competition around the world, where nations seek to achieve their strategic ambitions without firing a bullet. Whether it's the unacceptable and unprofessional conduct of the People's Liberation Army aircraft against our Australian surveillance fleet in the South China Sea or the photographs of former premiers on stage in the family photos with many of the dictators responsible for this global instability and these global threats, the message is clear: these choices and these threats are on our doorstep. We face increasing trade-offs between the liberal and positive impulse to trade—the impulse for free markets and for faith in international order—and our security interests. In short, prosperity and security have never been so interlinked. They've always been interlinked. Prosperity and security go hand in hand, and we forget that, having gone through such an extraordinary era since the end of the Cold War, which was so pivotal in shaping my views of the world. After the Cold War came to an end, we came to believe that prosperity and security automatically happened. It was just part of a new world where the international rule of law was upheld and managed, but the truth is that we are facing real threats to that right now, which is why it has never been so important that we invest more in our Defence Force. It has never been so important, given that there needs to be more funding. There must be more funding, and there must be, and there are, more demands on our Defence Force than has been the case in the past. It's incredibly important that, in that context, we have clear and strong parliamentary oversight of how that money is being spent. While building consensus around Australia's strategic priorities, the coalition has long supported the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on defence, but it must be implemented in a way that strengthens bipartisanship, not politicises it. Defence is not a political plaything. It demands continuity, consensus and competence, and the test of this bill is whether it will build that or undermine it. The government has said that this committee will mirror the successful model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That is the right model, but only if the same conventions are upheld as have been upheld in the case of that very successful Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. For two decades, PJCIS has earned the confidence of Australia's security community precisely because it has remained bipartisan and disciplined. Its membership has typically been drawn exclusively from the government and the opposition parties of the day. Any breach of that precedent—any decision to appoint Greens or Independents to a classified defence committee—would be serious and dangerous. It would risk politicisation of our national security architecture. It risks weakening trust with our allies, which is more important than it has been for a long, long time. It would risk jeopardising the handling of classified information and send exactly the wrong message to those who seek to test Australia's resolve and the resolve of our alliances, which are absolutely central to that interlinked prosperity and security I talked about a moment ago. That's why the amendment I move today lays down a simple but very clear principle: that membership of the committee should be predicated on support for defence spending—indeed, there should be higher defence spending—and a recognition of the threat environment we face. It should also be predicated on an unequivocal commitment to AUKUS. This is not a committee that should question whether AUKUS should exist; it's a committee that should ensure every dollar being spent on AUKUS and the rest of the ADF is a dollar well spent, in getting to the strength that we need to ensure that the deterrence that is so central to the peace and prosperity we all want to see occurs. It is very clear that this proposal we're talking about today stands on the shoulders of three great advocates for parliamentary oversight and defence reform. The late senator Jim Molan was a close friend of mine, a good man and a man who stood up for the strength of our great nation. Right to his last, he was writing and talking about the importance of ensuring that we have a national security strategy for this nation, and he strongly advocated for a parliamentary committee that ensured we had accountability for our ADF—the ADF he was part of for many years, of course, and he felt very strongly that it needed to be fully accountable. Former senator Linda Reynolds was a strong advocate for ensuring we had a committee of this nature, and former senator David Fawcett—again, a good man and a great contributor to defence policy in this country—carried the torch on this issue, demonstrating tireless commitment to policy contestability, capability delivery and industrial reform, ensuring we have sovereign capability in this nation, and he continues to argue the case about this. He worked across the aisle to build support for this committee, ensuring it would reflect the success of PJCIS while being tailored to defence. Both Jim Molan and David Fawcett made immense contributions to strengthening Australia's strategic culture and to bringing realism, accountability and unity to defence policy across this parliament. Their legacy and Linda's legacy should guide how this committee operates—not as a political forum but as a disciplined, trusted body that strengthens defence through insight and commitment, not ideology. The Prime Minister will now face the same test that has confronted every prime minister since the Howard government first legislated the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The law hasn't changed. Almost every prime minister since John Howard, Labor and coalition, has respected the convention that membership of these committees should be limited to the government and opposition parties of the day—the parties of government. The Prime Minister does not need new legislation to appoint crossbenchers; he has the power to do so now. But whether he chooses to exercise it will speak volumes about his character and his judgement. If he honours the conventions that have served our nation well, he will demonstrate respect for our Defence Force and for the bipartisanship that keeps us strong. If he breaks those conventions, he will politicise the very institution that keeps Australians safe and, in doing so, betray his own defence minister's assurance that this committee will remain composed of an appropriate group of people who support the Defence Force and, importantly at this time, AUKUS. As I said, the Australian government's own Defence Strategic Review recognised the deteriorating strategic environment we face. We are seeing unsafe intercepts of Australian aircraft, cyberattacks on our institutions, and foreign interference of increasing magnitude and regularity in our communities. The ADF is being asked to do more with less while recruitment falls and capability timelines stretch further out into the distance. That's why bipartisan oversight must go hand in hand with bipartisan resolve, including higher defence investment each year. Australia must move from rhetoric, and we've heard a lot of rhetoric. We always hear a lot of rhetoric from those opposite, and that in itself might be okay, but it's got to be rhetoric accompanied by readiness and reality. The committee established by this bill, properly constituted, can play a constructive role in that task. It can improve contestability of ideas, strengthen the parliament's understanding of classified issues and give Australians greater confidence that both sides of politics are united in securing this nation's defence. But the committee is not a substitute for delivery. Accountability and transparency must not be an excuse for delay. We can't afford capability gaps. We can't afford a paper ADF, as ASPI has put it. This is the risk. In the new world of geopolitics—a world which resembles worlds we've seen in the past; there's a realism about what we are seeing around the globe right now—deterrence is only achievable through strength. We have dictators in the world today who show no respect for the international rule of law. They couldn't care less. The only message they understand, the only thing they understand, is strength. Strength is the key to deterrence, and that's why—putting aside conflict itself—a paper ADF is completely unacceptable if we want stability and prosperity. If the government is serious about bipartisanship—and I certainly hope it is—it will honour the conventions that have protected our intelligence and security institutions for more than 20 years and ensure this committee's membership is confined to those who believe in defending Australia, who support AUKUS and who back the investment needed to make our Defence Force ready, resilient and respected not just within Australia but across the globe. This is the spirit in which the coalition approaches this bill. We are strong supporters of this committee, and we will not oppose this bill's passage through the House, but we will hold the government to the standard it has promised and the standard that Australians expect. This committee must be built on clarity, strength and unity of purpose. I'll finish with a couple of comments about our broader view on defence policy, which will be reflected in the way we approach this committee. We have begun outlining our priorities for defence. Our priorities are focused on results and reality, not just rhetoric. Part of what is required there is to get defence spending to three per cent of GDP, not because anyone else has asked us to do it but because it's the right thing for us. It's right thing for this nation. We have seen multiple experts tell us that, in order to implement the recommendations of the government's own strategic review, it is necessary to lift spending to three per cent of GDP—with real money, not with accounting tricks or creative accounting. That's not how you do it. We need to see a real commitment to getting to three per cent of GDP. In the absence of that, what we are hearing and seeing is that the funding necessary for AUKUS is being taken from the rest of the Defence Force, which is being completely cannibalised. In fact, both are underfunded. AUKUS is underfunded and the rest of the Defence Force is underfunded, and we're going to continue to see that. One of the areas we'll see that in is sustainment, where it's clear there is a serious underfunding of sustainment of equipment across the Defence Force. We're going to continue to see some of the results of that. We saw that recently with the LHDs. The report from the ANAO has made that very clear. But we're going to continue to see it in other areas as well, and I think that will continue to have an impact on the morale of our Defence Force and the ability to attract, retain, excite and motivate people in our Defence Force. We have great people, incredible people, in our Defence Force. I meet them every day and I am so privileged to see and meet these incredible people who are motivated by not just their own interests but, more importantly, the interests of this great nation. Every single day they get up to serve our nation in uniform, and we should be very proud of these people. But we've got to make sure they have what they need to get their job done. Within that our priorities are clear. We have to move from rhetoric to readiness, and stand on our own two feet. We have to have sovereign capability in critical areas—sovereign missile manufacturing, for instance. We've seen a lot of false starts on that over the last little while with GWEO. We need to make sure that that sovereign manufacturing is going into place to support our Defence Force. There's no point in having critical inputs that we need in a conflict coming across the ocean over long periods of time with the risk of blockades. You've got to have the most critical items here in this country. We need to make agility a strategic asset. What we've seen in Ukraine—and I saw it just last week in the Middle East—is a need for rapid innovation in defence capability, because the world is innovating at a pace that I haven't seen in a long, long while, with drone technology and missile technology, electronic warfare, space—all of this is now intersecting in ways we could never have imagined even a few short years ago. The Ukraine conflict has really brought this home. This is a fundamentally different-looking conflict to conflicts we've seen in the past, because technology has changed. With it, agility becomes an asset in itself. If you do not have agility in this modern world of warfare you do not have strength. You will be outdone every single time by more agile adversaries. It's a real challenge for a big organisation to show the sort of agility that small organisations are usually responsible for, but that's what we have to be able to do. And we have to put people at the centre of national security. It is great people who are responsible for agility, for readiness, for standing on our own two feet. As I said, we have great people in our Defence Force, but we've got to make sure that we have the right mix of people. The government has fallen seriously short of its own targets in terms of recruitment and retention, and that is really showing in our Defence Force. These are not slogans. Readiness is not a slogan. Sovereignty is not a slogan, nor is agility. These are things that we must have if we are to be in the position we need to be in, in a world, as I said, where we face greater strategic dangers than we have faced for a long time. These principles are the foundation of a Defence Force ready to deter aggression, defend our sovereignty and uphold the peace that generations before us fought to secure. I commend this bill and this amendment to the House.
Australian Defence Force: Afghanistan | Statements by Members | House debates
Today we've learned that, after spending more than $250 million of taxpayers' money, the Office of the Special Investigator has dropped more than two-thirds of its investigations into allegations...
Today we've learned that, after spending more than $250 million of taxpayers' money, the Office of the Special Investigator has dropped more than two-thirds of its investigations into allegations of war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. There are just 16 of 53 matters remaining under active investigation. Just one case has led to charges. Despite years of work, hundreds of millions of dollars, and over 100 staff, there is little to show. These investigations have dragged on, with timelines stretching towards the end of the decade. There are legitimate questions to be asked about the OSI's efficiency and effectiveness. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, that should happen without delay. If not, cases should be closed. We cannot allow this process to continue indefinitely, hanging over the heads of our veterans and families. It risks becoming denial of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. Many of our special forces veterans feel that they've lost the presumption of innocence. This is about fairness, justice and basic decency. We need to do more to support our veterans; we must act. I recently came back from Pollie Pedal, supporting Wandering Warriors, who support those who've worn our uniform. Australians hold deep respect for our service men and women. Our veterans deserve nothing less.
Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. The coalition acknowledges the intent of this bill, which contains a number of technical amendments...
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. The coalition acknowledges the intent of this bill, which contains a number of technical amendments to improve the efficiency of several important elements of our health system, including the allocation of Medicare provider numbers, the assignment of Medicare benefits processes and improvements to the private health insurance premiums reduction scheme. It also makes amendments to the Bonded Medical Program, with the aim of ensuring that penalties for noncompliance are fair and proportionate, particularly in light of the serious workforce shortages facing our healthcare system. The measures in this bill are intended to tidy up existing legislation, streamline administration and make sure the rules governing Medicare payments and bonded medical placements are clear and consistent. These are sensible objectives, and on that basis the coalition will not stand in the way of this bill in the House. However, we will be seeking further information and scrutiny on this bill through a Senate inquiry, particularly in relation to the implications of the proposed changes to the Bonded Medical Program and the assignment of Medicare benefits for bulk-billing and simplified billing arrangements. We have significant unanswered questions that we believe it is important to seek answers to. It's vital these measures do not create unintended consequences or additional administrative burden for our hardworking health professionals, because right now it is undeniable that primary health care is in crisis under this government. At the last election, we saw the Prime Minister wave around his Medicare card at every photo opportunity, declaring that under his government all you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. He said that Australians can see a GP for free under Labor. He made that promise at least 71 times during the campaign. But the truth, confirmed by his own department, is very different. A department of health briefing obtained under freedom of information revealed that a quarter of GP clinics across Australia will not bulk-bill. This means millions of Australians still need their credit card as well as their Medicare card when they visit a doctor. Now the health minister is desperately trying to walk it all back, saying that Labor never said there would be 100 per cent bulk-billing. Well, the Prime Minister certainly did say that. He looked Australians in the eye and said, 'One card covers it all—not your credit card, your Medicare card.' But today Australians are paying the price for the Albanese Labor government's disingenuous approach to Medicare. Whilst the Prime Minister was out there waving his Medicare card, Australian families were paying a combined $166 million in out-of-pocket costs at the GP in the month of the campaign, May 2025, alone. In the past year, Australians have paid over $2 billion out of pocket to see a GP—$2 billion charged to their credit cards, not covered by their Medicare cards. That is the Prime Minister's $2 billion lie. Since Labor was elected, Australians are now paying 75 per cent more out of their own pocket to see a doctor. So much for 'free to see a GP'! Labor promised to strengthen Medicare, but it has only been weakened. Since the Albanese government came to power, bulk-billing has fallen from 88 per cent to 77 per cent. That's 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits in the past year alone. Medicare mental health funding has been slashed in half, and, despite all of Labor's false promises and misleading rhetoric, Australians are now paying the highest average out-of-pocket costs on record to see a GP. That is the stark reality of Labor's primary care crisis. More than 1.5 million Australians last year said they avoided seeing a GP because of cost concerns. That's 1½ million people forced to make a difficult decision about their health, a decision no Australian should have to make, because of Labor's primary healthcare crisis. While Australian families are struggling to afford to go to their doctor, the Prime Minister seems completely out of touch, more interested in political stunts than ensuring all Australians actually have timely and affordable access to essential health care. Nowhere is Labor's neglect clearer than in mental health. When Labor tore away Medicare subsidised mental health sessions from 372,000 vulnerable Australians, it ignored the advice of its own review and the pleas of mental health experts right across the country. Since that cruel cut, access to Medicare mental health support has fallen to its lowest level in at least a decade, right at the time when demand has never been higher. Labor has cut Medicare mental health sessions in half, abolished the Mental Health Commission and even ripped away the Suicide Prevention Research Fund. Their neglect of mental health is so significant that the former chair of Mental Health Australia was forced to resign in frustration at the government's inaction. This is not the record of a government strengthening Medicare or supporting Australians' health and wellbeing. It is the record of a government that says one thing and does another. Under the coalition, Medicare funding increased every single year, from $18.6 billion back in 2012-13 under Labor to more than $30 billion in 2021-22. Bulk-billing rose consistently through our term in office to a record more than 88 per cent when we left government. In our final year, Australians received 167 million free GP visits, which is 61 million more than under the previous Labor government. That's the coalition's record—delivering affordable, quality health care. So, while the coalition acknowledge the technical objectives of this bill to ensure efficiency in several elements of our health system, we will not let the government use it as a smokescreen for its broader failures. We condemn the Albanese government's broken promises and appalling record on Medicare. Australians deserve a government that tells them the truth, not one that waves around a Medicare card while forcing families to reach for their credit cards. The coalition remains firmly focused on ensuring that all Australians can access timely, affordable and quality health care, no matter where they live.
International Relations | Statements by Members | House debates
Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. Around the world, authoritarian regimes and leaders are flexing their muscles—whether it's Iran and its...
Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. Around the world, authoritarian regimes and leaders are flexing their muscles—whether it's Iran and its proxies in the Middle East, Russia with its illegal invasion of Ukraine, or the unprecedented military buildup of the Chinese Communist Party. History tells us that peace is only achieved through strength and deterrence. That's why it's deeply concerning that former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews is in China this week, celebrating a massive military parade that showcases the biggest expansion of Chinese Communist Party military capability in history, alongside authoritarian world leaders from Russia, North Korea and Iran—leaders who fundamentally reject the values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. At the very moment when the Prime Minister should be strengthening our alliance with the United States, his former roommate Daniel Andrews is posing for a class photo alongside dictators and autocrats from around the world. We've heard nothing but silence from the Prime Minister on this. When will the Prime Minister stand up for Australians and call out Daniel Andrews? Even Annastacia Palaszczuk has said it is a bridge too far, alongside many other Labor luminaries. The first duty of every Australian government is to keep Australians safe.
International Relations | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister condemn his close personal friend Daniel Andrews attending the Chinese Communist Party military parade alongside the presidents of...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister condemn his close personal friend Daniel Andrews attending the Chinese Communist Party military parade alongside the presidents of Russia, North Korea and Iran?
International Relations: Australia and China | Questions without Notice | House debates
Prime Minister, today, to Australia's shame, Daniel Andrews attended a Chinese Communist Party military parade, alongside dictators Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and the Iranian president. Former...
Prime Minister, today, to Australia's shame, Daniel Andrews attended a Chinese Communist Party military parade, alongside dictators Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and the Iranian president. Former premier Annastacia Palaszczuk described Mr Andrews's attendance as 'a bridge too far'. Will the Prime Minister echo her condemnation? Did the Prime Minister or his office provide any personal or consular assistance for the visit?
Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. It goes to something very fundamental to our nation, to our Defence Force defending our country,...
I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. It goes to something very fundamental to our nation, to our Defence Force defending our country, which is how we recognise the men and women who wear our uniform and how we correct the mistakes when recognition has been denied. The coalition's starting point on this important issue is very simple. People are the foundation of national security. If we can't properly attract, retain, motivate and honour the men and women who serve our great country, we cannot defend our great country. Medallic recognition is not symbolism. It is a demonstration of how a grateful nation says clearly and publicly: 'We saw what you did. It mattered, and we will never forget.' We are seeing the most dangerous strategic environment that our part of the world, and perhaps the world more generally, has seen since the Second World War. It is a volatile world where authoritarian regimes around the globe are flexing their muscles. Indeed, we see that displayed on our TV sets right now, as we speak. We see on our TVs cruise missiles that can reach Australia. We're seeing a celebration of the greatest military build-up in history by the Chinese Communist Party. It is unprecedented. And, can I say, it is beyond comprehension that two senior Labor figures Bob Carr and Daniel Andrews should participate in the celebration of that military build-up. That's exactly what they are doing as we speak here today. It is also beyond belief that the Prime Minister fails to discourage that kind of behaviour. These authoritarian regimes, whether they are in Russia, North Korea or Iran or whether it is the Chinese Communist Party, do not share our values. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are not our friends. In the case of Putin, he is the autocratic leader who is currently fighting an illegal war against the free people of the Ukraine. We ask that the Prime Minister state clearly that it is unacceptable for our senior Labor figures to be part of that celebration. Returning to the matter at hand, we do meet in the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That's why the great people of our Defence Force need the recognition that they deserve. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal was created as an independent statutory safeguard. It's a practical mechanism to correct errors and recognise gallantry and service when the original process has fallen short. It exists precisely because military officers, like all of us, are not infallible, and because the passage of time can always bring forward important new evidence. It's a backstop that protects integrity. Of course this bill would substantially curtail that independence and close the door to many who seek review. It imposes a 20-year time limit on applications. That would, importantly, abolish rights of review for service in the Second World War, Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq and the earlier years of Afghanistan. Those are exactly the cohorts for whom new materials often emerge. The tribunal itself has warned that such a limit would invalidate the overwhelming majority of the reviews it has conducted in recent years. In practice, this is not a tidy up; it's a shutdown. The bill also restricts who may apply, limiting certain honour applications to senior commanders or eye witnesses. The bill has been driven by the department whose decisions are reviewed by the tribunal. Well, it is true that departments often don't like being questioned. But it is the right thing, when new evidence emerges, to question a department or a decision that has been made, and that should continue. Finally, there's been a striking lack of genuine consultation with the ex-service community. We've just heard from my good friend the member for Riverina, who has made the point that our RSLs and subbranches across this country are outraged at what they are seeing here. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no evidence of a flood of frivolous claims overwhelming the system. In fact, the balance between those that have been accepted and those that have been rejected is a very reasonable one. When the tribunal has recommended upgrades, it's usually done so on the basis of rigorous evidence, not sentiment, and only after Defence's review has been fully tested. That's what an independent merits review means. History shows why independence matters on these things. It took persistence, new evidence and, ultimately, an independent tribunal process for some of our most deserving cases to be recognised. Medals don't win wars, but they help to build the culture that does. This is incredibly important. The pride I see in our ex-servicemen and servicewomen, and in our serving men and women, whether it's on Anzac Day or at other times—we've seen it in recent weeks with the ADF's commemoration of the end of the Pacific War or, indeed, Vietnam Veterans Day. I see our veterans wearing their medals with enormous pride. I see their kids doing exactly the same—obviously wearing them in a different way. This is recognition that really matters. It goes directly to morale, to retention and attraction, and to motivation, which are all the things we need if we're going to have an effective Defence Force. From my point of view, this is one of four key imperatives for our Defence Force, alongside preparedness, agility and sovereignty. We need to have the very best people serving our nation in our Defence Force. The opposition supports veterans' rights and the integrity of Australian honours and rewards. We will not support measures that curtail an independent merits review, impose retrospective time bars, extinguish rights or confine applications to those least likely or least able to bring them forward. To be constructive, we'll move amendments that remove the proposed 20-year limit; that maintain broad standing so that veterans, families, advocates and historians can apply—guarding against conflicts of interest and ensuring that meritorious cases are not blocked at the gate—and that require Defence to provide clear written notice of tribunal review rights whenever a decision is made to refuse, downgrade or not recommend an honour or award. These are commonsense safeguards. As the member for Riverina said—and I pay tribute to the fact that the minister is here today in the chamber—this is an issue on which I know this side of the parliament feels very strongly. We are happy to work with the minister to set it right. We also need to be clear about what all this means in practice. If unamended, the legislation shuts the door on any further reviews, as I said earlier, of actions in the Vietnam War. We heard, from the member for Riverina a moment ago, just what that would mean. D Company actions would not have been reviewable under this bill. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, outnumbered 20 to one, fought against extraordinary odds to defeat the Viet Cong. Any who have had a chance to see that extraordinary movie, Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan, will have seen just what those extraordinary people went through. A total of 245 VC were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed and many more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company Commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red-tape process stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that these 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery, as they should have been. Under this legislation, they would never have received the medals they were rightfully due. That would not have happened. Exactly the same happened with Teddy Sheean, of course. At the time Teddy Sheean received a VC, the Prime Minister authored an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph urging that Sheean's immense bravery ought to have been recognised without hesitation. I quote from that: If ever there is an image that captures the definition of courage as grace under pressure, surely … there was a deed worthy of the highest military honour … … … … Teddy Sheean deserves the Victoria Cross. On 18 June 2020, he also said in a speech in the parliament: The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean's getting a VC. That fact based process, which can be trusted, is absolutely essential to the trust that our serving men and women and veterans need to have in being part of our Defence Force. There is a better path here, one that balances care for veterans with stewardship of the system. Of course, all of this is about making sure we have a Defence Force that can secure peace through strength, and that strength requires motivated, great people continuing to want to sign up and serve our great nation. Our message is clear. Respect our veterans, keep the tribunal independent and fix processes that need fixing, but do not extinguish rights that correct injustice. In the toughest strategic era in generations, let us send a signal to every serving member and every veteran: the parliament has your back not just in what we say but in the systems we build and defend. That is how we will move from rhetoric to readiness, put people first and earn the trust that national security demands.
Australian National Flag | Adjournment | House debates
Tomorrow commemorates National Flag Day. We honour a symbol that embodies the heart and soul of our nation: our national flag. It is a flag that doesn't just represent government or geography; it...
Tomorrow commemorates National Flag Day. We honour a symbol that embodies the heart and soul of our nation: our national flag. It is a flag that doesn't just represent government or geography; it represents the people of Australia—our history, our values, our sacrifices and our aspirations. On 29 April 1901, our first prime minister, Edmund Barton, announced a competition to design the flag. Despite having just 32 days to get entries, more than 32,000 Australians responded. That alone says something deeply profound—that, from the beginning, Australians were united by a shared sense of identity and purpose. Of course, the winning design wasn't the work of a single group, authority or bureaucracy but five ordinary Australians: a schoolboy, an optician's apprentice, an architect, an artist and a ship's officer. What could be more fitting than our national flag, the emblem of the people, being designed by the people? On 3 September 1901, the flag was raised for the first time above the dome of Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building, which was the site of the first Commonwealth parliament. As the Brisbane Courier declared at the time, 'Nationhood is better for the concrete expression, and nothing will stir up enthusiasm or rouse the sense of regard for the country in which we live like a constant sight of the flag of Australia.' They were right, and they still are. Every element of our flag tells part of Australia's story. The Southern Cross, shining in our stars and celebrated by our Indigenous cultures, speaks to our unique place in the world. I remember walking around our farm at night as a young kid knowing that that was the best way to navigate and find your way around, and it still is. The Union Jack acknowledges the British heritage that gifted the institutions of democracy and rule of law and a society grounded in Christian values and civic virtue. The Commonwealth star, with the seven points, reminds us of our unity across six states and our territories. Under this flag, generations have served and sacrificed. It has flown above battlefields from Gallipoli to Afghanistan. It's been draped over the coffins of the fallen—the more than 103,000 Australians who gave their lives in defence of freedom. The flag has been worn with honour by soldiers, sailors and airmen. It has stood in the face of tyranny. It has greeted returning Olympians. It has been raised on construction sites, farm houses, schools and scout hall walls. It belongs to all Australians. Unlike many other nations, we were formed without civil war, without violent revolution and without entrenched tribal conflict. Geoffrey Blainey has called this 'the great Australian achievement'. Yes, we recognise dark chapters—the mistreatment of Indigenous Australians, the appalling treatment of our Vietnam veterans—but we do so without tearing down the whole story, because the story of Australia is one of progress, not perfection. We've been successful not in spite of our differences but because of the values we share—mateship, fairness, respect, responsibility and patriotism. These values bind us no matter our ancestry, our religion, our postcode or our profession. But, sadly, we now live in a time where our flag is under attack. On Sunday 3 August, footage emerged of protesters in Melbourne burning our national flag. On the same weekend, on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, we saw a so-called peaceful rally filled with genocidal slogans, Hamas flags, Nazi swastikas and images of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This isn't peaceful protest; it's self-loathing. It's divisive, it's disgraceful and it's dangerous. Worse still, the Prime Minister described it as peaceful. When it comes to our national flag, he seems reluctant to even stand in front of it without being flanked by two others. We have one national flag, our sovereign identity—one standard under which we unite. While we must always uphold the right to protest peacefully, we must equally uphold the right to defend what is good, what is right and what is unifying in this country. It's not just a piece of cloth; it's a symbol of hard won freedoms, sacrifice and shared identity. We must remind those who burn our flag that, in doing so, they reveal far more about themselves than they do about the country they live in. We are lucky to live in this country. We are blessed to be Australians. We should never be ashamed to just say so, so, today, on National Flag Day, I ask you not just to look up at our flag but to live up to its values.