Jane Hume's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Victoria: Crime | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise to speak on a matter of grave importance to the people of my state, and that is Victoria's crime crisis. This is not the first time I've spoken about Victoria's crime crisis in this place,...
I rise to speak on a matter of grave importance to the people of my state, and that is Victoria's crime crisis. This is not the first time I've spoken about Victoria's crime crisis in this place, and unfortunately I don't think it will be the last. Under Premier Jacinta Allan's Labor government, the levels of violent crime in Victoria and the lawlessness in our communities have only gotten worse. Just this week, some shocking news emerged from the suburb of St Kilda in Melbourne, where a teenager was stabbed and then run down by his own car, in what has been described as the most brutal and senseless attack—a teenager! What a horrific and violent crime! Unfortunately, this is not the first time we've seen victims of crime being young Victorians. We all remember the tragic story of the two young boys, aged just 12 and 15, who were murdered in cold blood by a gang of young thugs. Such violence occurring in broad daylight and in built-up areas in Melbourne, in public places, is deeply distressing—for families, of course, and for friends, definitely, but also for businesses and for those who simply want to go about their lives without fear. The details of these incidents remind us that crime is not an abstract statistic. It's a lived reality for so many Victorians, and new data now proves that point. According to the Productivity Commission, Victoria has the highest rate of victims of armed robbery in the nation. Almost one in three Victorians do not feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. That's the highest rate of any state in the nation. They're damning statistics. It's bad enough that the Allan government have allowed crime to worsen, but they've actually cut funding from the police at the same time. In May 2025 Premier Jacinta Allan cut $50 million from the Victorian police budget. Since she became Premier, in September 2023, the number of full-time police in Victoria has fallen by 367. At the same time, criminal offences have increased by 25 per cent. Due to staffing shortages, there are now 43 police stations that are operating on limited hours. What was initially described as a temporary measure isn't temporary at all; it has become a permanent feature. Just weeks ago the problem was brought to the forefront in the worst possible circumstances. Two young women were sitting stationary in their car when a man approached the car, produced a knife, slashed one of the women across her upper arm and then fled the scene. She did what any sensible person would do—she ran to the nearest police station, in Reservoir, but when she arrived and got out of the car, bleeding, the station was closed and unstaffed. The station happened to be one of those 43 stations that had cut their opening hours because of staff shortages. Imagine that—being the injured victim of a really scary crime and being unable to get help from the one place you should reliably be able to go to, because their hours have been cut because the government has run out of money to keep them open. That's outrageous, but that is Jacinta Allan's Victoria. Not only is violent crime sweeping through our streets; so is non-violent crime. This is extraordinary and so unnecessary. Just last week, out in Rowville, a bronze statue of Mahatma Gandhi, a symbol of peace and nonviolence, was cut from its base and stolen from outside an Indian Australian community centre. That's just extraordinary. Done in the early hours of the morning, this theft of a culturally and symbolically significant statue has sent shock waves through the Australian Indian community. Why has this gone on? How can this be allowed to continue? It's so unnecessary, but it is Victoria today under a Labor government. Under Labor, Victorians live in fear and with fewer police on the beat now than when Premier Allan became premier. This situation is only going to worsen. Only Jess Wilson, the leader of the Liberal Party, will end Labor's crime crisis.
Allen, Dr Katrina Jane (Katie) | Condolences | Senate debates
I know: isn't that terrible? But she was deadly serious, and it was almost immediately that I understood why she wanted to do this. She believed that, if you had the capacity to contribute, you...
I know: isn't that terrible? But she was deadly serious, and it was almost immediately that I understood why she wanted to do this. She believed that, if you had the capacity to contribute, you also had a responsibility to contribute. That was what her life was all about. She was the real deal. She was determined to make the world a better place. Achieving excellence, for Katie, was never an excuse to stop; it was a reason to keep going. She was generous with her time. She was, as I said, interested in others. She was deeply grounded, and, despite everything she had already achieved, she wanted to achieve more. Over the years that followed, she did achieve more—more than I think anyone ever dreamed would be possible. She brought that intellect and that discipline and that moral clarity into public life as the member for Higgins, a position in which she served with distinction. When she lost that seat and it was redistributed away, she came back, and she was absolutely determined to finish the job that she had started, as a candidate for Chisholm in the 2025 election. I worked with her very closely there. She was an incredible campaigner. 'Indefatigable' was the right word, I think, Senator Sharma. She fought every day, even when she didn't feel quite right, even when she was in pain and even when—right up until election day, before she was diagnosed—she clearly knew that the cancer that she thought she had defeated had come back. A couple of days before the election, I was out on prepoll with her, and her whole family were there. I've got to admit that there was a bit of me that was quite jealous. I thought, 'God, I don't think all my family would come out like this.' But I think that they all knew that something was coming. It didn't become official until after the campaign was over, but they all knew. They're an incredible family. She approached politics in the same way she approached medicine—evidence based, thoughtful, calm under pressure, always focused on outcomes and not distracted by noise. People have spoken about her contribution to politics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her experience and judgement were widely sought from right around the chamber, from colleagues in government and across the parliament, from the media and from Australians who were looking for somebody credible who could give us guidance. She never overstated what she knew. She never sought attention. But she also never simpered and never apologised for being the expert in the room. She always spoke with integrity; I loved that about her. In a period when trust mattered most, Katie earned that trust. One of the causes closest to Katie's heart was, as others have mentioned, empowering other women. Her commitment to the Pathways to Politics for Women program was deep and sustained. She gave back generously through so many avenues—and I won't go into all of them—but the mentoring of young women will always be part of her story and part of her legacy. She continued this even when her health was failing, as Senator Henderson has said. That was Katie. Even at the very end, she was always thinking about how she could help others, who she could lift up, who she could encourage and how she could leave things better than she had found them. What I'll always remember about her is her sense of right and wrong, her loyalty, her kindness, her thoughtfulness, her courage and the fact that she worked tirelessly every day, even when she didn't have to. She believed deeply in service. Above all, Katie loved her family. She spoke of them often and so fondly: her husband Malcolm and her four children, Archie, Arabella, Jemima and Monty, who have been mentioned so many times before and who spoke just so magnificently at the memorial and at her funeral—from the heart. What an incredible family she has left behind. It was clear to everyone who knew her just how deeply she loved them and how much that love was returned. That love truly sustained her and truly defined her. She succeeded in absolutely everything that mattered. She improved lives, she lifted standards in medicine and in public debate, and she lifted standards in this parliament. She leaves behind a legacy of generosity, of leadership and of belief in others that will endure for many, many years to come. Now, I'll let you in on a secret that, probably, is pretty obvious when you look back. Her favourite colour was pink, and the brighter, the better. So, anytime you don a pink jacket or a pink frock or put on your pink lipstick, I hope that people in this parliament will remember Katie Allen. My deepest sympathies are with Malcolm, Archie, Arabella, Jemima and Monty and all of those who loved Katie. I think that we are all much better people for having known her.
I rise to add my voice to the contributions that have been made today from around the chamber about the passing of Professor Katie Allen, not only as a former colleague but also as a dear friend....
I rise to add my voice to the contributions that have been made today from around the chamber about the passing of Professor Katie Allen, not only as a former colleague but also as a dear friend. Like many in this place, I too am still coming to terms with her loss and the absence of someone whose presence, whose generosity and whose courage meant a great deal to so many of us. I first met Katie when she was at the Royal Children's Hospital. I was serving on the board of the children's hospital at the time, and she was at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. She was already a shining beacon there. She bounded up to me at a hospital function. I knew who she was: she was a paediatrician, she was a professor, she was a scientist, she was an allergist, she was beautiful, she was thin, she was blonde, and she had four children—and I thought, 'I'm going to hate this woman immediately,' on sight. But how could you hate her? She was charming, she was warm, she was friendly, she was enthusiastic, she was interested in other people, and she just cared; you could feel, from the moment you met her, how much she cared for others. And she was curious. I remember being genuinely surprised—quite flabbergasted—when she said, 'I'm interested in politics, and I think I want to run for the Liberal Party.' I thought: 'Why? Why would you do that? Look at you! You're amazing! Look at what you're doing!'
Economy | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Minister, Australians are poorer today than they were four years ago. Under Labor, we've experienced the largest decline in living standards in the developed world, and it's no coincidence that...
Minister, Australians are poorer today than they were four years ago. Under Labor, we've experienced the largest decline in living standards in the developed world, and it's no coincidence that it's your policy positions that have caused this. Minister, is the Prime Minister sorry or even aware that Australians are poorer under Labor?
Minister, under Labor government spending is growing at its fastest rate, outside of a recession, in nearly 40 years. Every credible economist will tell you that government spending is adding to...
Minister, under Labor government spending is growing at its fastest rate, outside of a recession, in nearly 40 years. Every credible economist will tell you that government spending is adding to inflationary pressure, forcing the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates higher for longer. When this was pointed out the Treasurer, he said that those economists were making political comments. Minister, why won't the Prime Minister hold this Treasurer responsible for the fact that his spending is making the Reserve Bank's job harder? (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. On 29 January 2025, the Prime Minister enthusiastically endorsed his treasurer when he said: The worst of the...
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. On 29 January 2025, the Prime Minister enthusiastically endorsed his treasurer when he said: The worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us. A year later inflation is now at 3.8 per cent, well outside the Reserve Bank's target band and higher than in every major advanced economy. Indeed the Prime Minister's finance minister, just 25 minutes ago, said that the job is not yet done. Australians were promised relief. Instead they're facing higher prices, higher interest rates and falling living standards. Minister, was the Prime Minister's treasurer wrong then, or is he wrong now?
Economy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
I rise to speak about an issue that impacts every single Australian, whether you're paying a mortgage, whether you're renting, whether you're running your own business or whether you're a family...
I rise to speak about an issue that impacts every single Australian, whether you're paying a mortgage, whether you're renting, whether you're running your own business or whether you're a family relying on food banks to put food on the table, and that is government spending. You might ask how government spending affects your everyday life. Let me tell you. I'll put it very simply. When the government spends too much, it adds to aggregate demand, and that's what the Reserve Bank responds to—aggregate demand. It puts pressure on inflation, and when inflation is high the Reserve Bank responds by raising interest rates. When rates go up, mortgages go up, rents go up and business loans get more expensive. That's what's happening right now. In fact, there have been 13 individual interest rate rises under this Labor government, and of course the most recent was just yesterday. The average mortgage holder is now paying $23,000 more every single year on their mortgage than they were when Labor came to government. Twenty-three thousand dollars is not the sort of money that you find down the back of the couch. At the same time, under this Albanese government, government spending has gone up. It's now at the fastest pace, outside of a recession, in 40 years. That is not a coincidence. Government spending has jumped from 23.4 per cent of GDP to 26.9 per cent of GDP this financial year. That is not responsible economic management. It's like the government has its foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank puts its foot on the break, and it's Australians that will always pay the price for Labor's mismanagement of the economy.
Privileges Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I present the 188th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Ms Andrea Selvey, and I move: That the report be adopted. This report forms part of a series...
I present the 188th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Ms Andrea Selvey, and I move: That the report be adopted. This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim that they have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified. On 8 December 2025 the President received a submission from Ms Andrea Selvey relating to a speech made in the Senate by Senator Whitten on 28 October 2025. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution (5). The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Ms Selvey's response be incorporated in Hansard. The committee reminds the Senate that, in matters of this nature, it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by senators or the persons referred to; rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions—and, ultimately, the responses it recommends—accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution (5). I commend the motion to the Senate.
Answers to Questions | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all opposition questions without notice asked today. As I kick off, I'd like to first assist our mathematically challenged...
I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all opposition questions without notice asked today. As I kick off, I'd like to first assist our mathematically challenged Minister for Finance, who didn't know the answer to what a 25-basis-point rise and a cash rate of 3.85 per cent was going to cost an average mortgage holder. It will cost your average mortgage holder with a $600,000 mortgage an additional $100 a month. In case the maths is too hard for you, that's $1,200 a year, Minister. That's what I would like to take note of—the fact that this Labor government has ignored the increased cost because of this interest rate rise for all mortgage holders around Australia and anybody that has a debt, in fact, whether it be a car loan, a personal loan or a home loan. That's going to go up for them. That's the cost of living in action. This rate rise was no accident. We knew it was coming. We knew it was coming because inflation went back up again. Why did inflation go back up again? It's pretty simple. Inflation went back up again because there is too much demand in the economy caused by public spending. What causes public spending? Labor causes public spending. It's pretty clear. This economy is not serving Australians well. These guys will tell you all about what a great job they're doing, but you don't need to go too far to speak to the average Australian and find out that they are hurting right now. Households are going to have to make decisions. Because of this rate rise that's happened under Labor, they're going to have to make decisions about what to cut out of their family budgets. Electricity has already gone up 38 per cent, but its due to go up another 24 per cent just this year alone. Rents are up 22 per cent. Health has gone up. Food has gone up. Insurance has gone up by 39 per cent. Education has gone up by 17 per cent. It's no wonder that this cost-of-living crisis, which has dragged on and on under Labor, is hurting average Australians. At the same time, we're seeing economic growth stagnating. In fact, the only thing that's been propping up economic growth has been immigration that has run well out of control. It's an extremely badly managed immigration system. In fact, GDP per capita has gone backwards under this government. At the same time, we've seen productivity go backwards as well. So actually increasing economic growth without driving further inflation is becoming harder and harder. The tax settings in this country are sucking the life out of our entrepreneurialism, innovation and aspiration. We've got budget deficits as far as the eye can see. There is not a budget for the next 10 years that is not forecasting a deficit. What does that mean? That means that the government is planning to spend more than it earns. Can you imagine a household out there that, for 10 years, said, 'We're going to spend more than we earn'? That's what Labor are doing. That's what they're planning on. That means that debt rises higher. I think we've now hit a trillion dollars. I'm pretty sure we've hit a trillion dollars in debt, and it's rising to $1.2 trillion. It's not this generation that's going to pay for it; it's the next generation. It's our children. It's our grandchildren. This is happening on Labor's watch. What has the Treasurer said about this? You'll be pleased to know that he's really thought long and hard about this! There have been sleepless nights! Do you know what he said today? He said that it was the fault of people who had taken holidays that inflation was rising. He actually said that it was driven by a 'Christmas spendathon' by individuals and families. So, if you took a holiday, it's apparently all your fault that inflation is rising, not the government's. He hasn't taken responsibility for that. In fact, he hasn't taken responsibility for anything. Actually, he loves it when inflation goes down. He loves it. That he takes responsibility for. When interest rates go down, when inflation goes down, that's all Jim. That's all the Treasurer. That's all his good work. But, when inflation goes up, when interest rates go up, that's got to be somebody else's fault. And any time somebody criticises him, well, that's 'politically motivated'. He was criticised by a very well-respected economist in Shane Oliver from AMP, who said that government spending is fuelling inflation and that's causing interest rate rises. Do you know what the Treasurer said? He said, 'Well, that's politically motivated.' I would be very interested to know whether all of those economists out there are politically motivated. Do you think that Paul Bloxham from HSBC is politically motivated? Is Richard Holden from the University of New South Wales politically motivated? Is Luci Ellis from Westpac politically motivated? Is Alan Oster from NAB? Is Chris Richardson, a very well-respected, independent economist, politically motivated too? What about Pradeep Philip from Deloitte? What about Stephen Anthony from Macroeconomics Advisory or Cherelle Murphy from EY? Is Alex Joyner from IFM, from industry super? Is he politically motivated? How about the Parliamentary Budget Office? They were the last people to call out Labor's lies. (Time expired)
I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. I move to take note particularly of those around the inflation...
I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. I move to take note particularly of those around the inflation figures that were announced today. It is quite extraordinary how far inflation has ticked up considering that, just a few months ago, Jim Chalmers was telling us all that the inflation genie was back in the bottle, that he had tamed the dragon, that we didn't need to worry anymore, that we could expect decreases in the prices of houses, that we'd see interest rates come down, that everything was fine and that it was all due to his exceptional economic management. Well, how quickly the story has changed! You would recall, Deputy President, that at the beginning of this Labor government, when inflation was high, Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, said that it was always somebody else's fault. First of all, he blamed the coalition. Then he said it was Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine and that was why they had to push up gas prices. Then he said that it was Hamas's fault and that the troubles that were going on in the Middle East were causing the rise in energy prices and pushing up inflation around the world. Then he said: 'Well, now that President Trump has been elected, that's geopolitical instability and that's causing some problems with inflation. That's just something we have to deal with.' And then he came back to the coalition and said it was our fault all over again. At no point in time has the Treasurer even once taken responsibility for the persistent inflation in this country, even though our inflation was higher and lasted longer than in so many other advanced economies, who managed to tame their inflation through fiscal responsibility. They saw the government spending wind back in response to high inflation around the world. They said: 'No, we'll do our bit. We'll do some of the heavy lifting. We won't turn it all over to monetary policy.' But that's not what this government did. In fact, they said: 'This is really Michele Bullock's responsibility. We'll just turn it over to her.' So the poor RBA had to pull on the only lever they had—they only have one lever, and that's monetary policy—and they pulled it 12 times. That's why we saw interest rates go up 12 times in the last parliament—12 times! It has since come back down three times, but now it has stalled again. There are so many Australians out there—do you remember the days, Deputy President Brockman, when Australians really didn't give two hoots what the inflation data was doing? They really didn't even look too hard at interest rates. But now you've got families that are hanging out watching economic data roll in, wondering how it's going to affect them. And you can understand why, because their living standards have gone backwards under this government. Why have they gone backwards? Because inflation has been too high for too long. It has eaten away at their wages. It means that they can buy less with the money that they have. Even if their wages have gone up, they haven't gone up enough to keep up with the rising cost of living. And it's that cost of living that has caused so much damage in just the last three years alone—that persistent rising cost of living. It's a problem which, according to Jim Chalmers, has apparently been solved. What is one of the causes of this persistent inflation? It's not just government spending although, let's face it, that is important—even Michele Bullock has pointed that out. It is the rising cost of energy—those increasing energy bills, those energy bills that you all know have gone up by 40 per cent in the last three years. And why have they gone up 40 per cent? Because of this government's ideological obsession with reaching its renewable energy targets and reducing emissions well beyond any comparable country by 2030, and, indeed, 2035 as well. That ideological obsession has seen our energy prices rise, not lower. Only the coalition has proposed an alternative, which is to reduce emissions while delivering affordable and reliable energy, shoring up the grid—a technology neutral approach that will not see a one-eyed single technology of renewable energy delivering higher energy prices, which of course is taking us all backwards. That renewable energy obsession is what has seen companies go out of business, like Tomago, like Incitec Pivot, like Qenos plastics, like Oceania Glass in my home state of Victoria. These companies, these manufacturing businesses, are going out of business because of this government's approach to managing the economy, to managing the energy grid and to managing inflation. We want to see the pie grow. Economic management is not something that happens by accident; it happens by design. But this government has done the exact opposite, and it is Australians who are paying the price.
When speaking to my children and their friends and to young Australians right around the country, I've noticed this growing and deeply troubling sentiment, and that's a feeling that no matter how...
When speaking to my children and their friends and to young Australians right around the country, I've noticed this growing and deeply troubling sentiment, and that's a feeling that no matter how hard they work they can't get ahead. It doesn't matter how much they save; they simply won't be able to do better than their parents. That's a broken social contract between this generation and the next. For decades, Australia has prided itself on being a place where each generation could climb that little bit higher, where owning your own home wasn't a privilege—it was reward for hard work and aspiration. But under Labor that dream of homeownership is getting further and further out of reach. Mortgage holders are now paying $1,800 a month more than when this government was elected. Rents are up by 21 per cent, and construction prices have shot up by over 20 per cent. Under the coalition, Australia was building around 200,000 homes each and every year. Under Labor, it's dropped back to 170,000, and only barely that. This is a recipe for a housing disaster, and we're witnessing the impact of this on first home prices, with more and more Australians being locked out of the market. Young Australians are telling me it's like the ladder has been pulled up behind them. It's a concern that's been raised by many Victorians that I have heard from during my community surveys. Nothing illustrates this more than the story of Julia, a 27-year-old lawyer, who wrote to me to share her story. Julia and her husband, an electrician, both work full time. They grew up believing that, if they got a job, worked hard, saved their money and lived sensibly and frugally, one day they would have a home of their own in which to raise their family, and that's exactly what they've tried to do. They don't want anything extravagant, just a modest three-bedroom home and maybe a second bathroom. The first home they bought was an apartment in 2021, and they did that through a government scheme. While they want that next home to build their family, they can't do it. Despite those two solid incomes, they're completely priced out. To get something even close to suitable for a young family would cost them nearly $1 million. Julia and her husband know that they will not be able to give their children the upbringing that they had, and that is entirely unfair. Her husband describes the situation as a betrayal, and I think that's entirely accurate. Young Australians are robbed of their aspiration and opportunity. The great Australian dream is becoming further and further out of reach. But it's clearly not enough of a concern to those opposite. At the same time as this government has presided over the collapse of Australian housing construction, Australia is experiencing the largest population surge in our history. Labor is giving us more people but fewer homes, and that is unsustainable. Labor's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund has delivered just 17—I'll repeat that: 17—houses in two years. The promise of 1.2 million new homes has already been walked back, not just by those in front of the camera but by those in the department as well. Now, that's a real concern. Instead of cutting red tape, Labor has introduced 5,000 new regulations. These have smothered builders, councils and homeowners in paperwork, bureaucracy and compliance. Under Labor, everything takes longer and costs more. Australians deserve better. We must keep the dream of homeownership alive for the next generation of Australians. We must keep it attainable, and we must keep it accessible, particularly for young Australians. That's why I'm introducing the Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025 into the Senate this week. This bill will make it easier for older Australians to downsize their home, freeing up much-needed family homes for younger families. It's not the only solution to the problem, but it is one solution. It's easy; it's there. It's a simple and effective way to get more family homes onto the market, and I hope it will receive support from right across the chamber. This bill can remove some of those intractable barriers and unlock supply. These are homes people like Julia and her husband desperately want and need. There is no one way to tackle the housing crisis, but, certainly, overpromising and underdelivering from a government won't do it. My message to young Australians is this: the Liberal Party is on your side. You deserve a chance to build a life, a family and a home of your own, and we will always fight for policies that will allow you to do exactly that.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
Finally, we've got a more appropriate title for the member for McMahon, Mr Chris Bowen. He'd now officially known as the part-time energy minister. It happens to be a role he is very well...
Finally, we've got a more appropriate title for the member for McMahon, Mr Chris Bowen. He'd now officially known as the part-time energy minister. It happens to be a role he is very well prepared for, because he's already had a part-time approach, let's face it. He's delivered a part-time energy grid and full-time power price pain for Australian families and Australian businesses. Australians are paying an awfully high price for Labor's wrong priorities and their broken promises on energy. Let's remember those three promises that Labor took to the 2022 election: 82 per cent renewables in the grid by 2030, 43 per cent emissions reduction from 2005 levels and, of course, the infamous but never spoken of again $275 cut to electricity bills by the end of 2025. Goodness me, we're getting close, aren't we? Well, the government has failed on all three. Eighty-two per cent of renewables in the grid is well off track. Every credible expert forecasts that, even in the most optimistic scenario, we're now looking at around 65 per cent, and the rollout is only at half the pace that is needed. Industry is crying out for gas more than anything else. After emissions went up under this government, they are now only back at 28 per cent of 2005 levels. That is the same level as when the coalition left office 3½ years ago. Most offensively to Australians, power prices are up 40 per cent. Your bills have increased 40 per cent under this government, and an Australian household is paying on average around $1,300 more on their energy bills in a year than Labor promised. It really is a trifecta of failures under this minister—prices up, reliability down and emissions flat-lined. You would think with that record that the energy minister would take his job a bit more seriously—but no. Instead, what we've seen and what we learnt last week is that the Australian government has spent $7 million for the privilege of losing a bid to host COP31. That's $7 million gone, and not a single family is better off for it. According to Labor, though, we shouldn't worry, because we've got this fabulous consolation prize. We should all be so proud. Mr Bowen is going to be the president for negotiations for COP. What a title that is! How extraordinary! What an honour! To be fair to my colleagues on the other side of the chamber, I understand why it's viewed as a prize, because it might mean that the member for McMahon has to spend a little less time here answer questions about his failed policy and his failure to deliver the $275 he convinced not only all of Australia of but all his colleagues of as well. The fact is that Australia's energy minister taking on this role will not make energy any cheaper. The only winner out of this is Chris Bowen's CV. While the minister racks up more photos for his Instagram—a selfie with Greta, maybe—Australian households and businesses will be left to deal with more expensive energy bills and an unreliable energy grid. Since Labor came to power, 1,900 manufacturing businesses have closed their doors, like Qenos plastics, Incitec Pivot Fertilisers and Oceania Glass in my home state of Victoria. Now, of course, we're talking about Tomago Aluminium at risk of closure or headed for a billion-dollar taxpayer funded bailout just to keep the thousand jobs that this vital industry provides. In 2024, COSBOA surveyed small businesses and found that 34 per cent have experienced financial strain paying their energy bills—that's a figure that's higher than it was during the pandemic—and 45 per cent were concerned about their future energy bills. When it comes to Australian families who were holding out for that $275 cut, there are actually 200,000 Australian families now who are on hardship plans with energy providers because of those rising energy costs. Australians don't need an energy minister with two jobs; they would just like him to have one, and to do it well. Do what was promised. Fix the energy crisis in this country. It really is only ever Labor that could give us a part-time energy minister during a full-time energy emergency. Only Labor could prioritise global summits ahead of Australian families who are suffering to keep the lights on. Labor's priorities are wrong, and Australians are still paying that price.
Cost of Living | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Last week I sent a survey out to the electorate of Aston and asked them, amongst other things: 'What would be the one issue you would raise in federal parliament? If you had one issue, what would...
Last week I sent a survey out to the electorate of Aston and asked them, amongst other things: 'What would be the one issue you would raise in federal parliament? If you had one issue, what would it be?' Courtney told me: Cost of living has risen by so much since Labor came to power and it will only be worse now that they are back in. They promised cheaper prices and have failed miserably. Richard said that he wanted to talk about cheaper energy, as this 'supports industry to grow, providing more jobs'. And Odille wanted to raise what so many Australians are feeling, and I will quote her. She said, 'the lies the Albanese government told us about giving us $275 towards our electricity bills'. These voices are not alone. They're the voices of households right across Australia who are struggling with higher prices, higher power bills and a government that has made such big promises but has delivered so little. While families are tightening their belts, what is this Labor government doing? Last week, we learnt that Australia had spent $7 million for the privilege of losing a bid for COP31. They lost out to Turkiye at the end of the day. 'That's fine; don't worry about it; it's okay,' say Labor, because there's a consolation prize, and what a consolation prize it is. The Member for McMahon, Mr Chris Bowen, Labor's energy minister, now gets to swan around Turkiye as the lead negotiator for the international climate conference, a full-time job paid for by you, the taxpayer. Meanwhile, energy bills under this government have increased 40 per cent. This is the same guy that promised Australians $275 off your energy bills. Now he's taking on another job paid for by you. Only Labor would give us a part-time minister during a full-blown energy— (Time expired)
Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
I was having a cup of coffee with an old school friend the other day whose family runs a building business. I said to her, 'You surely have seen an improvement in behaviour on your worksites...
I was having a cup of coffee with an old school friend the other day whose family runs a building business. I said to her, 'You surely have seen an improvement in behaviour on your worksites since this administration of the CFMEU began?' She said no, in fact it's gotten worse. She said it has actually got to the stage now where the CFMEU are laughing because they have realised just how powerless the government is. In fact, the administrator they have put in place has allowed the CFMEU to become more permissive, not less permissive. The corruption, the bikie gangs, the underworld figures, the cartel kickbacks—all of this is running rife, and it's happening in my home state of Victoria. We know this because we understand that this is pushing up the cost of construction. It's pushing up the cost of construction in Victoria. No wonder we have seen so many cost blowouts on our infrastructure projects—the West Gate Tunnel, the North East Link. The list goes on. Wait until we get to the Suburban Rail Loop; heaven help us with what is going to happen there. The latest exposes, including on 60 Minutes, confirmed what all of us have known all along—that the CFMEU remains entangled with figures like John Setka, Mick Gatto and associates of its Victorian head, Zach Smith. I was very pleased to see that Zach Smith has finally stepped away from the executive of the Labor Party, because the idea that the Prime Minister could sit shoulder to shoulder with a man who associates with these figures that are intricately connected to criminal behaviour is unthinkable. But there are still cash flows, there are still kickbacks and there are still cartel levers, and, until they are cut off, this problem will only deepen. Corruption will remain rife, the bikie gangs will flourish, criminal behaviour will continue and our construction sites will remain unsafe and highly inefficient for taxpayers. The administrator, Mr Irving KC, was appointed specifically to clean up the CFMEU and restore integrity, but the fact that he has been so ineffectual and potentially enabling has shocked us all. There was a union official named Mr Charles Farrugia who went public and called out that administrator as someone who actually protects figures like John Setka rather than removing them. The administrator has elevated people who have later been exposed as being corrupt, such as Mr John Perkovic. He was promoted to deputy leader, only to be removed after cartel kickback allegations. This is quite extraordinary. In the 60 Minutes episode that I'm sure we have all watched by now, Mr Gatto gave Mr Perkovic a gold bracelet. Did the administrator know about this? Was he aware? This isn't just a one-off incident. This is a pattern of behaviour, a pattern of corruption, and it's not being stopped; it's being recycled. Workplace Relations Minister Rishworth has tied her reputation to this administrator's performance. Heaven help Ms Rishworth because, if that is the case, she is in all kinds of strife. She's described the administrator's actions as the strongest possible response and says she has full confidence in him. I do not think that that confidence is shared. I know it's not shared by the coalition. I don't think it's shared by Australians, because they're the ones that are paying the price for this ongoing corruption. The Fair Work Commission told this Senate that they would have grave concerns if Mr Setka remained an influence within the CFMEU, yet there has been irrefutable evidence that Mr Smith meets with Mr Setka socially, he plays cards with him and he maintains contact with him. This isn't reform. This is business as usual for the CFMEU. The parliament established the administration of the CFMEU, and the parliament deserves the ability to scrutinise the effectiveness of that administration. We were promised 'the strongest possible action'. That is not what we have seen. This corrupt and criminal union—and this is not a disparagement of all unions. That is absolutely not what we are saying. Unions have an important place in civil society. But this union is bad to its core. The public interest is clear. The corruption must be removed, and Labor's self-interest is what is getting in the way. Australians are not fools. They see this corruption being exposed by journalists. It's time the government got on with the job of delivering— (Time expired)
Cost of Living | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
The headline on the front page of the Australian on 2 May 2022 said, 'Life will be "cheaper" under me'—says the Prime Minister. But Labor have been elected, and households are paying 15 per...
The headline on the front page of the Australian on 2 May 2022 said, 'Life will be "cheaper" under me'—says the Prime Minister. But Labor have been elected, and households are paying 15 per cent more for food, 15 per cent more for health, 19 per cent more for housing and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. Minister, do you think Australians feel that life is cheaper since you came to power?
The point of order is relevance. The supplementary question was all about cheaper mortgages. We didn't get a single mention of mortgages.
The Prime Minister also said: My government's been very disciplined about fulfilling the commitments that we made prior to the election. Well, prior to the 2022 election, the Prime Minister said...
The Prime Minister also said: My government's been very disciplined about fulfilling the commitments that we made prior to the election. Well, prior to the 2022 election, the Prime Minister said that he would deliver cheaper mortgages for Australians, but, since Labor came to power, mortgage holders have paid around $1,800 more per month. Minister, when will your government fulfil its commitment of cheaper mortgages?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, earlier this week, the Prime Minister said: Go back and have a look at some of the front pages that were...
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, earlier this week, the Prime Minister said: Go back and have a look at some of the front pages that were run during the 2022 election campaign and see how they measure up … Well, on 2 May 2022, the Australian Financial Review front page had the headline, 'Labor's pitch: no one left behind'. According to Homelessness Australia, however, there has been a 33 per cent increase in Australians living rough in the past two years. Today, Foodbank has released its hunger report, which found that, in 2025, one in three Australian households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. Minister, will you acknowledge that millions of Australians are being left behind under Labor?
Labor Government | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
As a senator for Victoria, it's my job to represent the views and interests of those that are in my state, and that's exactly what I'm going to do today. Recently I surveyed some constituents in...
As a senator for Victoria, it's my job to represent the views and interests of those that are in my state, and that's exactly what I'm going to do today. Recently I surveyed some constituents in my patron or duty seats the electorates of Chisholm and Isaacs about issues that matter most to them—the things that most deeply impact their lives and the priorities they want their government to act upon. I'd like to thank everybody who took part in that survey—it only took a few minutes to fill it out—to tell me the things that mattered to them so that I can stand here today and share those messages with the parliament and particularly with those in the government who make the decisions that affect their lives. The message has been resoundingly clear. From the surge in crime and the surge in the cost of living, to access to healthcare and unaffordable energy prices, Australians are struggling, and they are asking their federal Labor government and state Labor government in Victoria to do so much better. Residents in the electorates of Chisholm and Isaacs are worried about their safety, their bills and their future. They want a government that listens and, more importantly, a government that acts. I say this to those constituents in Chisholm and Isaacs: if you do not feel that you are being heard, then I can be your voice. This is exactly what I am here to do—to speak to those who are not listening to you today. I hope that those opposite are listening, finally. I hope that they listen and pick up the phone to their mates that are in the Victorian Labor government, and that they respond and get on with action on these issues. Previously when I've done these surveys, and I have done many of them, the cost of living was absolutely the No. 1 issue. It was the No. 1 issue that came up with residents, and there's no denying that it is still a massive issue for Australians who have lived through three years of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. But there is a new No. 1 issue in my home state of Victoria, and that is crime. Over the past year in particular, we've seen an enormous, alarming rise in not just youth crime but violent crime right across Victoria. One resident from Mount Waverley shared with me some extraordinary footage of an attempted home invasion that occurred while her family was inside. It's not an isolated event, either. There are so many people that responded who said they'd either had home invasions or knew someone who had experienced a home invasion. In fact, there was one local from Glen Iris who even wrote that their friends and neighbours can no longer sleep properly at night because of the rising crime in their suburbs. These are basic, middle-class, average Australian suburbs. We should expect more than that. I promise you this is not something that's being catastrophised. It's happening right here in our neighbourhoods, in our backyards, and people have had enough. They've had enough. One resident from Isaacs shared a shocking story of her niece's partner, who was the victim of an unprovoked king hit in the middle of Melbourne's CBD in broad daylight, in the middle of the afternoon, while he was working. Three months on, that case, which you would think would be unequivocal, remains unresolved. Being king hit in the middle of the day while you are working in the middle of the city. This is happening on almost a daily basis. We've seen reports of violent crimes happening right around Victoria. But what has the Victorian Labor Allan government done about it? What has their response been? I'll tell you. They sat on their hands. They've cut $50 million from the police budget, and they spent an astonishing $13 million on 40 bins in which people can actively and voluntarily surrender their machetes, because you know that so many violent criminals love to voluntarily surrender their weapons. This is the most confronting story that I have received so far. It's from a local constituent in Isaacs who said: I never thought I'd have to call a family meeting to plan how we are going to protect ourselves during a home invasion. But that is exactly what we have done. Wow. No Australian family should ever have to live like that. No parent should have to sit down with their children and explain, 'Now, kids, this is what we're going to do, and this is what our escape plan looks like when the criminals arrive.' Isn't that extraordinary! The other issue dominating conversations in Chisholm and Isaacs is the rising cost of living. It's the single biggest concern for families, retirees and small businesses. In Chisholm the frustration was particularly clear. One retiree told me that, after working for 47 years, he feels completely disillusioned by the current political discourse. He said: I watch my hard earned savings being eaten up by government policies. He went on to explain that, despite the rhetoric about helping ordinary Australians, the reality is the opposite, and he is not wrong. Labor's economic agenda is making Australians poorer by the day. Their living standards have gone backwards. The government's spending is at the highest level outside of a recession in nearly 40 years. Isn't that extraordinary? The reckless spending, as we know, is keeping inflation higher for longer. We know the Treasurer claimed 'mission accomplished' on inflation, but it's popped back up, and Australians are paying the price. Australians are paying $50,000 every single minute in interest on Labor's trillion-dollar debt. How much did you guys pay just sitting up here listening to me? Extraordinary. One constituent said: The cost-of-living crisis needs to be resolved responsibly for our current and future generations. I couldn't agree more. He continued: Living standards are decreasing for many Australians, despite hard and honest work. Our country is better than this. Another wrote: The current price of living, gas, electricity, feeding ourselves, everything. We were promised cheaper and better, but it's only gotten more expensive. These aren't just complaints; they're words of frustration. They are the lived, everyday experiences of Australians who work hard, have saved carefully and still can't seem to get ahead. Just recently, the Prime Minister said, in relation to the 2022 election: My government's been very disciplined about fulfilling the commitments that we made prior to the election. Well, Prime Minister, you promised that life would be cheaper under you and that Australians would be better off under Labor. But, since Labor were elected, households are paying nearly 15 per cent more for their food. They're paying 15 per cent more for their health care. They're paying 19 per cent more for their housing and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. The Prime Minister also promised, with his cheaper health care—holding up the Medicare card—that they would be able to see a GP without a gap. Unfortunately, the average Australian is still paying $50 out of pocket to go and see a GP. Australians are struggling with access to adequate health care, particularly aged care. We know that bulk-billing and the affordability of essential medicines is also a problem. In Isaacs and Chisholm and Victoria right now—but this right across Australia—that is the third top issue: cost of access to health care. Labor has been quite vocal in speaking about how much they have done to make medicines cheaper, but the real feedback we are receiving tells an entirely different story. Particularly I got some feedback on concerns from people about the cost of difficulties finding aged-care places and accessing home-care packages. Another constituent expressed dismay at the Prime Minister's unfulfilled promises on Medicare. He described the growing gap between what the Prime Minister says and what people are living through. I'm quoting here, so forgive the informalities. He said: The lies Albo has told about the Medicare card are terrible. My husband's heart medication we're paying out of pocket, even though we've reached our limits. He hasn't opened any more bulk billing clinics. We're pensioners, and the cost of food and everything else is killing us. We've been waiting 12 months for our aged care package. This is not an unusual response. Almost every week, those opposite stand up to joyfully express how much they are doing for Australians. I know you guys speak to each other all the time, but that's an echo chamber. The real issue is this: have you actually spoken to Australians? Because the feedback tells a completely different story to the one that you tell us in here. The government seems to have fallen out of touch with the reality, the lived experience of ordinary Australians. The final issue raised across both electorates, Chisholm and Isaacs, which again tells us how out of touch this government is, is the rising cost of energy. Energy bills continue to be a major cause of financial stress across households and small businesses across this country, particularly in my home state of Victoria. You know that the Prime Minister promised you cheaper bills—he promised $275 off your electricity bills—but Australians are paying up to $1,300 more on their energy bills than Labor promised. Another resident said: We need transparency around the Government's energy transition costs. I could not agree more. I am going to keep doing these surveys because it's important to know what the people of Victoria think and what messages they want us to be sending to the government in this parliament. On behalf of the coalition, my message to Victorians is this: we have a strong record of being able to clean up Labor's mess; we have done it before and will be able to do it again.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, something I speak of with enormous pride because this bill goes to the heart of fairness,...
I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, something I speak of with enormous pride because this bill goes to the heart of fairness, equity and recognition of the sacrifices that are made within Australian families. It represents a genuine step forward to ensuring that every single Australian can look forward to a dignified and secure retirement, especially women. This bill amends the superannuation legislation to give spouses the opportunity to split their collective superannuation balances evenly between them. The partner with the higher superannuation balance will be able to roll over an amount from their fund to their spouse's superannuation fund to make the two funds more even. Financial security in retirement should reflect a lifetime of shared contributions, not just paid employment. This bill is a proactive measure designed specifically to tackle one of the most persistent and unfair challenges in our superannuation system, the gender super gap. While estimates vary, women retire with significantly lower superannuation balances than men, somewhere between 20 to 25 per cent lower. Why is this? It's rarely a result of personal choice; rather it stems from deep-seated structural realities in our society and in our superannuation system. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, one-third of the gender super gap can be attributed to time spent caring for family and interruptions to full-time employment. Women are far more likely to take time out of the paid workforce to care for children or for elderly parents and to shoulder the responsibilities of unpaid work that keeps families and our economy running. When one partner, typically the mother, takes time away from work to raise children, her superannuation savings often halt for years, even decades, while her partner's continue to grow. This is the motherhood penalty in action, leaving women financially vulnerable in their later years. The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that no mother should be penalised for taking time away from work to do the most important job there is. Let's be honest. These decisions, these sacrifices, benefit both partners in a relationship. They're not individual choices; they're family choices. So why should the financial security that comes at the end of a working life reflect only one person's income rather than the partnership that made that life possible? This bill creates a simple, entirely voluntary mechanism for fairness that makes it possible for couples to split their balances evenly between them. The person with the larger can add to the super fund balance of their spouse using money that's already in their superannuation rather than through making additional contributions from outside of super. That way, they can both retire on an equal footing. It's important to understand that this bill is specifically about splitting balances; it's not about superannuation contributions. This is an important distinction to make because that mechanism is one that already exists to make contributions on behalf of a spouse. However, the take-up of this mechanism is incredibly low. Only about 1.1 per cent of Australians used it in 2021-22. Why is that? It's because it's clunky, it's complex, and eligibility is very limited. There is a complete lack of awareness, and, critically, there is no real incentive for most people to use it. This is about splitting balances, using a rollover from one fund to another, and it's a genuine structural change to our superannuation system that directly tackles the gender super gap, which is one of the systemic structural failures of our superannuation system. And it uses existing mechanisms to do this. Already in Australia, equitable splitting of superannuation is considered during divorce proceedings, so the rails are there. In the old days, this used to require a court order, but that's no longer the case. There are now standard forms and recognised tax treatments of a rollover amount from one partner's super account to the other's at the end of a relationship. So why not allow it to occur during a relationship? Why not make this proactive, voluntary planning an accessible part of the whole superannuation system from the very outset, allowing couples to make these decisions for themselves when it suits the couple to do so? Let me be clear. This does not force a couple to do anything. It simply gives families an option to share what they've built together, in recognition of the unpaid labour, broken work patterns and professional sacrifices that so often fall to women. The tackling the gender super gap bill explicitly recognises the economic partnership that's at the heart of families. It empowers couples to plan for their retirement together, collectively, allowing for a more even distribution of superannuation during the accumulation phase. To maintain integrity in the superannuation system, this bill includes guardrails and limitations on how the mechanism can be used. First—and this is very important—the amount transferred from one spouse to another spouse is not considered a contribution. Rather it's treated as a rollover; it's considered to be rolled over. This distinction is particularly important because it ensures that the amount transferred between spouses does not attract or avoid any additional taxes. Second, the amount that's rolled over from one spouse to another retains its original characteristics. Specifically, it retains the fund's proportion of concessional versus non-concessional components. This is an important guardrail because it means that, when someone dies, the amount that has been transferred doesn't have additional tax benefits to beneficiaries. Third, the ability to roll over an amount from one spouse to another is only available to those transferring from or to a defined contribution scheme. It's not available to those that are in a defined benefit scheme; that is far too complicated and restrictive. Four, the ability to roll over from one spouse to another is only available to those couples that have one superannuation fund each. Five, again, both of those funds must be in an accumulation phase. Why this is an important integrity measure is that there may be unintended consequences in the calculation of how much can be rolled over from one account to another for persons that have multiple funds. These are the guardrails around this bill that will ensure its integrity. Six, the amount that can be rolled over from one spouse to another is limited, and it's limited in two ways. Firstly, the amount that's rolled over from the original fund cannot leave the original fund with a lower balance than the receiving fund. It's all about evening up your balances; it's not about using this opportunity to roll everything from one account into another. Secondly, the amount that's rolled over cannot cause the receiving fund to have a higher balance than the transfer balance cap. The transfer balance cap is currently at $2 million, but it's an indexed amount. We don't want to attract additional taxes by having this mechanism in place. For example—and I'm using very big balances as an example, but obviously this is something available to anybody, no matter what their balance is—if person A had, as I say, a big balance of $5.5 million in their superannuation fund and person B had half a million dollars in their superannuation fund, that means that person A can roll over up to $1.5 million into person B's account. That brings person B's account up to that transfer balance cap of $2 million for the current financial year. Alternatively, if person A has $2 million in their superannuation account and person B has half a million dollars, $500,000, in their account, person A can roll over up to $750,000 to person B, and that brings both balances up to $1.25 million. This limits the amount that can be rolled over from one spouse to another, and they are ceilings, but they're not floors. Spouses might choose, for whatever reason, to roll over an amount that is lower than that spousal redistribution limit. If it is within the rules, a couple has the opportunity to make their balances even, but it's entirely up to the couple how much they want to transfer between them. For instance, a couple could choose to do a one-off, single lump sum rollover or, alternatively, take the opportunity to utilise the mechanism each year to make a spousal redistribution rollover of smaller amounts, or they could choose to not do it at all. While the examples, as I said, are very large, they are certainly not limited to people who have low balances, because, let's face it, it might be a very attractive mechanism to those couples for whom equality and fairness is profoundly important. It's all about choice. It's about allowing couples to manage their collective retirement savings to reflect their collective choices throughout their lives. The benefits of this reform are clear and far reaching. It's about more than just superannuation; it's about closing that gender super gap. Even though the gender pay gap on average weekly earnings has come down from around 18.5 per cent in 2014 to around 11.5 per cent now, the gender retirement gap remains stubbornly wide. Tax office data shows the difference between the average super balances of men and women over every age category was 26 per cent in 2014. In March of this year, the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, reported that women still have 21.3 per cent less superannuation than men. When you unpack the tax office data further, the gap is even worse for older women—those women who are approaching retirement and who haven't had the benefit of part-time work or flexible working options or child care as part of their working life. This contributes to the alarming fact that women over the age of 55 are the fastest growing group experiencing homelessness in Australia, and members from both sides of this place have rightly observed that the relationship between lower retirement savings and homelessness in women is direct and clear. While the difference between men and women's super balances is lower for women in their 20s and 30s, between the ages of 40 and 64 that gap is much more pronounced, averaging between 23 and 24 per cent. It's hardly changed over a decade. These are the structural inequities within our society reflected in our retirement outcomes. Let me be clear. The goal here is not to penalise men or privilege women. It's about acknowledging the value of care giving and ensuring those who take on those vital responsibilities are not financially disadvantaged in their retirement. A more equitable superannuation system benefits not only women but also families, communities and the economy as a whole. This is good for wives, good for husbands and good for families. The gender super gap isn't going to close itself. It's not going to happen on its own unless we do something about it. It requires deliberate and equitable policy interventions, like the ones set out in this bill. The changes to superannuation that have been proposed and that are contemplated by those opposite are only about how the government can get their hands on more super—how they can tax your super more. Those sorts of changes do nothing to support the integrity of the system; they only risk the integrity of the system. If Labor really wanted to do something for super, they should be looking at how to make the system fairer. They will tell you that they put superannuation on paid parental leave, but that's such a narrowcast policy. It only deals with women who are having children today. It does nothing for the women who have had children and are still of working age and within the superannuation system but are suffering from the gender pay gap. And let's be honest, it doesn't even touch the sides, yet it costs the budget around $2 billion. This doesn't cost anything like that—nothing like that. This is all about couples using their own money, not taxpayer money, to make these decisions. It's a well-acknowledged fact that more work is needed to equalise super balances between men and women. There's a very intelligent woman named Rebecca Pritchard, who's a senior financial adviser with an organisation called Rising Tide. She has quite a high media profile in the financial advice industry. She said that more changes were needed. She said: A lot can be done on the gender side of things. The gender superannuation gap is still— she used the word 'hideous'. This bill, the tackling the gender super gap bill, is an opportunity for our parliament to come together to genuinely improve the retirement outcomes for all Australians and help tackle the gender super gap—that intractable problem. Let's not accept a system that punishes women for caring for children. Let's not allow inequality in retirement to be inevitable. We can change it, so why not change it now? I urge this parliament to support this bill for a fairer, more dignified retirement for every single Australian but particularly for Australian women. I commend this bill to the Senate.