Tim Wilson's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Goldstein Electorate: Infrastructure | Constituency Statements | House debates
After the 2022 election the federal Labor government ripped $100 million of infrastructure funding out of the Goldstein community for worthy and important projects, particularly those to promote...
After the 2022 election the federal Labor government ripped $100 million of infrastructure funding out of the Goldstein community for worthy and important projects, particularly those to promote our use of public transport and to green our community. It was devastating because that money then had to be filled by councils—who simply don't have the resources—when federal Labor came after Bayside and Glen Eira's cash. As a consequence, we have less community infrastructure in Goldstein than we need, particularly a lot of sporting facilities that simply don't have the changing room facilities for women to be able to play games like sport and cricket. I can't believe that a federal Labor government, with a choice between its priorities chooses to take back money from the community, from women's cricket and women's footy and other important social infrastructure. Despite $100 million being ripped out of the Goldstein community, the then member simply waved it through. Well, in the 2025 election the community made a different choice, which was to make sure they had a member who stood here in Canberra and fought for the community and for the infrastructure. That's why we submitted a community budget submission to the budget process. I implore the federal Treasurer to start to return some of the $100 million for the community that we desperately need, because our community budget submission steps through some really basic information. The federal Labor government provided an MRI licence to Sandringham Hospital, but what they haven't got at Sandringham Hospital is an MRI machine. In fact, from freedom of information documents, the community has been engaged in a hoax by this federal Labor government, claiming that services would be available to them which were not delivered, because they didn't have the equipment to do so. The first thing we ask for is around three million bucks so we have an MRI machine for a community hospital. We know of the rise of antisemitism over the past couple of years. How about we get the community safety grants our community needs for Moorabbin Hebrew Congregation, L'Chaim Chabad youth centre and the South Caulfield Hebrew Congregation. For women's sporting facilities, as I said already, there's Peterson Reserve, Brighton Beach Oval Pavillion and Dendy Park Pavilion—so women can have toilets and change rooms. We need them in Highett, we need them at Brighton Beach, and we need them at Dendy Park. We need other important facilities, like for victims of sexual violence and those on low incomes who need support, like the redevelopment of BayCISS community support centre, as well as many other important pieces of infrastructure, like the EMC Fox Pavilion in McKinnon, which also needs women's change room facilities, park lighting upgrades at Allnutt Park and Hodgson Reserve and, of course, an open amenity in Glen Huntly. We should be able to support important infrastructure like Moorabbin Bowls Club. These are simple requests. Treasurer: deliver, because Goldstein is depending on it.
Economy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
This exposes the underbelly and the motivation of this government. There is a pure contempt for those people who make the effort, strive and back themselves to the point where they create...
This exposes the underbelly and the motivation of this government. There is a pure contempt for those people who make the effort, strive and back themselves to the point where they create opportunities not just for themselves but for others. The response from the minister—we just heard it in the chamber, and then she defended her comment—was, 'Maybe they were dodgy.' The simple, broad-brush allegations and criticism of small business—the demonisation of small businesses—because of the attitude of this government are why we have seen record insolvencies. Now is the time when those small businesses and those households need Australians to back them. They need this parliament to back them, but the contempt that we have from the minister shows something entirely different. That is why Australians are feeling the very real consequences of inflation and declining standards of living. Today we heard direct warnings that inflation was going to continue to eat into the wealth of Australian households. People are going to have lower standards of living, less capacity to support their families, less capacity to go and employ others—all under this government. We have had a record of economic vandalism par excellence if you call that a standard under the Albanese government. We've had Labor's economic vandalism, where households are now paying 16 per cent more for food, 18 per cent more for health, 22 per cent more for rents, 39 per cent more for insurance and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity, and every one of those costs—every single one of those price rises—goes to a small business, eats into their profit margins and increases their capacity to find their way to the ATO and ASIC to the point of insolvency. Why would a government be so proud of shutting down the pathways for Australians? We are in the business of backing small businesses to open their doors, to welcome their customers and to grow the opportunity in the economic base of our country. Any government, state or federal—the Albanese government in particular—that looks at small business as simply an ATM to cover the costs that they face because they are unable to manage their reckless spending will continue to drive small business to the wall. We know that is happening, because the analysis by the Australian Industry Group clearly shows eight in 10 jobs created in this country right now are coming from direct and indirect public expenditure. We have a crisis of collapse of private investment and private jobs, despite what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer say. The problem of inflation that we have in this country comes directly from fiscal recklessness. The Chalmers interest rate rise cycle has, sadly, only just begun. We have had quotes from the retail sector. We have had quotes from so many different people in the small business sector that they know how bad this is going to be and how Australian small businesses and households will pay. We need them to rein in their spending. People on the other side of the chamber often ask, 'Where are you going to see cuts?' I can tell you where we would cut expenditure: we would cut the cartel kickbacks that go to organised crime and to bikie gangs through the CFMEU and find their way into union coffers and into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party. I make no apology about that, because they are pushing up the cost of a new home for young Australians, they're pushing up construction costs and they're contributing to the problems of inflation. Now is the time that people and Australians are looking to this parliament to stand up and make decisions in the national interest. Now is the time that they're looking at how this parliament is going to back them to prosper and to grow, and instead they are seeing and hearing the sneers of the Minister for Small Business, saying things like, 'If a small business goes out of business, it must be because it is dodgy.' This is a disgrace, and it is nothing short of contempt. The minister can throw whatever barbs she wants, but I can tell you the small businesses of this country know exactly who is on their side. They know that the Liberal Party has always stood up proudly, backed them in and made sure the laws of this country say: 'Chance your hand. Go for your life. We back you because you back yourselves.' What they don't deserve is a prime minister and a minister for small business who punch down on them and try to deny them their economic opportunity and their pathway for growth. We back small business. They want to hate on them.
I will take the interjection from the Minister for Small Business, because what she said was, 'Maybe they were dodgy.' Just like the Treasurer, her response to the challenges Australian...
I will take the interjection from the Minister for Small Business, because what she said was, 'Maybe they were dodgy.' Just like the Treasurer, her response to the challenges Australian households and small businesses face is to punch down on Australians. This is not the type of country they want to be, and it is certainly not what they want to see from this parliament. Honourable members interjecting—
If you want to see the contempt that the Albanese government has for families, households and small businesses, you just need to see the arrogance of the Prime Minister in question time. Every...
If you want to see the contempt that the Albanese government has for families, households and small businesses, you just need to see the arrogance of the Prime Minister in question time. Every time we get up to ask a simple question about the survival of small businesses, he shuts down question time, and he has good reason to do so, because the simple reality is we had more small business insolvencies in the Commonwealth last year than we have had in Australian history. I hear the heckling from the Minister for Small Business on the other side of this chamber. I would be ashamed and embarrassed if I saw a record number of small businesses crushed under my administration, but the minister sits there peacocking, proudly saying that she is proud of her record, when she should be ashamed. Forty-thousand small businesses have been crushed into insolvency under the Albanese government. This is not something to be proud of. It is something to be embarrassed about and ashamed of, because sitting behind every one of those small businesses are the livelihoods, the incomes, the dignity and the pride of Australians backing themselves to get ahead. What they are living with right now is increased costs not just from the explicit increase in interest rates and inflation but from a cost-of-business crisis. Millions of Australian small businesses are struggling to keep their heads above the inflation water level. They are experiencing costs pushed down onto their small businesses, harming their profitability. This morning I met with people from the restaurant and food sector. Their profit margins have simply collapsed. The capacity for a small business to be opened to serve Australians has declined so much that one in nine Australian small businesses in the restaurant and hospitality sector has closed. It is an extraordinary record of this government and something that it should be ashamed of. But it's not just the inflation impact. With state governments indexing so many of their taxes to inflation, we're seeing a direct hit from increases in inflation, a second hit through interest rates, a third hit through the cost of taxation inflation and, in fact, a fourth hit directly as a consequence of the Labor government's industrial relations agenda, which is pushing on inflationary costs further for small business and making it harder not just for small businesses to get ahead but for households to stay ahead. So many are being pushed to the wall. What is going on with that? It isn't just a small business, as critical as that is. Sitting behind those millions of small businesses are employees—young Australians who are getting their first job, people who depend on small business for an income. When a small business collapses, the wage disappears. It seems like a simple truth, but, when you have a small business collapse, the jobs go with it. There are no taxes paid, there is no income and there is no super on a job that doesn't exist, and this is the lived reality under the Albanese government. We know that, as of 2 February of this year, 41,749 businesses have gone bust under the Albanese government. In construction, it's 10,757. It's 6,487 in accommodation and food services; 2,046 in manufacturing; 1,168 in health care or social assistance; 541 in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; and 406 in education and training. While the minister on the other side of the table likes to boast about her record, she cannot hide from some simple facts. The 33,426 fewer employing small businesses in Australia—
This is a message for all of the small and family businesses, the sole traders and the self-employed. We just want to say, 'Thank you, and keep going.' We know that you're suffering directly as a...
This is a message for all of the small and family businesses, the sole traders and the self-employed. We just want to say, 'Thank you, and keep going.' We know that you're suffering directly as a consequence of higher interest rates because the Albanese government can't control spending and is driving inflation. We know you're living the consequences of red-tape inflation going up and stifling your capacity to grow your business every day. You're living the consequences of industrial relations inflation, where the costs the government is trying to push onto you as an employer are making it harder and more complex to do simple things like pay your workers. Every step of the way, people in small business in this country are facing big challenges. That's why we have seen a record number of small businesses collapse under the Albanese government. Since the Albanese government was elected, 41,000 small businesses have disappeared through insolvency—and, with those, livelihoods. Last year alone, more than 14,000 small businesses went insolvent. It is a record for Australia, and it is not one that anybody should be proud of. This is the legacy of a reckless government that simply can't control its spending but can always find a way to get its hand and shove it into the pockets of households and small businesses. Now is the time for good people to stand up and call it out.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I think about the thousands of Australian university students who have committed themselves to three-year, four-year and five-year programs, wanting to build out the potential for their...
I think about the thousands of Australian university students who have committed themselves to three-year, four-year and five-year programs, wanting to build out the potential for their participation not just in the workforce but in contributing to human progress and human achievement. They go to tertiary institutions—in particular, universities, as I did—because they want to be embodied with knowledge, skills and purpose to be a much more significant contributor not just to themselves but to the wellbeing of the entire Australian community. When you talk to those students, so often they're looking for improvement in student outcomes and minimising the size of classrooms—which are chockers, because the universities have geared themselves towards the number of students they have who are full fee paying. There is an increasing number of students who go to university with low contact hours. Even worse than that—Deputy Speaker, you're one of the people who have gone through life, let's say, learning from street cred—is that so much of our system is geared towards qualification inflation. I know the government is addicted to inflationary forces. Well, qualification inflation is no different. We have seen over many years because of the efforts of Labor governments the diminishing value of a tertiary qualification which means that people need to get more in order to distinguish themselves, to demarcate themselves and to be able to get ahead. Look at all the problems that university students have right now. Look at the problems of what they want from their education, not only if they're going on a pathway of research and through the academic pathway but also if it's industrial or commercial or simply for their own satisfaction or achievement. What we are not seeing is vision from this government to unleash universities and their potential because their focus is squarely on how they feed those at the top. The Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the associated bill are no different. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission is a bureaucratic solution about how more people are employed to sit over the top of policy when one of the biggest problems with universities right now is that they are completely top heavy. If we add bureaucracies on top of university administrations, where we have vice-chancellors earning in excess of the Prime Minister and everyone in this chamber, we won't be getting the focus and the resources to where we need them—learning, teaching and research. In fact, this bill does so little to advance learning, teaching and research it doesn't even mention them in the legislation. I'd say that's disappointing but, truthfully, it's an embarrassment. Universities need a vision. Universities need reform. They have forgotten their core purpose which is to make sure that they are there to advance the educational improvement, wellbeing and transfer of knowledge between generations. Instead, the incentives that have been put in place since the Hawke government have re-engineered them towards focusing their energies on their own self-sustainability rather than the outcomes. This is a perennial problem of so much of the legislation that this Labor government brings into this House. It is built from the proposition of intent. It is not focused on the outcome, particularly improving outcomes for young Australians to get the best standard of education that they so desperately need and, in addition to that, are paying for. What do we need? We don't need a plan for another bureaucracy. They can sell it under any banner they like. What we need is a plan and a vision for how we are going to improve our universities, unleash their potential and focus their efforts towards turning their primary research into something that is innovative, commercialisable for the human improvement of everybody and, more importantly, underpins the economic progress of what our country needs in the future, not more bureaucracy that gets in the way, that tries to impose solutions of Canberra's way. What we need is something that empowers universities to be part of and integrate into full component of the Australian economy. I hear this all the time. I was at a lunch recently for people who had just been elected to parliament recently—in my case, it was my second time round—with many Labor members of parliament with the Vice-Chancellor and various deputy vice-chancellors from Monash University. Their one message from that lunch was, 'Can the federal government and state government get out of our way and provide clarity and certainty so that we can attract the research funding and go on and do things like invest in the research potential around things like power, particularly nuclear power?' They have major international corporations like Rolls-Royce that are desperate to be able to invest in their research capacity, which could not only be a pathway for economic opportunities but also create jobs, and they are not getting it from Canberra nor Spring Street. In the face of that desperation for a pathway and for a point of clarity about how universities can build themselves to be able to be part of building Australia's next round of economic progress and growth and to be able to provide the research foundation to support students to be able to achieve they can do and to drive the process of scientific progress and human improvement, the answer from this federal government is silence and another bureaucracy to sit over the top of you, to impose the government's agenda and, when they're out of office, to front run the arguments about why they should be given more power. This comes to the fundamental proposition of some of the divide between those who sit on this side of the House and those who sit on that side of the House. We understand that the strength of our country does not come from Canberra and central authorities down or from organised capital. It comes from families and communities coming together to build the foundations and success of our great nation. One of the starting points of that is we desperately, desperately want students to be able to get good value and return on investment for their energy and, more importantly, not just their money but their time. Three years or four years of young Australians' time at university is a huge investment and risk for their future, and we want them to get maximum value for that, not simply be set up to feed the interests of the select few—the vice-chancellors on their big salaries and, of course, the academics that go on to become members of the National Tertiary Education Union, which is the constituency of this government. Bureaucracy is not an answer to human improvement. Success for us looks very clearly at how we are going to empower and enable and liberate Australia's students to be able to have a tertiary education that delivers for them, because the failure—and this is what we're going to get from this process—is more of the same, and that is currently failing Australian students under the Albanese Labor government.
Translating and Interpreting Services Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'd like to follow on from the previous speaker by saying it's 100 per cent right that you do not need to speak full English to be a patriotic, committed, invested Australian. But, when it comes...
I'd like to follow on from the previous speaker by saying it's 100 per cent right that you do not need to speak full English to be a patriotic, committed, invested Australian. But, when it comes down to providing pathways so that people can be full participants in the Australian way of life, we know the foundations of people's language and capacity to communicate with their fellow citizens are not just something that is, frankly, desirable; they are also the pathway by which people can not just become citizens and full economic participants but, of course, also socially integrate into the rest of the country. We don't want to be a nation of enclaves. We want to be a nation of big citizens enlivened by their full participation in the rest of the community. That's the basis on which we're supporting the Translating and Interpreting Services Bill 2025, because we see the capacity for new Australians to become full participants in the Australian way of life as central to their success. We want them to succeed. That is why, of course, we had the Fraser government establish SBS many years ago. It made an investment in the future broadcasting potential of this country so that it didn't matter where you were, where you landed from and where, of course, you built a life in this country. You had not just a pathway to connect back to the knowledge and information that was available from your traditional homeland but, in addition to that, a clear pathway to English education and to becoming a full participant in the Australian way of life. That is liberalism lived large, and we want to see that at every point, because it's in the best interest of investing in our people. The legislation we're talking about here is nowhere near as grand as the great Liberal achievement of broadcasting for multicultural Australia. This is a much more technical one. But it still is part of making sure that, no matter how you came to this nation and whatever the cause, there's a pathway for you to have that sense of full citizenship. The previous speaker spoke particularly about those who go on the pathways of resettlement through migration programs, including refugees. These are often people who were displaced because of intolerable acts and prejudice and persecution in their homeland. What they are seeking when they seek a pathway for resettlement here in Australia is not just safety—although that is, of course, absolutely true—or avoiding refoulement—although that is also true. It is to then go on and build the foundations of a life where they can build and invest in their family, become economic participants and do things like establish small businesses. I know, Deputy Speaker Aldred, that with your past history at the Franchise Council you understand that new Australians are some of the biggest investors in small businesses, because they understand that that's the pathway for wealth and opportunity. That, of course, is why so many of them become horrified at how Labor seeks to demonise the self-employed, the small businesses and those who stand on their own two feet and why they see such common ground with the spirit of the speech which I give today, which I know that you and other members on the Liberal side, such as the member for Longman, share with me. The member for Longman fundamentally understands that full economic participation and small businesses are the foundation of our economic success—not just as individuals or families but as communities—and therefore also the pathway for our shared success as a nation. We know that TIS National has operated since the 1970s, and we know the important role that it plays. We know that it is an essential part of making sure that translation services through telephone operations can be central to every Australian being able to participate. Of course, this in itself is one of those great achievements that we have supported along the way for many years. What we want to do is continue to expand those services to make sure that they're contemporary and meet the challenges of the 21st century. We want to make sure that, if you make this nation your home, you have the resources and the capacity to live out your best life for yourself and your family. This is an important step. It's a central step because it speaks not just to the type of nation that we are, but, more importantly, to the type of nation that we want to be—a cohesive and connected one where people have a sense of equal dignity and understanding about who they are and what they want to achieve together. That's the basis on which I support this bill.
Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Of course I welcome the pathway to be able to make sure that the financial instruments that Australians use on a day-to-day basis operate with the compliance and framework of law. So in seeking,...
Of course I welcome the pathway to be able to make sure that the financial instruments that Australians use on a day-to-day basis operate with the compliance and framework of law. So in seeking, in the loose terms of the spirit of this law, to support it, I welcome the fact that the government is finally taking steps to bring about a legal framework to include cryptocurrencies and the sorts of digital assets that we need to be part of not just a modern economy but the global economy. It has taken the government an incredibly long period of time to get here, and I know their agenda has been incredibly detailed and complicated in so many different areas, of which not a single one I can name. But that's probably a reflection of the busy work and fights that go on between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. We nonetheless welcome the pathway that they're providing for a framework for cryptocurrencies. Fair enough too. When I look at cryptocurrencies—I've always been a bit of a sceptic not from a sense of opposition but from a sense of, 'What's the underlying value?' I'm in the Warren Buffett camp at the end of the day, if it's productive capacity in use. But one thing I have always given credit to cryptocurrencies for is that I think that they're a hedge against inflation and expansive monetary policy from central banks—entities that I am not very trusting of because they have successively and consistently got decisions wrong, which has led to what we now have to acknowledge is the Chalmers rate-rise cycle. We had, of course, one interest rate rise yesterday off the back of shocking inflation data. But we know this is not going to be the end. So long as you have expansive fiscal policy—borrowing from the future for debt spending for today to cover up on the economic mismanagement of this government—Australians will be at risk of higher inflation and higher interest rates. We're a stand-out, but for all the wrong reasons, on a global scale around interest rates. It's directly connected to decisions by state and federal governments who simply want to cover up for their economic mismanagement by borrowing more money so that they don't have to acknowledge that they're strangling the private sector of the economy. So the one thing I will say at the moment is that I'm afraid crypto probably is—and this is general advice, not financial advice—good value in hedging against the economic tyranny of the Albanese government, because the Chalmers rate-rise cycle has only just begun and there will be much more of it yet to come. I say that with sadness, because there's nothing Australians can afford less right now, after they've paid their Christmas credit-card-debt bill and are paying for school fees, uniforms and all the other costs that come with the new school year. The worst thing they could have had yesterday was an interest rate rise, and unfortunately, under the Chalmers rate-rise cycle, you should fully accept that that's not going to be the end of the matter. But that's not what this bill, the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025, addresses. What it does do, though, is to give a legal framework, a pathway, for Australians—young, old and everything in between—to invest, as they see fit, complying with law. We welcome that, because there are a lot of issues that a lot of people who invested in crypto earlier, before this legislative framework, had. There were big grey areas around the property rights underlying their investments, the legality of them, the transferability of them and their capacity to seek redress, and there are lots of the more complicated things that flow on, for instance, from capital gains tax. We, on this side of the chamber, have always understood how important it is to get this framework right. That's why Senator Bragg did an outstanding job leading a parliamentary inquiry to look at how we take the grey into the light. The government has picked up significant parts of Senator Bragg's efforts and passed them off as their own homework. We still, ultimately, welcome the effort—even if there isn't the acknowledgement and we're seeing the government trying to pretend that they have somehow invented this work. But we can understand why the Labor Party took so long to introduce this legislation, because, at every point, we know, the cartel relationships that operate between the Labor Party, the trade unions and the industry super funds are a giant money-laundering operation, and of course one of the problems with crypto is that it sits outside of the frames of legality. So I imagine that a large part of the reason why it's taken so long is that they've been desperately trying to figure out how they can extract, from crypto, cartel kickbacks to the CFMEU, to go into the slush funds of the Labor Party and the trade union movement and perhaps other funds as well. It continues to be a criminal activity, but, unfortunately, when we know that Australian taxpayers' money has flown into organised crime and bikie gangs, courtesy of state and federal Labor governments, there is a moral evil here that must be expunged. And, until we remove this government, crypto, traditional assets and your tax dollars will not be safe. No Australians' assets will be safe until we remove this government. We're supportive of the principle of this bill and what it's seeking to achieve. But the government, in their way, can't help but go off and refer things to different agencies like ASIC. As to ASIC and having oversight of ASIC, let's be polite and say that, at times, calamity follows and there's their complete incapacity or unwillingness to regulate certain sections of the market—let alone the absence of the knowledge, capacity or skill. We have recommended that this bill go off to a committee because we believe that it is deficient, we're not convinced ASIC can do the job that's been charged to them and there's a serious need for further work to be done. But we'll see on that. There's the spirit of the bill, but the practical application of it is something we're going to have to not just revisit through the committee process but continue to revisit into the future, because the cost of getting this wrong is serious. We know full well that, if we have crypto in a legal framework that encourages investment, it could be part of capital flows that can invest in the future of this country, and we can increase the economic opportunity that every Australian enjoys. The failure is what is happening right now, where people are investing offshore and Australians are disconnected from the opportunities of crypto. Now, I understand why a lot of Australians are—and only the other day I had a constituent say that they are—moving their capital offshore, because of the approach of this Labor government, and moving it to foreign jurisdictions, in a legal way. And this is now a very common story. We're seeing the same thing in the UK, where Labor governments think they can somehow tax people into prosperity, where they can tax people to the point they'll look for foreign jurisdictions, where they're taxed out of their patriotism. That is exactly what is happening under this government—that we're all becoming poorer as a nation. And, of course, crypto provides a very fast pathway to do that, and that is what we're now staring down—the risk of capital outflows from this country because Labor can't manage the budget. They're exposing Australians to inflation. That means higher interest rates. That means that, as part of the Chalmers' rate-rise cycle, Australians will get poorer and will be taxed out of their patriotism. This is a time when we need laws that design and protect people's assets and Australians are encouraged to keep their money onshore, investing in the future of this nation—not part of the cartel kickback corruption cycle that has so fanned under this government and state Labor governments and is core to the corrupt system that sits at the heart of the modern Labor Party.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I thank the member for Wannon for his enthusiasm at the opportunity to listen to a speech characteristically to legislation before the House from the member for Goldstein—of course,...
I thank the member for Wannon for his enthusiasm at the opportunity to listen to a speech characteristically to legislation before the House from the member for Goldstein—of course, certainly better than the predecessor member for Goldstein, I'm sure, on the subject matter of which he is humbly agreeing with as well. The point of this legislation, of course, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, is straightforward, but we need to acknowledge it sits in a much broader context about the health care of this nation. We all have a natural interest in having a sustainable health system for our country. Doing so is one that supports the workers to be able to go on and deliver the primary care they need in community, and that's of critical importance. One of the things that COVID demonstrated or revealed to all of us is the health inequity that exists across our country around access to services between not just rural and regional areas but also affluent and less affluent parts of capital cities. In a moment of crisis, when people need care, it's explicitly revealed to the whole of the nation. The question is how you seek to address that and make sure that the system is sustainable and gives people the support that they need. What we've heard from this government to date around health care has been principally, as they hold up their Medicare cards, that everybody can go to the doctor for allegedly free. I now see the television propaganda that has been pushed out by this government to try and reinforce their political messaging. The problem is anybody who has actually gone and visited a doctor. And let's start with the ACT, which is not my constituency, and I can assure you it probably never will be. But, as people who live in the ACT said to me only the other day, there are no bulk-billed doctors in the ACT, the heart of this nation politically. Surely, if the government is going to achieve its objective anywhere, it is here. Yet there are no bulk-billed doctors in this capital city for people. So, if you're low income, you're not getting support. You're a pensioner who doesn't have the financial means and resources to be able to pay. So, despite the bluster and the rhetoric and the holding up of the Medicare card and waving it around and all of the other rubbish that the Prime Minister goes on about, it is not being lived by Australians. A Medicare card comes with a credit card if you want to be able to access a doctor in large parts of this country. No matter what they say and no matter what they do, they are not delivering on the words they promise. You think about the distrust that breeds within the community, where they see the so-called political leader of this nation waving their card around and saying, 'We're the answer and we're giving that pathway,' and then they go and live a very different reality of a co-payment. Let's be honest about health care. Let's be honest about how people are living and what happens with health care. You can ration health care by one of two ways: price or lists. And the answer of this current government is to do both of those things, which is a completely irrational conclusion. You have to wait longer for higher and more expensive health care, principally so that they can feed the interests of the select few they seek to represent through the trade union movement rather than what we should actually be doing in health care, which—call me radical!—is focusing on patient outcomes. That's my radical proposition. I think we should run a healthcare system focused on patient outcomes that actually empowers Australians to be able to get the health and support and community through primary care to minimise long-term dependency on tertiary care and, more importantly, to make sure that people can live their best, full lives as healthy, engaged participants in the community and the workforce so that they can be happy, not a system designed to keep people ill to feed the benefits of the unions and the people that they are paid to represent and to maintain the political control by the Australian Labor Party. So that's the situation we currently face in health care, but that doesn't mean that occasionally we get pieces of legislation that come along that at least can do some good to try and change that, because even the Labor Party know the gig is up and they're not going to be able to sustain the health system that they rhetorically promote through their words and their propaganda on television because Australians know the gig is up because they're living the opposite reality. So, when you empower registered nurses to be able to prescribe things off the PBS in certain circumstances and when they're authorised to do so, you help empower nurses, reduce costs and hopefully get better care pathways through to achieve what I believe the central objective of the health system should be, which is to improve patient outcomes. That is a worthwhile objective, and, frankly, I'm very open to many measures that seek to achieve this in many realms, particularly in the healthcare system, to make it more sustainable, to reduce costs and to improve best outcomes for Australians and best healthcare outcomes for Australians. Having served on the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ahpra from 2010 until about 2013, I've seen what happens within the sector. You see the enormous pride that nurses rightly take in their profession. But, as is often the case with disciplinary and registration boards, you also, tragically, see the consequences of when trust is abused. We see that in this place with certain committees as well, where trust is abused. But when there are improper and rigid guidelines around access to certain healthcare services and certain medicines there are a select few who, unfortunately, abuse that trust for their own gain and their own benefit. Getting the balance in law is right because it's such an important part of it. What we have here is legislation that addresses a pathway for registered nurses who are qualified, have capacity and have the regulatory framework to be able to do their jobs better, to allow better outcomes for patient care. On that basis, I'm very supportive of the principle of the legislation as passing it will improve patient outcomes, will improve healthcare services and will actually free up capital and time for nurses, doctors and specialists to be able to support patients where it's needed. That's going to continue to be a big challenge for our country into the future. We know what happens if we don't do that. We're going to have higher costs and unsustainability in the system that will come through via lower quality care in communities, particularly in lower socioeconomic communities and rural and regional areas. We know that it will make it harder to be able to build a robust and resilient health system that this nation needs. You only need to look at what is happening in the British and Canadian systems. Because of their rigidity with a system geared towards the interests of union members, not patients, the consequences that then flow from that mean people increasingly have to wait, they are denied care and, because they can't buy things on the basis of price, they are forced to ration on the basis of lists. The lists are getting longer and longer and longer and longer and longer. This feeds distrust and resentment within the Australian community, because those who need services are not able to access them, and we're not getting the health outcomes that Australians desperately need. In the context of putting forward a practical, modest measure, I implore the government that finally they might start to work towards a healthcare system that works for the Australian people based on honesty, based on patient outcomes and based on improving the health and wellbeing of this nation.
and safe—thank you, Member for Wright. Some of the most marginalised sections of our community have continued to be targeted by this type of conduct. Of course no person should have to...
and safe—thank you, Member for Wright. Some of the most marginalised sections of our community have continued to be targeted by this type of conduct. Of course no person should have to tolerate it, and it is the responsibility of the people in this chamber and in public institutions to stand up this time and to stand up where others may not have that same privilege. We don't just want a nation of respect; we want a nation where we never have to see the evils that we have seen in recent months perpetuated on any other section of the community. We want to be, I would hope, a role model not just for Australians but for the world. Question agreed to.
I want to rise in support of the spirit of the motion. I may not necessarily agree with every step of the wording that's used, but I think the spirit of it is resolutely clear. I would think that...
I want to rise in support of the spirit of the motion. I may not necessarily agree with every step of the wording that's used, but I think the spirit of it is resolutely clear. I would think that every member of this parliament is deeply distressed by what occurred in Perth on 26 January and what it could have been as well. I say this in context, of course, of what we have seen over the past couple of years. I'm not going to try and pretend—nor should anybody—that there haven't been past incidents of racism in this country; there absolutely have been. But, and I say this with a genuine sense of sadness, we have seen a spike in the level of racism in this country over the past few years on a scale that is very hard to imagine in our more recent history, particularly in the context of the rise of antisemitism, which of course we know led to tragedy in Bondi. And now we see very distressing signs in Perth—and I acknowledge that there is still a police investigation at the moment that may raise serious questions about what occurred in Perth. Racism should be condemned by every good, decent, well-meaning Australian. I see the minister on the other side of the table nodding her head, and I do not doubt her sincerity for one second, knowing her previous experience in the area. And I'm sure it's shared very directly by other members in this chamber on the opposition side as well. We do need to acknowledge, of course, that the matter is still being investigated, and it's very important that it's done. That is not to defer or delay; it's simply to acknowledge that we need to understand what the motivation was and what the intent was. But it's impossible to say that it was anything good. The investigation will go to the extent of the connections and matters beyond that. What really distresses me is where we are seeing extremism and violence occur in this country. Many of the reasons that I and many members of parliament stood up for public office are that we're fighting for the type of country that we want to be. And the type of country and the type of nation that we want to be is one that's respectful, one where every Australian citizen can live out the fullness of their life. There certainly is no place for violence, whatever its motivation, in this country—whether it's, as some members quite justifiably regularly raise, family and domestic violence or the public acts of violence that we've seen more recently. Every single step of the way it comes down to leaders to stand up and condemn this violence. Not only is it the intent of so many people to cause specific harm; sitting behind that is the motivation of seeking to promote fear and to stop people living out the fullness of their lives. That's why I wanted to speak on this motion—because I think the spirit of it is right. It behoves all of us in this parliament to stand up and fight for the type of country we want to be. But it isn't in our words; it is in our deeds. One of the things that has disappointed me over the past couple of years—and I've said in this parliament that I don't want to distract from this motion—is that I don't believe we've had enough strength in our leadership. And I think, as I've said in other debates, that extremism begets extremism. That's a very different thing from people's freedom to debate and contest the important issues and affairs that define our country and its future. But, when we don't stand up, it leads to a pathway through radicalisation or cultivation to the point of tragedy or near tragedy, as we have seen in this case. It behoves all of us to stand up for what we believe in and, importantly, for this country. I want a nation that's built on respect. I want a nation where every Australian feels confident about how they're going to live their life—
Today is a sad day for millions of Australians. As they finish their work and drive home—or catch the train or a tram if they're in Melbourne—they'll be hearing over the radio about...
Today is a sad day for millions of Australians. As they finish their work and drive home—or catch the train or a tram if they're in Melbourne—they'll be hearing over the radio about how the Reserve Bank has increased interest rates off the back of inflationary data that shows that the government has lost all control of its fiscal purse strings. Australians are going to receive this news at a time when their Christmas credit card is coming and when they've just paid for new uniforms and books and all the other costs of kids going to school for the new school year. There has never been a time in Australian history where people can less afford to absorb higher interest rates, particularly families who are only just getting their head above the financial water. But, unfortunately, the Reserve Bank has delivered some terrible news to those households today. And, of course, we know it will be passed on by the banks quickly. While the government want to defer responsibility and say they are not to blame, that simply isn't the case. Even IFM Investors' chief economist has said, 'The fiscal guardrails have come off.' Time and time again we have heard from economists that it's government expenditure at both the state and federal level that is driving inflation. Debt spending of borrowing from tomorrow to fund today is driving the inflationary pressure and the pressure that sits on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates. You can see it in the headlines of only a few days ago, where it was reported that the government got its projections around expenditure $57 billion off. Well, Deputy Speaker Claydon, have you ever watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the episode with the Black Knight? I think they, on the other side of this chamber, in the Albanese government, are trying to pretend that it's a fiscal flesh wound. It is so much more serious, because, when you borrow from the future to spend for today, you have too much money chasing too few goods and services, so prices rise and interest rates go up. And that's precisely what is happening under this government. We know it's not just their fiscal recklessness; it's also industrial relations inflation. They come into this parliament every single time and make the case about why they need to increase the costs on employers, directly attacking the root and branch of small business in this country. That's why, off the back of inflationary data, you don't just see a rise in the cost of prices of goods and services; you also see it in tax rates, where so many state governments now engage in the active process of taxation inflation to increase the charges that are going on small business. Households are doing it tough. Small business are doing it tough. What does the Labor Party say? 'There's nothing to see here. It has nothing to do with us.' Well, that isn't the lived experience of the 40,000 small businesses that have gone insolvent under the Albanese government. They can't bear the cost any more of higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher industrial relations inflation and higher taxation inflation—15,000 in the past year alone, a record in Australian history since records have been kept. And I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that I would never come into this parliament and boast, as members of the Labor Party have, about how I'm such a successful economic manager when 15,000 Australian households lost their capacity to be able to fund their costs last year, lost the pathway to be able to support their families. It isn't something to be proud of. It is an absolute disgrace. Forty thousand Australians have lost their incomes since this Labor Party came to government. Labor have their priorities wrong. I hear so many Labor members screaming out, 'Well, what would you cut?' I'll make it crystal clear: we would not resist for one second cutting the cartel kickbacks that the Labor government wants to pass on to the CFMEU, which is increasing the cost and passing it on to Australian taxpayers and consumers. We know the Labor Party is compromised after the Prime Minister said previously that he would never accept donations from the CFMEU, and in the ABC disclosures he was exposed for telling a fib. We know directly that the Prime Minister has now been caught out misleading the public—and why? So they can continue the cartel kickbacks from taxpayers' dollars at the state and federal level, funded by Australians, to the CFMEU, who have direct connections to bikie gangs and organised crime. Taxpayers' money should never land in the hands of organised crime or bikie gangs, but this seems completely irrelevant. There is only one pathway through this: we must change the government.
Economy | Questions without Notice | House debates
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. Since 7 October 2023, Australia's antisemitism crisis slowly evolved from words to...
I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. Since 7 October 2023, Australia's antisemitism crisis slowly evolved from words to protests, intimidation, harassment, fire bombings and, ultimately, catastrophe on 14 December 2025. Throughout this whole period, Australia did not have a problem with laws; it had a problem with enforcement. That was missing. Certainly, there's always room for refinement, but what was missing more than anything else was leadership. This government is seeking to use the law to fix the problems of absent leadership. After this tragedy, Australians wanted our leaders to unite our country and elevate the nation, but it was not to be. Instead, we had floated an omnibus bill that brought together new speech laws, firearms regulation, migration amendments and the creation of new prohibited hate groups, and we were told take it or leave it and decide in record time. This is not how a mature democracy nor a mature government behaves. In response to the Bondi terrorist attacks, Jewish Australians have said the answer is to be more Jewish. And in response to a terrorist attack attacking our way of life and a government that is dismissive of our democratic processes, our parliament has rightly reasserted itself and our democratic processes and lived up to the best of our democratic institutions. The bills have now been split. The response from Goldstein constituents, Jewish and non-Jewish, to the government's so-called hate speech provisions was visceral. No-one would be surprised that I raised my own concerns about how these sections were drafted. The government has now withdrawn them. The Jewish community has expressed their anger that the firearm provisions were a deliberate distraction from the broader issue. I'm happy to support the migration amendments, but the minister already has wide-ranging powers. The minister has been using them, of course, and we know he's been using them against Israeli visas. My hope is that he will use them against those who preach Islamic hatred and extremism instead. Finally, my liberal instincts teach me to be wary of some of the new prohibited hate group powers, and I am wary of them. After reading the bill and having looked at the referral, oversight, transparency and renewal obligations, I think it's fair to say that I'm alert but not alarmed. The need for vigilance to oversee these new powers will be very important in protecting the community and also our liberal democratic norms. I note some members in this debate have already talked about how these laws have been rushed through the parliament and normal processes have not been followed. I agree with some of those concerns, but I find it odd that they're seeking to move amendments to expand those powers without any proper process to be able to understand the consequences, and I caution them against doing so. We know the evil we are seeking to target, which is those people who preach hatred, particularly extremism and the radicalisation pathways that promote violence against Australia's community of Jewish heritage. We should understand that's the specific nature of the cause we're focused on now. Anyone who thinks today's bills will cage the antisemitism threat that has been unleashed misunderstands the challenge and the necessary effort to contain it, just as the government misunderstood the consequences of leaving it unchecked. Their inaction will be judged as lacking moral clarity and courage when they were warned. They knew what was right, and they refused to act. Now is the time for good people to stand up. It will not be demonstrated in our words but, of course, in our deeds. When we tolerate extremism against Australians of Jewish heritage, it does not end there. We have already seen an uptick in homophobic violence because we know that the equal and opposite reaction to one form of extremism is other varieties of the same. Social cohesion is essential to the type of Australia we want, not just for Australians of Jewish heritage but for every Australian. It will decide whether we honour our inheritance, and hand a nation that makes us proud to the next generation, or whether we knowingly blink in the face of those who sow discord. Goldstein's constituents have lived with the cost of inaction, as many others have. They see the scale of the problem with clarity and can see that, too often, our nation's leaders have blinked. They are now looking to this parliament to lead and to give them hope that once again we can rebuild the safe and free nation that we want Australia to be, that it should be and that they desperately need it to be.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
(): When the first shots rang out and people dropped to the ground, my father lifted his head. He shouted at the terrorists, swore at him, challenged him: "how dare you come here, how dare you...
(): When the first shots rang out and people dropped to the ground, my father lifted his head. He shouted at the terrorists, swore at him, challenged him: "how dare you come here, how dare you come to our place, to our people". A woman later told me as she lay over her children whispering shema certain it was her final moment, the gun was pointed at her. And then suddenly the terrorists turned, my father had distracted him, he had pulled him away. Then came the footage the world saw. My father throwing a brick at an armed terrorist, not out of recklessness, out of instinct, out of refusal to stand by. More footage followed. My father grabbing the gun, he knew how to use one, and he was ready to fight. He was shot in the wrist, then another bullet, and then another, he collapsed to the ground. My father said when we leave this world we take nothing with us. But he did. Eleven bullets were found in his body. A silent record of the final minutes of his life. Minutes filled with courage, with clarity and with selflessness. I was privileged to hear this tribute from Sheina Gutnick to her father, Reuven Morrison, at the Bondi Shloshim at St Kilda Shule, as well as Perele Goldhirsch's tribute to her brother, Rabbi Eli Schlanger, last Monday. Today we honour their memories, with Edith Brutman, Dan Elkayam, Boris and Sofia Gurman, Alexander Kleytman, Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Marika Pogany, Adam Smyth, Boris Tetleroyd, Tania Tretiak, Tibor Weitzen and, of course, Matilda, and the many others who were injured, as well as the first responders and the bystanders. Bondi is, of course, a long way away from Goldstein, but the communities are connected by their people. On the Friday before the Bondi attack, I went to Central Shule in Caulfield South, and we discussed how wonderful it was that everything was seemingly returning to normal, and the mood was joyful at Chanukah at the Racecourse, just before 7 pm, as I arrived, on 14 December. But, as the news trickled in, the mood turned, as attendees lived the fear of texts going unanswered and phone calls ringing out to loved ones they knew were at the sister event in Sydney. Moreover, we all lived the daunting fear of whether we were safe in the context, and this has become the lived experience for Australians of Jewish heritage. In the days that followed, I contacted many people I saw that night. Some told me family members were safe; others had friends who had sustained injuries but were stable in hospital. And some needed help. I also had to make phone calls to express condolences to grieving families. While these families were days into processing their loss, they were also two years into living a bigger trauma: that, since 7 October 2023, the ancient bigotry of antisemitism is once again out of its cage. They know that, once antisemitism is let out, there is no quick fix; only sustained leadership can stop it, and, once it is out, it will also come for you. Their anger comes from the frustration of saying something repeatedly and not feeling heard. One local rabbi exclaimed to me in the days after: 'Everyone is saying, "Light through the dark," but where were they when it was dark over the past two years?' Another Goldstein constituent shared: 'The government is offering more money for bigger walls, but I don't want to live behind bigger walls; I want to live a life without them.' While we thank the volunteer Community Security Group, or CSG, for protecting the Jewish community—and we do; they protect the community, schools, synagogues and events—Australians of Jewish heritage don't want to need them. Another constituent wrote to me: 'My anger really is not with the jihadis; they're kind of doing their thing. My anger is that not a single person in our government will talk about the cause of the problem.' Four days after, I joined a small number of people at Bondi pavilion as the sun rose. Shortly after I'd laid flowers on behalf of the Goldstein community, a women broke down on my shoulder as she told her story of the community she loved being torn apart. In the days after the tragedy, the Jewish community have spoken of their defiance, and, correctly, they've said that the answer must be to be more Jewish. But the responsibility falls to all of us to be our best selves for them too, because Bondi showed the moral clarity and courage that ordinary Australians can show in an instant. It also shows, for all of us, so much of what has been lacking that led to this tragedy. When I hear calls for new laws because otherwise our government won't be able to stop antisemitism, I worry they underestimate the scale of the challenge. If we could pass a law that ended an ancient bigotry from the human heart, we'd all pass it tomorrow. We need more than a repeat of media-cycle political fixes in place; we need the enduring commitment that this moment compels. A royal commission is welcome. Some law will help. We know the evil we want to confront. Those who cultivate radicalisation to do harm have no place in this nation. What the community wants from us now is clarity, to call out, of course, the Islamic extremism that motivated this antisemitic terrorism and to lead, because Bondi represents a day when our fraying social fabric was violently torn. The task of restitching it is long and tightening it an enduring one. As my colleague the member for Berowra said this morning: … Bondi will wither be the crescendo of a bad chapter in our history or the midpoint of a story that gets worse. Our task is one of honesty, leadership, vigilance and courage. It is not through our words but our deeds. Only then will we honour the words. May their memory be a blessing.
Richardson, Hon. Graham Frederick, AO | Condolences | House debates
I'd like to, of course, follow on from the remarks of the previous speaker in paying respects to the life of Graham Richardson. On the Tuesday before his passing, my phone lit up. I got an SMS...
I'd like to, of course, follow on from the remarks of the previous speaker in paying respects to the life of Graham Richardson. On the Tuesday before his passing, my phone lit up. I got an SMS and it started with, 'Mate, you looked good on ABC News tonight. Hope you are well.' And I replied—and I hope he doesn't mind me breaching confidences—'Thanks, Richo. I still owe you lunch.' 'Ha-ha. Yes, you keep promising that.' 'Well, I do. I'm just pointing out I haven't forgotten,' was my response. And then I went on to say, 'Outside of a'—expletive—'show, how do you see our internal games at the moment?' I won't repeat what happened thereafter, except I finished my SMS exchange by saying, 'Hence I asked.' That certainly reflects the engagement I had with Graham Richardson: forthright, honest, private—apart from of course what's now read into the parliamentary Hansard. He was somewhat of a political—it's odd to say 'mentor' about somebody from the other side of politics. But he was somebody who actually sought me out and started to engage during his media career. I didn't know him at the time he was in this place. I only read about his political career well after it was gone. I have a dog eared copy of Whatever It Takes, not through a component of scholarship but simply because somebody gave me a second-hand copy when I was an adult. It's a reflection very much on the use and wielding of political power. But he was clearly a larger-than-life figure when he was in this place and down the road. You hear this from the speakers who have honoured his life and his legacy and his achievements as a minister but, more clearly, as a significant contributor to the labour movement. There's a certain fondness that I think we all must have when condolence motions are made from whatever side of politics, when you have a partisan who's held in such—I don't know whether it's rancour or esteem, or perhaps it's a mixture of both. There's nonetheless an affection and warmth because at least they were in the fight together. So I honour very much his legacy as a member of the Labor Party and his contribution to it, though, obviously, sometimes I probably disagreed vehemently with what he was fighting for. He used to regularly taunt me when he was doing his television shows on Sky News, sometimes when I was on his program and sometimes when I was not. He'd say, 'I don't know about that Tim Wilson. He could have potentially been a member of the Labor Party,' until he heard my views, and then he suddenly would adjust. But it showed that he was always prepared to have a laugh, have a go and, with a smile, engage on the important issues at the time. And so I always enjoyed his counsel and always enjoyed his friendship. So the question is: why did I owe him lunch? The reason I owed him lunch was that, in the lead-up to the 2022 election, we took a bet live on air about the result of that election. I lost the bet in more ways than one. But, as a consequence— A division having been called in the House of Representatives Sitting suspended from 10:49 to 11:02 I feel it's appropriate that this section of the speech begins almost in the spirit of Richo. I can imagine him saying 'since I was rudely interrupted by democracy, in continuation'. The question is: why did I owe him lunch? The short answer is that in the lead-up to the 2022 election, live on air, we took a $100 bet about the outcome. As I was saying, I lost that bet in more ways than one—let's just say that. When I went to ask for his bank account details on the eve of the election—because I was not oblivious to the realities of the situation—he said, 'Next time you're in town, buy me lunch.' Then, a few days later, I said, 'When am I going to honour the bet?' When it came down to it, I never really got to Sydney to be able to honour the bet. He SMS'd me more recently and said, 'Actually, I'll buy you lunch,' which was very kind and generous of him but, of course, I couldn't possibly do that—I'm a man who honours my debts. In that spirit, when his widow, Amanda, and D'Arcy came to parliament the other day for this motion, I extended that I still owed them lunch. I want to make sure that that is honoured. I extend my warmest condolences to both Amanda and D'Arcy. I understand how many members have regarded or made comment about the fact that Richo lived to make sure that he could see D'Arcy finish his secondary education, and that now he is going onto university. I'm sure he would have been enormously proud of that achievement. But whatever it is, and whatever contributions Richo made to this world, it was clearly a colourful life filled with rancour, contests, contribution and, of course, warmth and friendship. He was, nonetheless, a figure who I always found to be incredibly generous and supportive, who offered counsel and was incredibly warm, so I'll miss him. I pay tribute to him but also acknowledge that, one day, if I make it to heaven and he happens to be there as well—I promise you, Richo, that I will buy you lunch.
Beat the Beast Run4Rossy, Neighbourhood Watch Bayside | Constituency Statements | House debates
At just 31 years old, Chris Ross faced the devastating news of a motor neurone disease terminal diagnosis. Chris faced a choice and chose to live his life to help others fighting MND. With...
At just 31 years old, Chris Ross faced the devastating news of a motor neurone disease terminal diagnosis. Chris faced a choice and chose to live his life to help others fighting MND. With friends Josh Newman and Josh Webster, he launched Beat the Beast and Run4Rossy, an annual event raising awareness, hope and funds for MND research. Their bold mission was $1 million for a cure. Chris passed in August 2023, but his vision lives on. Run4Rossy, led by a dedicated committee including Chris's mum Karen Ross—a wonderful human being; Chris's brother, Ben Ross; chair, John McCluskey; Sian Davey; Lisa Bugg; Gaye Findlay and Erin Ford continues his incredible legacy. This year's Run4Rossy event was the biggest yet, partnering with FightMND to announce a research grant in Chris's honour. Every dollar raised supports this grant and brings us closer to a cure. Run4Rossy has raised $131,000 in 2025 and nearly half a million dollars since 2021.To help Karen and the team take more steps towards beating the beast, I've donated, and I hope others will too by going to www.beatthebeast.me/run-4-rossy. The best thing we can do to combat loneliness and support each other is to turn to our neighbours. Since 1982, Neighbourhood Watch has brought volunteer residents together to be the first line of safety for the community, and Neighbourhood Watch Bayside was founded a year later in 1983. Each volunteer is precious and sews a stitch in our community's social fabric. To thank them for their incredible service, two Saturdays ago Neighbourhood Watch Bayside held their big thank you picnic at Brighton's Ballilla. Hundreds soaked up fleeting sunshine, with live entertainment, local artists, classic cars, the local Lions Club of Brighton sizzling sausages and scones galore. To celebrate outstanding contributions, the inaugural Ken Beadle Award was awarded to Ken Beadle, the former Bayside mayor and long time Neighbourhood Watch champion. No doubt there will be many worthy recipients in the years to come. We thank all the volunteers, and also those that provide the leadership to Neighbourhood Watch Bayside, including their president and emcee, Phil Lovel, the event coordinator Geoff Bransbury and the event curator Michelle Laragy. I just want to say to everybody who's involved with Neighbourhood Watch—in Bayside and Glen Eira and Kingston, and across Australia—thank you so much for the wonderful work that you do. You keep our community safe. You keep us strong. More importantly, you keep us connected—particularly those who don't necessarily have full support or assistance from their family or friends. The work you do ensures that we all stay safe. Thank you very much.
Energy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
This time of year, as we tend towards Christmas, we all think about those who are less fortunate than us. We think about the struggling pensioners who are making tough choices about how they are...
This time of year, as we tend towards Christmas, we all think about those who are less fortunate than us. We think about the struggling pensioners who are making tough choices about how they are going to make ends meet. They want to give presents to their grandchildren. They are looking at mounting bills. The electricity bill comes in and, as it rises by up to 40 per cent, they have to make tough choices. Some families and households have to make choices about whether they buy food or afford rent or pay their electricity bill or turn on the air conditioner. The same decisions are made by low-income earners and those on a fixed income. It's a challenge all around the country. So, while I understand the hectoring from members of the government in defence of not delivering on their $275 reduction on electricity bills, the lived experience of Australians from this is real. There are so many Australians who are doing it tough right now through cost-of-living pain and, instead of getting a $275 reduction in their electricity bill, promised by the Albanese government, they've lived with the reality of increases by up to 40 per cent. Small businesses are struggling. We have record small business insolvency. They've seen increases of their electricity bills by up to 80 per cent. It is no surprise that so many small businesses and so many households are doing it tough. We got data this week from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that talked explicitly about the problems with inflation. Despite the Treasurer crowing previously that he had combated inflation and we had gotten to an end, it persists. Also high interest rates are persisting. That's when people face tough choices about their future. It's easy for the member for Dickson to get up in this parliament and say, 'Yes, there is more rooftop solar on houses in some coalition seats.' I do accept that. Part of the reason is that people in low-income areas in particular live in apartments and they don't face the same options and choices as people who own their own homes. This is a debate about making sure low-income earners have choices and are able to afford fair pathways. People who live in apartments don't have those same choices, particularly when they can't afford upfront costs. I know the member for Dickson's answer when we have problems with cost-of-living pressures is, 'Let them eat solar batteries, let them eat solar panels and let them eat asbestos filled wind farms,' but that is not the answer. People need financial relief, and the only solution the government has is expenditure to push prices up. This isn't a plan that Australians need. Their answer is to just constantly talk about an energy transition that does not do what they claim it will do, which is push down prices. What we need is an energy addition which actually contributes to the future of our country by building new energy. Yes, we need to be technology neutral. We need to build a pathway for new generation that takes advantage of our existing networks and distribution and, of course, factors in emissions as well. That's because the best pathway to achieve lower emissions is to lower energy prices. When people cannot afford their electricity bills, concern around emissions falls by comparison. It's always been thus. It's a failure of this government to understand how important the link between energy prices and support for emissions cuts is. They go hand in hand. At the last election, the Australian people went and took on trust that this government understood these important issues, but what's become increasingly important for so many Australians is how much the government is blind and deaf to their concerns, how blind and deaf they are to the real financial pain that people are living. Their only answer has been to spend more money and borrow from the future to use debt spending and push up inflation, which has only perpetuated the problems that Australians are now living with. We just heard it from the members for Dickson, Cooper and so many other electorates. When Australians are saying that we need to confront the problem of electricity prices, the answer has been: let them eat solar panels. Let them eat batteries. Let them eat asbestos filled wind farms. This is not right. We need a pathway where we can get Australians to cheaper bills through energy addition. We need a pathway that gets cheaper bills now. More importantly, the cost of not doing so forces people on low incomes, which once upon a time the Labor party claimed they represented, to continue to live with the suffering and pain not just this Christmas but beyond and into 2026—and it won't be a happy new year.
Labor Government | Questions without Notice | House debates
Talk about the ABC; they like that!
Personal Explanation | Statements | House debates
For the second time yesterday in question time the Minister for Social Services selectively misrepresented 12-year-old quotes attributed to myself, claiming they were about Labor's Paid Parental...
For the second time yesterday in question time the Minister for Social Services selectively misrepresented 12-year-old quotes attributed to myself, claiming they were about Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme. In fact, they were about the Liberal Party's proposed paid parental leave scheme at the time—a scheme that the Minister for Social Services herself opposed. To evidence this, on the panel of Q&A at the time, the then Labor minister Bill Shorten interrupted me, expecting I was criticising his policy, before correcting himself as he realised I was criticising Liberal policy, and said, 'Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, keep going.' To evidence my claim, I seek leave to table a copy of the transcript highlighting the minister's misrepresentation.