Matt Gregg's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Copyright Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak about what I agree to be an incredibly important topic. We are, at the end of the day, talking about individual rights—the right of an individual to benefit from the product...
I rise to speak about what I agree to be an incredibly important topic. We are, at the end of the day, talking about individual rights—the right of an individual to benefit from the product of their own labour, their original expression of an idea. Copyright has an important role, but there is just so much material that copyright technically covers now. We're producing images, expressing our thoughts and sharing our ideas at a pace unbelievable to those who were alive even only 30 years ago. The world we live in, in this space, has completely changed, and the laws have to adapt with them. We have images that are shared, cropped, shared again and moved between accounts. There is no way we can possibly source the original author. Sometimes, as we now see overseas, the original author wishes to express an idea—share an image that captures a moment in time—but it's not safe for them to share who they are because of the situation in which they find themselves. Nevertheless, they do so not to create a piece of intellectual property or to assert any kind of legal right but as part of communication and to share that idea—to share what's happening to their fellow human being. But copyright does cover all of those original expressions. Therefore, the scope of these laws is very, very real. We've got to make sure that the individual property rights of those who come up with ideas are appropriately protected at the same time as we as a community are able to benefit from what are sometimes really important expressions of ideas. Those of us who learned history, whether at school or at university, will think back to specific moments in time like the Great Depression and the Vietnam War, and many of us will have the same images in our head that encapsulate those times. Important pieces of copyright material really aid and assist a full understanding of what's gone on in that period of time. But it's not always possible to find out who wrote it. This requires and clearly defines what constitutes reasonable efforts to find out who the owners are and seek their permission to use their original property, whether it's in a textbook or other endeavours. It's important that we balance those two rights together. This bill really does get it right. There have been consultations going on since 2023. The idea of an orphan-work scheme has been floated since the 1990s, so this is nothing new. It really does not cross party lines in our country's politics or any other like country. This is simply updating what is a very complicated legal regime made only more complicated by the changes in technology that we've seen and the way we use that technology. There's also the free trade agreement with the United States, for example, which also means that copyright subsists for a very, very long time—70 years after the person has died. We are now living a very, very long time. Members of my family might have written something when they were 30, and they're still going 70 years later. These intellectual property rights can exist for a very long period. We've got to make sure that the regime that sits around it is very, very clear. But we know that, even if we were to confine this to copyright material from the last two years, we're talking about millions and millions of images and ideas. It's not always possible to trace their origin. We're also in a world where, if it's not simple enough to use a genuine image, it's all too easy just to use AI to make a replica. And we don't really want to be doing that. We don't want textbooks full of AI images or impressions of what our source material should be. The trustworthiness and integrity of those materials, whether it's a school textbook or newspaper, sometimes does require the use of primary source material or reliable secondary source material. Sometimes only an image or an expression of an idea will do. It's all too easy to say, 'Well, if you don't know who the author is, just don't use the copyright material.' In some cases that's appropriate, but sometimes there is something so unique—a bit of vision that captures corrupt behaviour, or something that captures a very specific moment in time, which it is uniquely capable of encapsulating—that it is legitimate and reasonable to use it. We need to make sure that that opportunity is available in circumstances generally when there is not an assertive intention to exercise those copyright protections. But we also want to make sure the owners have those legal rights—and it is a suite of rights that come with owning copyright. In most cases the person who's come up with the idea owns the copyright, and it's up to them whether they give others permission to use it, to spread it around and to incorporate it in their own work. Some will say, 'Go ahead,' do it for free and feel quite privileged that that's happened; others will request a fee. It often depends on the kind of work involved. Is it a really cool hit song, or is it just a photo taken at an event, or is it just a tweet shared at a particular moment? All of these can be covered by copyright and are covered similarly by the legislative provisions, but, obviously, all have their very different contexts. So this clearly defines what we ought to do—what we have to do—in order to enjoy the additional protections of this scheme, and that is to conduct reasonably diligent searches for the owner and then to seek to contact them to get their permission to use the rights. But sometimes that is impossible, either because time has passed or because it's just passed through so many hands, and even the best of searches can't yield a result. And sometimes the original author may have passed away or simply doesn't want to be found. These all happen. These are all real-life examples. We need to have a system that enables these important works to be utilised at the same time as having protections in place for the proper owners. And sometimes, even if you do cover the author, it's not always possible to track the chain of ownership of an idea. Sometimes, if you come up with an idea, it might actually end up being the property of your employer, for example, because you might have done it in an employment context, and that company might have ceased existing—it might have gone into liquidation; it might have been sold. Sometimes it can be a nightmare to find the true owner of a copyrighted work. So this is a wonderful import of common sense into intellectual property law. It's a wonderful thing to be able to come into the House and say, 'This is uncontroversial. It makes sense. We're all just going to do it because it is the right thing to do and it just makes sense here and now.' There are challenges, obviously, in terms of copyright. AI presents a new challenge that we haven't seen before, where small adaptations of existing works or recreations of existing works can sometimes be mistaken for the real thing. But I think that, if we want to maintain truth in the way we do media, we have to make sure that proper, original material is there and that we are diligently looking for the sources of those materials. So this will be good discipline, no matter what kind of work you do, because you'll be maintaining that discipline of finding out what the origin is, getting the story behind the work and making sure that you're putting things on air that do have integrity. We've seen plenty of examples of news coverage that is pulled—AI videos and other things where things have been mistaken. There is no substitute for putting the work into finding out exactly where an image, a video or a clip has come from, because misinformation and disinformation are a very real problem in our society right now. To maintain trust, we need to make sure that we know what images we are using and that there are incentives in place to do the diligent thing and to properly source the material that we have. The orphan works scheme is an incredibly important addition to intellectual property law. Another key aspect of this bill is the additional protections for educators. Even in the time I was teaching, the nature of classroom work changed significantly. I taught history for a long time. We were using images a lot. But as students became ill, it became normal practice to record our lessons and to share them. There were times when I had to edit what I'd delivered in the classroom to make sure that what I was transmitting by video and through our online learning spaces wasn't inadvertently breaching copyright, so I'd have to edit out bits of the presentations and the like. It meant that it diminished the experience that those other students were having, because they weren't able to see the full presentation. This also made the job harder for teachers. I think anyone who's worked in our profession knows that we should be doing everything possible to make that job easier, not harder. So this is a reasonable and decent thing to do. It reflects the realities of modern education. Students who aren't in the classroom will often be learning from home and, more often than not, will need the support of a parent or carer in that environment. No-one's harmed by the fact that a parent sees an image that their kid sees while learning history or something. There is no mischief created by that scenario. This, again, is applying common sense that reflects the realities of modern life in a society where we are often not only teachers, there to entertain and to parent; we're also TV presenters a lot of the time. Not only are we teaching a classroom full of young people; we're also creating engaging audiovisual learning materials for those who aren't in the classroom at the time to learn from—and to do so in an enriching way. It is important that we give them every support, including this regime, so they are able to do that in an effective way. There are technical amendments in this bill as well that go to public ownership of certain works—things created by the ABC and the like. Those do have different dates. We're making it clear that, if it is a piece of copyrighted material just purchased in the ordinary open marketplace, that doesn't change. If the origin is a work done for public purposes, then it is subject to that shorter time limit. That also reflects the public interest by making sure that, in the long term, we, the taxpayers, get to enjoy the benefits of those things that we have paid for and that, after a period of time, we then just collectively own that material and can use it as we see fit. Once copyright ceases to exist, it then becomes public domain and can be used however you wish. Fifty years is not a very long time. Some of my favourite shows are over 50 years old. Copyright is very important, but when it's gone, it's gone. An honourable member: Get Smart! Yes, exactly—Get Smart, and other things as well. The passage of time does cause difficulties in sourcing things. While many archivists have, in decades gone by, done a very, very thorough job in cataloguing their works, it is more and more difficult to be able to precisely source some historical images that have just been uploaded with mass uploads of old materials. Sometimes even the best endeavours just cannot find the origins of these things, and sometimes copyright works can be incorporated in other copyright works. There are various complications that can exist in that environment. This is a very, very welcome piece of reform, and there are some amendments around this that clarify its role in the education space for when there is overlap between the statutory licence and this orphan works regime. It certainly removes any scope for doubt as to the intended application of this regime in the educational environment, which is an incredibly good thing. The reality is many of us are using copyright materials every day. I've seen many colleagues retweeting or reposting images. It's in good faith. It's not to make money, and no-one's losing anything. But that's the world we're in. It is all copyright. It is someone's original expression of an original idea. It is their property. Part of respecting that is a discipline that we all do need to get better at in an environment where things are just moving about so quickly. We write all the time. We take photos all the time. It's not just the photographer at the local newspaper anymore; it's every single citizen in the community who's carrying a wonderful camera device which can take 4K images, in some cases. They're producing stuff that we all rely on. Those individuals also deserve those rights, just like the hardworking professionals that produce copyright work for a living. This is for everyone who wishes to express their idea in their own way. But, as I said, copyright, in most cases, is just an incidental legal outcome of communication now. We know there's a little less talking in person and going over to people's houses. There's more writing things and posting them online. Copyright is here, there and everywhere in this era, for better or worse. We can all lament it. But, instead of being a grouchy old man who says that it was better in the old days, we just have to deal with the reality we've got. That is that copyright is everywhere, and, therefore, the legal protections need to reflect that we are talking about individual property rights, which are important in any free society, and we do need to respect those. This balances those. You can—even if you are unable to be found at that moment—within the limitation period go and assert those rights. You are able to recover reasonable compensation, which is absolutely appropriate. We don't want disproportionate things. We don't want ambit claims for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for simply reposting someone's tweet. There is, again, room for common sense. I can trust our authorities to do that appropriately. But we are in an environment now where it is about time that we update these laws. The world is very different to what it was in 1968. The world has changed fundamentally. I commend this bill to the House. I'm so glad it's supported across the chamber, and I look forward to seeing this become law.
Economy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
This afternoon, we have outrage unencumbered by self-awareness. The assistant minister asked earlier why the member for Hume wasn't in the chamber before. I think I can guess: it may have...
This afternoon, we have outrage unencumbered by self-awareness. The assistant minister asked earlier why the member for Hume wasn't in the chamber before. I think I can guess: it may have something to do with the fact that he, as the shadow Treasurer at the last election, proposed a budget that would have had a $7.9 billion deterioration in the first two financial years of a hypothetical Dutton government. When they wave the finger at big spending, they forget the fact that they were kind of for it only a few months ago. This isn't ancient history, and we're not going back to 2022 or 1981; this is recent history. They did not propose responsible spending measures. Now we have yet another misdiagnosis of economic reality. Today is a tough day for mortgage holders; we shouldn't walk away from that. There are many people in my electorate, often described as part of the mortgage belt, for whom today is going to be a really difficult day—another weight on the shoulder. When something that serious happens, we have to take the issue seriously, which means we have to look at the driving factors that have led to it. The RBA says it's largely from the private sector this time—and that's not about a blame game or saying, 'The private sector has done the wrong thing'; it means we have to dig a little deeper. What are the issues? One of them is that our demand is starting to be too high relative to our productive capacity. Where do we go from there? The Albanese Labor government has been investing in the productive capacity of our economy, skilling up our workforce with free TAFE and working to cut red tape. Since the productivity roundtable last year, we've seen a number of measures begin looking at simplifying government processes, ensuring that pieces of information don't have to be inputted more than once—time-wasting silly forms and things like that. They have been a focus of our government because we know that in order to support our industry, to support our economy to get that kickstart it needs at this point in time, we need to ensure we are as productive as we can possibly be. That means working with the private sector. It means ensuring we, as government, are setting an example by ensuring we're as being as efficient and effective as we can be. But we don't let fairness go by the wayside. We have focused on the impact of households, ensuring that medicines are cheaper and that young people and people returning to the workforce have access to the skills they need to get the job they deserve—and that in turn means employers have access to the labour they need in order to improve the way their businesses are operating and to maximise their profits in the long term. Inflation is the most pernicious tax. It is something that affects all of us, and we as a country get nothing in return. The fight against inflation is real and important, and it's been one of the three focuses of the Treasurer in recent times. It is looking at doing what we can to support a reduction in inflation over time, ensuring we are resilient to global headwinds and making sure we are building productivity in our economy across the board—and that is exactly what we're doing. Today is a very serious day, and that is why we need to talk about serious solutions rather than relying on tropes and cheap tricks and trying to throw blame about—'Is it the amount of money?' or things like that. The RBA has said the reasoning for its decision—the fact that private consumption has gone up in relative terms to public is there in black and white. It wasn't only in recent data; it was in the last monetary statement as well. It's right there in the ABS data. It's not a mystery. We also know there are variations between states in terms of what's going on in their economies—housing prices and increases in other particular prices. It is a complex set of circumstances, and that is why we have to work to deal with it in a very serious, very methodical way, rather than relying on what has, frankly, become cheap theatrics and predetermined indignation. We've got to take this job seriously. Governing isn't as simple as throwing away lines that might make the other side feel a little sad for a moment; it is about getting the important work done. It is about identifying what we can do to support the success of Australians and ensure that our economy is going at the best pace possible. When we look at today's announcement, this isn't one of glee. It's not one where any of us should be saying, 'Job well done.' The job is nowhere near done. There is a lot of work to do. The good news is that this government is doing it. We are focused on the task of improving the economy, improving the impact that has on households in Australia. Things are getting more expensive because of inflation. We need to deal with inflation, which means we have to take it seriously. Misdiagnosing it is not the solution to that problem. Simply throwing out political tropes, cheap tricks and saying, 'Your fault, your fault, your fault'—that does not get anything done. We need to invest the time in reading the full report by the RBA. Rather than drawing our own conclusions, rather than cherrypicking quotes from economists here, there and everywhere, the RBA tells us why they have made the decisions they have. Read the full document, and then we can have a serious adult conversation about what steps to take next. We should be taking the politics out of this. We should be a solutions focused parliament. It is the least we can do for the hardworking Australians who are having a very, very tough day today.
Tertiary Education and Training | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's policy of free TAFE supporting Australians to get the skills they want and need, and are there any...
My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's policy of free TAFE supporting Australians to get the skills they want and need, and are there any threats to the future of free TAFE?
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I commend the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 to the House, knowing that we could and should have done more as an institution. We had the...
I commend the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 to the House, knowing that we could and should have done more as an institution. We had the opportunity to stand up to hate speech and vilification, and we fell short. Sadly, the political reality of this parliament means that we couldn't get done everything we thought we needed to; however, this is an important step. It should be uncontroversial that hate groups should not be given the capacity to spread that vile hate across our community and to undermine social cohesion in some of the most heinous of ways. It should be uncontroversial that people in positions of power should be prevented from spreading that hate to vulnerable young people and using their positions to inflict the worst of pain on fellow members of our community. It should be uncontroversial that people who come into Australia as guests be expected to conduct themselves in a way that does not undermine social cohesion or act as a direct attack on our nation's values. We need to ensure that we are addressing opportunities and loopholes that exist in the current law and that have enabled organisations that have preached hate for a very long time to fall just under the criminal thresholds. It's time that we stand up as a parliament and address these obvious evils in our society. These are sensible reforms. I appreciate that these have happened at a greater pace than some are used to, but there has been sufficient time to get across the detail. We do not have a lawyer shortage in this building. We do not have a shortage of people who can understand and comprehend legislation. For those who needed support, there are plenty of people around who can explain things. I get that it's complicated, but, now that we're facing two bills that are less complicated, there really is no reason for us not to pass these important reforms. When we are talking about rights, yes, there is often a balancing act. Hate speech will almost inevitably, to some extent, impact on the freedom of speech. The balancing act is the subject of legitimate discussion, but it's not intellectually complex; it's a choice that has to be made, and leadership is about choices. What do you do to stand up to the challenge of antisemitism in our community at this moment in time? Do we sit by and allow it and pretend that the status quo is acceptable, or do we take meaningful and substantive action to address this social ill that has, since October 7, reared its ugly head in ways that we have not seen before in this country? It's appropriate for this parliament to stand up for the values of Australia, for the things that we hold dear, and this bill does just that. We're hoping that this can be a moment of national unity. We have split the bill, when a lot of us on this side of the House think it should have remained as it was before, to get rid of the roadblocks that prevented real action being taken by this parliament. It is hoped and expected that this can be a moment of national unity, where people on both sides of the House can stand up for foundational principles, and where we can at least agree that groups dedicated to spreading hate are not acceptable in our community; that lines that were previously unsaid but understood by all have been crossed; and that lines need to be drawn in the sand to make sure that hate is denounced, that it is considered unacceptable and that the promotion of it is dealt with under law. It's also important that these sentencing factors be changed. It is a more serious affront to the community and our society if a criminal offence is committed with racial hatred as its motivation. It is a legitimate sentencing factor. It goes to the seriousness of the offence, it goes to its repugnance and it goes to the importance of ensuring that the denunciation and punishment reflect the severity of what's been done. These are sensible, pragmatic reforms. They reflect the values that we should really all share. They balance rights of freedom of association. There are existing defences under the Criminal Code that protect legitimate expressions of political discord, legitimate arguments, artistic expressions and all of those things. These bills can't be seen in isolation; they form part of a criminal code which contains defences around good faith. It is just a shame that we couldn't come together to deal with vilification. It's something that I hope that we can revisit another day. But hopefully these reforms, which go to the key concerns of many in the Jewish community about these hate groups openly and unashamedly spreading hate in ways we have not seen before, are something we can at least get behind. One would hope that, when Neo-Nazis are calling for this bill not to be passed, we take the clue. Perhaps it's best not to be on their side. Perhaps it's best that we stand up and address these hateful organisations without delay and stand up for our nation's values at this horrible time. This is a sensible bill. I commend it to the House, and I hope it receives support from across the parliament.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
I rise this evening to share my grief and shock and that of my community in Deakin at the horrific antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December. Fifteen lives so cruelly and hatefully...
I rise this evening to share my grief and shock and that of my community in Deakin at the horrific antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December. Fifteen lives so cruelly and hatefully ended—15 innocent people who should still be with their friends and family; 15 people who should have been able to practise their faith openly and with pride, not fear. The violent hatred unleashed on 14 December will forever leave its mark on the victims' families and communities. I extend my solidarity and support to Jewish Australians, and I've received countless calls and emails from members of my community who feel just as strongly—shocked, angry and wanting to see change happen, and I share that sentiment. Of course, the impact of this horrific terrorist attack has reached every corner of this country. It has touched everyone who feels more hesitant about openly practising their faith, going to places of worship or even going to public spaces. It has touched everyone who walks down the street and feels like a stranger in their own community, avoiding eye contact and keeping to themselves where previously they greeted others with a smile. The evil of terrorism cuts lives short. It leaves the lives that remain strained, and the bonds that bind us together stretched to their limit and threatening to break. It can push us to retreat from one another—to close ourselves off from our fellow Australians. Terrorism challenges our belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity, a belief that underpins our ability to live our lives freely and with security. But I believe these bonds ultimately won't break. I believe that our desire to help each other, to be there for each other, is stronger than the fear that those two hateful antisemites poured into our country on 14 December. We've already seen this in the emergency service workers and volunteers all around the country fighting floods, weeks after volunteers on the beach in Bondi did everything they could to save lives in an extraordinary effort. Australians from all backgrounds are expressing their sorrow, supporting their fellow Australians and doing what they can to make this country a better place. That is the country I know, that is the country I love and that is the country we have to defend. Terrorism aims to sow mistrust, fear and division; to make us turn against our neighbour; and to make us a little less ourselves. If we're going to succeed in defeating this horrible phenomenon, we need to double down on who we are, on our values, and make sure that we are unapologetically Australian in the way we go about this, without forgetting who we are fundamentally but understanding that lines must be drawn—that hate speech is unacceptable and that it is not acceptable that members of the Jewish community do not feel like they can live their lives in safety and security as open and proud Jews in our society. That strikes at the heart of what our society is, and we have to do everything we can, beyond words and beyond expressions of sentiment, to make sure that these feelings turn into action. While reactionism isn't the call for the day, we do need to make sure that there is a response. We have to learn the lessons of history once again. Sadly, antisemitism is not new. That lie that has recurred throughout history—that turns neighbour on neighbour, that turns truth into conspiracy and that makes others suspicious of one another for no good reason—is something that has repeated itself throughout history. We have seen it become particularly pervasive following 7 October. We've got to make sure that we are doing everything we can as leaders—not just as legislators but as people who have influence in our communities and who are selected by our communities to represent them—to make sure that we are setting the right example, taking the right approach, knowing when there is a moment for debate and when there are moments for deliberation and knowing that, when tough decisions have to be made, we sometimes have to look at different competing rights and principles and make tough calls. That's what leadership is. It is very easy to demand leadership from others, but we do have to display it ourselves. There is going to be a lot of work in the days ahead to measure up to the goodness and kindness exhibited by the Australian people all this time and the good sense exhibited by the Australian people, that we are strengthened by embracing one another, taking care of each other and showing love to one another during these very difficult times. I wish I could give words of comfort, but I don't think this is the time for us to feel comfortable. We should be uncomfortable. As long as antisemitism lives on, we should feel uncomfortable. We should feel it as a call to action and do everything we possibly can to end this horrible scourge on our society. It shouldn't have taken a horrible event like this to turn our minds to it, but now there is no more room for doubt. There is no more time for delay. There are no more excuses. We have to act.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
In every corner of the country, pubs, clubs and the people who power them have held communities together through tough times, and now we are backing them with targeted, responsible relief through...
In every corner of the country, pubs, clubs and the people who power them have held communities together through tough times, and now we are backing them with targeted, responsible relief through a two-year pause on the indexation of the draught beer excise and the equivalent customs duty commencing on 1 August 2025. This will benefit around 10,000 small venues—pubs, clubs, bars and taverns. All will benefit from this. Seventy-five per cent of these are small family businesses employing local people. This two-year pause to the increasing costs will help keep the operating costs of these venue stable and gives small venues the certainty they need to plan, to retain staff and to reinvest in the futures of their businesses, perhaps taking advantage of the instant asset write-off from this government. To be clear, this applies only to draught beer served from an eight-to-48-litre container, or, for the larger venues, those 48-plus-litre kegs. It's not for bottles, cans or spirits. It's not the lion's share of alcohol that's consumed, which is consumed in homes, not in licensed venues where you have responsible service of alcohol and a supportive environment for people. This means that we ensure the support goes to the venues, those community hubs. It helps to stabilise the tax component of the price of a pint, reducing the pressure on venue operators and customers alike. It offers breathing space after years of economic strain, pandemic impacts, the loss of customers, supply shocks and some rising input costs. It's a practical, temporary relief measure that will not in any way fuel inflation, because it's not adding any more money to the economy; it will simply put a pause on what would otherwise be a mechanical price increase. That ability to plan ahead is so important for the 160,000-plus workers who are employed in this industry. For many of us, one of our first jobs was working in hospitality, in many of the small towns. Whether it's the Criterion Hotel in the seat of the member for Gippsland, the Seanchai Irish Bar in the seat of the member for Wannon, or the Burvale Hotel in my wonderful seat of Deakin, these venues are community hubs. They're not the same as other businesses; these are places where we go to celebrate, to mourn and to engage with our neighbours, in good times and bad. It's particularly important for regional areas where the pub is often the very heart of the community. It's not just for-profit business to whom this will be a great help. I've got a lot of local bowls clubs, footy clubs and cricket clubs who rely on revenue generated from draught beer to help subsidise the important work they do, whether it's supporting a family on a lower income with the cost of a uniform or footy boots, or keeping up the quality of the venue. They are covering essential costs for community organisations who are doing important work and providing a sense of social connection. I've been to enough bowls clubs to know that the avoidance of an increase to the price of beer is going to be a very welcome and important measure, including for many pensioners who go to the bowls club to enjoy a schooner or two every week. This modest bit of support will make all the difference. It's a supply chain that is full of jobs—truck drivers, equipment technicians, farmers and workers in the transport sector. There are so many indirect benefits when we support these incredibly important venues. It also has a huge benefit to the consumer, because it reduces the pressure to pass on future costs, it makes the cost of living just that little bit easier. It's designed for the Australian pub patron, the person at the bowls club and the person out and about—not the person drinking at home, because we know that's where a lot of the less healthy behaviours are seen. It's part of a broader plan around cost-of-living relief. This is one of several measures. If we look just those after July this year, we can see a number of them. The national minimum wage was increased by 3.5 per cent. The superannuation guarantee was increased to 12 per cent. Paid parental leave was increased to 24 weeks. Super is now being paid on government paid parental leave. There will be another $150 in energy bill relief before the end of the year, and $10,000 in incentive payments for new housing apprentices. There are cheaper home batteries. We're cutting 20 per cent off student loan debts for three million Australians. Commonwealth prac placements have already started as well, with support for nursing, midwifery, teaching and social-work students. Hardworking aged-care nurses received the next instalment of their pay rise in October following the first instalment in March this year. This is part of a broader mission to ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians as well as being a responsible measure in support of businesses. Pubs, clubs and taverns all around the country have been doing it tough for a while now, but they're also the very places that are there for people when they're doing it tough. Any small relief we can provide is a very good thing. We need to also consider that this is part of a significant number of measures to support small businesses. We're helping them with technology, with the instant asset write-off, and with energy efficiency and energy bill relief. There is a lot being done at the same time. This isn't an isolated measure and it isn't going to be the fix of the economy by itself. It is one of many measures focused on being well-targeted and delivering real and effective cost-of-living relief as well as relief to the cost of doing business. I think of the many pubs that I have been to over the years, and draught beer sits at the centre of the business model. It's one of the things that makes going to the pub different from anywhere else. The taste of draught beer is often better—anyone will tell you that—and it has become an essential part of many of the bowls and other clubs in my area where draught beer is routinely sold. Over the years, these clubs, pubs and organisations have done what they had to do to survive what are very difficult times. The habits of consumers have changed. More people are now drinking alcohol at home. The habits of socialising have also changed; they're slowly changing back but they've gone through a rough few years. Anything we can do to support this industry to regain its momentum is going to be a very good thing. Let's face it; the pandemic shook the economy around like a snow globe. It has taken time for businesses and industries to recalibrate. We are seeing recovery, but it's not instantaneous. As a government, we have to look at how we can assist the economy to recalibrate, re-normalise and regain its momentum and make sure that we're increasing productivity along the way. Every single thing we can do to help business out, even if it's as simple as pausing those routine mechanical tax increases, I know it is appreciated and something that industry has pushed for. I've spoken to a lot of pub owners, including meeting some at the Burvale Hotel in Nunawading in my electorate, and they're very grateful for this measure. It's not only an economic measure; it's also a demonstration that this government has their back. We've got the backs of businesses, we are focused on their interests and concerns, and we appreciate how important they are as part of the economy. Between breweries and pubs and clubs, we're talking about 160,000 jobs. These are people's livelihoods, and to be able to provide that certainty to the organisations who employ them means that their jobs are now safer because of this very minor relief. The good news is, as I was saying before, that this is in no way inflationary. Because this is a pause, it does not add money to the economy or make any other problems worse. It is simply giving them some breathing space so they can know what the future holds with a little bit more certainty and can invest in their businesses and organisations. The bowls clubs can continue to provide affordable hospitality services, engage their communities, support some of our most vulnerable people and provide a meeting place—in good times and bad—for members of our community. It's amazing that something that is really quite a modest measure can have such a powerful and profound impact across so many people, but that is the genius behind this temporary measure. It's one of those 'from little things, big things grow' scenarios because this small measure will have so many secondary impacts. While I know that secondary impacts are not something considered in Treasury modelling or other things we read, they are real and they are profound. We're talking about livelihoods, we're talking about jobs and, in the case of pubs and clubs and other venues, we're talking about community life. We're talking about togetherness—maintaining opportunities for people to get out of the house, meet with one another and gather. We achieve that by ensuring that the venues that they do that in are sustainable, that the costs are moderated as much as possible and that we acknowledge times that are challenging. We know that inflation over a number of years post COVID meant that CPI increases were significant, and so putting a pause on them is a reasonable response to ensure that we can still achieve the important health incomes of having the alcohol excise and the relevant customs duties but, at the same time, give businesses a break when they need it and give consumers a break when they need it. It shows that the Albanese Labor government is standing up for small business, it is standing up for consumers, and it is ensuring that prices remain as low as they can for all involved. As I was saying, this is not an isolated measure; this is part of a narrative of a government that has been laser focused on the cost of living. Whether it is health care, whether it is education, whether it is free TAFE or whether it is ensuring that people on practical placements receive $331 a week of support, we're focused on those who need assistance to build the best life possible for themselves so they can liberate their talents, and this is just one of the many measures. Cost-of-living relief is also given with the Medicare urgent care clinics. It's given to small business through unfair contracts legislation. There is so much reform across the board, and, for small business, this is also one of many measures. We're working with them to increase their cybersecurity. We've changed the tax settings so they have that extension of the instant asset write-off. We're working with business to ensure regulations that are duplicated and don't make a lot of sense are being cut. We're reviewing about 400 different regulations at the moment to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness at a government level as well. We are a government that is focused on supporting small business in any way we can. By cutting inefficiencies, we are ensuring that government is a facilitator and is not unnecessarily getting in the way, and, every now and then, you just need a bit of an economic break, and that is exactly what this important measure does. It provides a break at a time when it's needed most. It is temporary. It's impact on the budget is going to be negligible compared to the benefits, and it's something that is well targeted, given the very real and important role alcohol taxes play in the health of our nation. We've seen declining consumption of alcohol in many areas of the country, although I note that there is more work to be done in rural and regional areas, but the mission of all of those measures remains as it is. Temporarily pausing the increase in the beer excise and equivalent customs duty is a sensible, responsible and proportionate measure at this point in time that will have a significant and profound impact for the very people we're trying to support—the hardworking small-business owners who are employing locals all around the country, not just in suburbs like the ones I represent, but in the small country towns where we all know the pub is really the heart of the town. If the pub closes, community life dissipates and people just stay home. We need to ensure that those essential businesses, those community hubs, are supported to be successful and that they are supported to continue doing the important work they do for their communities, and that includes not only the services they provide directly but also the sponsorships they offer to sports clubs, to community groups, to the Lions clubs and to the Rotarys. Often the first sponsor on the list of a given footy club, whether it's in the country or in the suburbs, is the local pub. They have been community benefactors for a very, very long time. They are not only an important part of our economy and our employment sectors, but an essential part of local communities. They're the places we meet, but they're also the sponsors and the employers, and they are sometimes the beating heart of industry in a small town. I cannot think of a thriving small town in Australia that doesn't have a pub or two or three at the centre of it. This initiative to support those businesses, those largely small businesses—we're saying, of about 10,000 taverns, about 7,500 of them are small family business making modest profits but keeping the doors open, and they have done so through very, very tough times over the pandemic. They are the great survivors of our industry. We know the hospitality sector has been doing it tough for the last few years. The stats on that are very plain. If we can bring in a measure that is not inflationary, that is supportive of that industry and that will also help to protect jobs and the community benefits, then it's something everyone in this chamber should be supporting. But it's something that needs to be done in a steady, responsible way, because all actions have effects. In my view, this is a fantastically calibrated intervention. It not only ensures that it is consistent with our targeted approach to cost-of-living relief but it also reflects an approach by good, steady government that has real results and is calibrated to supporting communities in a way that does not have broader negative implications on our local economy. I commend the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer for the work they've done with this measure. I'm also proud to say that it was a promise made and a promise kept by the Albanese Labor government. We're not the party of core and non-core promises. We say what we mean and we will deliver on the commitments we made to the people at the 2025 election and will continue to do so. I commend this bill to the House, and raise a glass to the good people of Australia.
Commonwealth Prac Payment | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I would also like to extend my thanks to the member for Indi for raising this very important topic, which relates to paid practicums. I remember, about 12 years ago now, being a student teacher...
I would also like to extend my thanks to the member for Indi for raising this very important topic, which relates to paid practicums. I remember, about 12 years ago now, being a student teacher and living in a caravan in Dimboola while completing a regional placement. It is a hard slog trying to juggle the cost of living, which for many students is a week-by-week proposition, and the significant expense of trying to make it through a placement without incurring unimaginable debt. That's why I'm so proud that, for the first time in its history, the Australian government has stepped up and taken decisive action in response to practicum poverty, which does occur. For the first time, we're seeing over $330 a week paid to students in teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. It is just the start of this mission. It reflects the Australian Universities Accord's final report, which indicated an initial introduction where government funds the payments to particular course areas but which also indicated that we need to consider placement poverty across other areas as well, including allied health. And there is certainly more consideration to be given to how we support those students as they complete their sometimes far lengthier placements. For this model, the Commonwealth has stepped up and used Commonwealth funds to pay the cost of the initiative. I think it's an incredibly important part of the government's work in supporting young people on their education journey—which is work that begins from child care, which is full and fair funding for our public schools, which is free TAFE, which is increased support for our university sector and which is a clear set of policies to support the future of higher education moving forward. It's incredibly common for students to be living week by week and covering the rent at home while they're on a placement—particularly if the placement happens to be far from where they live. I've met a number of students who have gone through that. I've met students in the past who have failed their placement simply because they couldn't sustain the costs, or those that didn't start them at all because they simply could not afford to not work for two weeks without finding themselves in dire financial straits. This reflects, then, a real acknowledgement of the problem. I think it was important, despite covering the scope of initial recommendations, that the government put in a three-year timeframe for the review of the paid practicum placements, knowing that it would need to revisit its scope and how it's put into effect, and, as has been said by previous speakers, with an eye to whether it is necessary to expand the program to other areas as well, including allied health. We should be incredibly proud of the initiative this government has put in to ensure that the initial investment takes action to deal with placement poverty—knowing full well that this is not the end of the story and that this is going to likely be the beginning of one. Nevertheless, it's an important step. But the investment needs to also be seen in the context of the vast amount of reform we're seeing from this government in the education space. This isn't just a single initiative and 'that's all we've done in the education space'. Given the amount of time we've been in government, it's actually extraordinary when you reflect on the amount of work this Commonwealth government has done to support the education of Australian citizens across ages and across disciplinary spectrums. I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that maintains an eye on the prize. As we've heard in the House today, people across the political spectrum want to ensure that young people have reason to be optimistic about their futures, but the crossbench and Labor alike are keeping a close eye on this, and we're keen to ensure that students at university are supported and that they don't find themselves in poverty simply for working towards the kinds of careers we really need in our community. We need to ensure that we understand this debate in its full context, and what we're referring to is an extraordinary program introduced by this government. I'm looking forward to the review, and I have no doubt that these support payments for those in placement are going to make a huge difference to their lives as they train in some of the most important professions out there. Thank you very much.
Deakin Shield Awards | Constituency Statements | House debates
As a former school teacher, I know just how far a little recognition can go. When we celebrate a young person, we build confidence, spark ambition and strengthen character. That is what the...
As a former school teacher, I know just how far a little recognition can go. When we celebrate a young person, we build confidence, spark ambition and strengthen character. That is what the Deakin Shield awards are all about. Each year, every primary and secondary school in Deakin is given the opportunity to choose students whose achievements truly stand out. This is a special occasion every year to highlight the efforts of our young people and remind them that their community sees and values their hard work. What makes the Deakin Shield so special is that each school decides what the award should honour. Every school community has its own culture, values and priorities and its own goals for its students. This makes sure that every award is grounded in real experiences, real challenges and real triumphs. The Deakin Shield, part of a long and proud bipartisan tradition in Deakin stretching back more than a decade, also reflects something bigger: a belief that every young person deserves a fair chance to succeed. I'll take this opportunity again to say how proud I am to be part of a government that has put every public school on the path to full and fair funding. People in my community know that good outcomes and great education don't come about without the right investment. If we want students to achieve extraordinary things, we must give them the resources and opportunities that they need to do so. The Deakin Shield and our commitment to full and fair funding send a clear message that we believe in our schools, our teachers and our students. We want every young person to have the chance to thrive and to pursue great opportunities, and we're backing them to make it happen. I'm proud to play my small part in celebrating the achievements of so many people in our community. I'm sorry to miss a few presentations this week while I'm obviously here in Canberra, but I say to every award recipient: congratulations. You've made your families, your teachers and your school communities proud. To everyone who has just wrapped up their VCE: congratulations on completing your exams. Enjoy a well-earned break, but please be safe and be responsible. We want to have you back in one piece in the coming months, because, whatever comes next, I believe that you'll be able to succeed, and I can't wait to see what you do with your talent and potential. Our investment in schools demonstrates our commitment to the future of young people, and we're focusing on that with free TAFE, with investments in making sure that courses are available to our young people to pursue whatever dreams they want and making sure they're not going to be bogged down in debt and unable to buy their first house before they reach a point in life where it's almost too late. We're investing in the next generation to make sure that they can aspire to live lives better than the ones our parents and we are able to enjoy. That's the aim of the game, that's why we're in parliament and I'm so proud to be part of a government that is delivering for the young people of Australia.
Small Business | Private Members' Business | House debates
We can all agree that small business needs all the support that we can provide, and I'm so proud to be part of a government that is dedicated to improving the operating environment for small...
We can all agree that small business needs all the support that we can provide, and I'm so proud to be part of a government that is dedicated to improving the operating environment for small business. I hope, taking the coalition at its word, that it's about supporting small business—that it will take a break from self-destruction and self-congratulation and be banging on the door of the minister for the environment in the hope of securing an EPBC Act reform that fulfils all of the needs of small business. And I hope that all of the benefits to small business are realised by the proper negotiation of that legislation. We've seen a lot of political theatre and a lot of performance, but, if you really meant what you said about helping small business, you would be doing everything you could to ensure the passage of that bill in the interests of small businesses around Australia. Getting rid of red tape is certainly part of the mission in assisting small business, and that's why we're looking at about 400 different regulatory reforms proposed by regulators after the economic roundtable. We've got exciting innovations that will be coming in to support small business over the next few years. This is all part of the National Small Business Strategy that was released by the minister earlier this year. We have the momentum in government and in our agencies, and in working with other levels of government, to ensure that compliance is no more complicated than it has to be, that regulations are simplified, that we're not having duplication in processes and that we are being as fair, effective and efficient as possible when it comes to the regulation of businesses, because we know that regulation and red tape are holding back both small and large businesses. The focus of this government is on ensuring that we're dealing with regulatory reform in a way that makes things easier, that the reform is facilitative and that we are able to untap the potential of our economy—and that focus is going to be a defining feature of the next three years of work by this government. In relation to tax, we've seen a tax cut for 1.5 million businesses acting as sole traders, which was opposed by the opposition. They talk about the lack of tax cuts, but they opposed a big tax cut to a whole lot of businesses not very long ago. We've also got small, discrete initiatives such as extending the instant asset write-off into the future, to ensure that tradies who need to update their tools or a cafe that needs to get a new barista machine are able to write them off straightaway to incentivise those investments within business. To have that program continue is going to be incredibly important for those small businesses to be able to invest in their future with confidence. We've also got a $400 million industry growth program to help entrepreneurs to commercialise their ideas and get the skills and support they need to have successful businesses, to ensure that their potential can be unlocked into the future. We've got a government that is incredibly focused on easing the pathway for small businesses in the way we pay at a government level, the way we open up procurement and all of those things. To the extent that we have influence, we are doing everything possible to support small business. We have ideas that go beyond the coalition's standard 'Oh, let's just cut the working conditions of working people—that's what small business needs.' No: we need an economy that is supporting small businesses to succeed, to innovate, to increase their productivity and to thrive. There are many aspects to this problem, and energy is one of them. I was kind of surprised that the member for Goldstein wasn't emphasising energy policy—well, not surprised, given what his own party has done since that motion was drafted. If you wanted to design a policy that would create uncertainty and a lack of investment, and fail to drive down power prices in the long term, you would have the coalition's 23rd consecutive pamphlet on energy policy—another one that says, 'Kick the can down the road and let's hope for the best.' That's been their policy since about 2009. It's achieved nothing over the last decade, and it's not going to achieve anything in the future. It's an embarrassing indictment on the coalition's inability to grapple with wicked problems that are affecting small businesses like the small businesses that might install solar panels on the roofs of people's houses or install batteries. Those small businesses matter too. Small businesses are working to be part of the energy transition. I've got a business in my own area that is using hydrogen generators—a fantastic opportunity for lower emissions power generation on islands and in small communities. There's a lot of good work being done by small businesses, and that's going to be undermined by policy uncertainty. I would say if you want to reflect a commitment to small businesses this week, the best thing you could do is stop congratulating yourself for a minute and go to Senator Watt's office to make sure that the EPBC bill is passed and that all of the pro business aspects of it are safeguarded. That is what a serious opposition would do. That is what a serious party that cares about small businesses would be doing today.
Social Cohesion | Adjournment | House debates
This afternoon, we witnessed a stunt in the Senate that did nothing to advance policy and everything to inflame division. Senator Hanson chose to repeat her 2017 theatrics by entering the Senate...
This afternoon, we witnessed a stunt in the Senate that did nothing to advance policy and everything to inflame division. Senator Hanson chose to repeat her 2017 theatrics by entering the Senate in a burqa and demanding a ban, without a moment's regard for the people who will feel the consequences of that performance most acutely. This was not an act of leadership; it was not an act of concern for public safety. It was a calculated spectacle that was designed for attention rather than for the Australian people. Let us be honest about the repercussions of such behaviour. A stunt like this does not merely provoke commentary within these walls. It reverberates across the nation. It licenses ignorance. It emboldens hostility. It hands a megaphone to those who thrive on suspicion, division and hatred. There are women in this country, and in my community, who already steel themselves before stepping onto a bus, into a shopping centre or down a street where they had previously been mocked or questioned. There are women who navigate their daily lives with a heightened awareness of how their clothing, their faith or simply their appearance might be judged. For those women, today's spectacle was not a curiosity. It was a reminder. It was a reminder of every sideways glance, every muttered comment and every moment when their belonging was made to feel conditional. When a parliamentary chamber becomes a platform for theatrics that caricature their identities, it sends a message far beyond Parliament House. It tells them that their safety, their dignity and their freedom can be traded away for a headline. It tells them that their lived experiences, their anxieties, their hopes for their children and their sense of place in this country are secondary to someone else's political pointscoring. The reality is that this kind of performance does not spark debate. It heightens the risk that ordinary women—our neighbours, our colleagues and our fellow citizens—will face harassment, hostility or discrimination in their everyday lives. What we say and do in this chamber has an impact in the community. It can paint targets on the backs of people who already have to navigate a world of judgment. Today's performance was beyond dog whistling. Dog whistling at least cloaks itself in subtlety. What we witnessed was a foghorn. It was an unmistakable signal that was designed to agitate and divide. It was politics at its laziest and most dangerous, which used fear as a prop and people's identities as stage costumes. This parliament must be better than the theatrics we witnessed today. We owe the Australian people a standard of debate that reflects the seriousness of our responsibilities and the diversity of our nation. Difficult conversations and points of disagreement can be had, but the way we conduct those debates—particularly on sensitive topics—matters. The path we take matters. It matters to the women who will walk home tonight wondering whether their parliament sees them. It matters to every Australian who wants to believe their parliament respects them and will stand up for them. So let's continue to meet that responsibility with courage and decency, and with the respect that the Australian people deserve and exercise most of the time. With that said, I want to turn my attention to the kinds of things that make a positive difference to people's lives in communities like mine. I would prefer to talk about things like investments in social housing—the investment of 62 new social homes in Mitcham through the Housing Australia Future Fund and the 13 new crisis and transitional homes in Maroondah. I'd like to be able to talk more about this, and to talk about the 700 Deakin locals who have entered homeownership for the first time thanks to the five per cent deposit scheme. Because turning our attention to how we actually improve the lives of people is the work that matters. And I know it's the people across the chamber—we're here to make the lives of the people in this country better than they were yesterday. That's the job, and that is where the majority of us are focused most of the time. We can engage in rigorous debate in good faith while believing in our convictions, but while conducting ourselves in a way that reflects the dignity of this parliament and the solemn roles that we have on behalf of the Australian people. I look to community projects where we can make a girls changeroom in a sports club that's excluded them for years and where we can support emergency relief organisations to deal with the most vulnerable citizens in a way that government simply can't. I go to Rotary clubs and Lions clubs where members of the community not only identify problems but spend their days being a part of the solution. I go to small businesses that are innovating and changing the way we think about problems confronted by our society, like energy and other things as well. This country is full of amazing people doing amazing things. As their representatives, the least we can do is try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, focus on the issues that matter to them and dedicate every day to the task of making the standard of living in this country better than it was before.
Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Australia faces an increasingly complex and challenging security environment. Both state and nonstate actors have shown increasing sophistication in the way they try to advance sometimes...
Australia faces an increasingly complex and challenging security environment. Both state and nonstate actors have shown increasing sophistication in the way they try to advance sometimes nefarious causes. We need a strong and robust intelligence framework, and our national intelligence community delivers that. There is no doubt our security agencies do a fantastic job of keeping Australians, individuals, businesses and communities safe. But we live in a democracy, so we need to make sure that, as with all government organisations, there is robust oversight and accountability and that our democratic system remains at the apex of our system. This bill, the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025, ensures two layers of protection. We have the expert oversight of the inspector-general as well as the democratic oversight of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The joint committee is a very special part of our democratic system. It is a committee that has historically sat, and continues to sit, above partisan lines, where there is a genuine commitment from people all across the political spectrum to ensuring the safety and security of Australians, and good faith efforts to ensure that is the focus of that committee. It is well placed to provide that democratic oversight in a way that balances the need to ensure secrecy where required and subtlety when that's sufficient, and ensure there is nevertheless still robust oversight of the use of what are extraordinary powers of our intelligence organisations. The member for Sturt gave the example of the compulsive powers of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. That is one example of exceptional powers given to our intelligence organisations to enable them to do their jobs. But, for public trust and confidence to be safeguarded, we need to ensure that there is oversight and that members of the public can be confident those exceptional powers continue to be used appropriately, in the national interest and proportionately, and that their use is appropriately adapted to the threat environment we face. This legislation is probably the most significant update to the oversight of our intelligence community since the royal commissions of the 1970s and 1980s—the Hope royal commissions. It is ensuring that there is a consistent framework for the oversight of the 10 agencies that sit within the national intelligence community and that there is a consistent, robust and democratically accountable framework for overseeing the important work they do. It strengthens democratic accountability and supports the effective and robust delivery of a modern intelligence suite of services. It ensures that, while oversight is there, we are still able to confidently empower those organisations to do the important work they need to do. It is an increasingly challenging, sophisticated and multipronged threat environment. We know our intelligence organisations work incredibly well together, sharing intelligence where appropriate and ensuring they're coordinating with partners to the extent that that falls within their legal remit. That coordination is essential because criminal organisations and nefarious state actors don't follow the same rules we do. We need to ensure our framework enables flexibility for our security agencies to do their job well and to conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the parliamentary democracy we find ourselves in and a society and culture that maintains respect for the rights and freedoms of individuals—and ensures that those rights, when they are limited through the right to privacy or the right not to participate in legal proceedings, are curtailed only to the extent necessary to protect human life or the essential interests of the country, and makes sure that we are always ensuring that the legal frameworks that sit around these things are proportionate and fair. That is why we have independent oversight of national security legislation. We have a dedicated monitor that looks at our antiterrorism laws to ensure that they are not disproportionate, continue to meet the needs of intelligence organisations, continue to ensure it is possible for us to respond effectively to the threats and challenges faced by our country but at the same time not go overboard, and continue to ensure that Australians can remain confident that there is accountability, that our organisations do no more than is appropriate and reasonably adaptable to the important work they do, and that a mistrust that can sometimes develop from a lack of oversight and accountability can be addressed. We know that, when things are kept secret, there's always more room for suspicion, more room for innuendo and more room for unfair assumptions to be made. We do need to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, there is transparency about the way we do things and that the rules of the game are nice and clear, but that obviously doesn't mean that every single intelligence operation and every security threat is going to be openly disclosed to the public. Obviously that would adversely impact the important work the agencies do. So, while there needs to be a level of secrecy, Australians should be able to be confident that the rules of the game balance their rights and interests appropriately and that there are those two layers of oversight and checks, both from experts, such the inspector-general, and through their democratically representatives on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This will ensure we can, as a people, remain confident that our security agencies are continuing to do the good and important work they're doing, that they're keeping Australians safe and that the frameworks we have in place will continue to enable them to appropriately respond to the environments they find themselves in. I proudly commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing its passage.
Medicare | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that on 1 November, bulk billing incentives were expanded to all Australians, and a new incentive payment began for practices that bulk bill every...
I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that on 1 November, bulk billing incentives were expanded to all Australians, and a new incentive payment began for practices that bulk bill every patient; and (2) notes: (a) that these policies will mean: (i) nine out of ten general practitioner (GP) visits will be bulk billed by 2030; and (ii) the current number of fully bulk billed practices will triple to around 4,800 nationally; (b) other policies the Government has delivered to strengthen Medicare, such as: (i) opening 90 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics across Australia, with 47 more on the way; (ii) tripling the bulk billing incentive; (iii) opening 61 free Medicare Mental Health Centres; (iv) lowering the maximum cost of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listed medicines to $25 from 1 January 2026 and freezing the concession price at $7.70 until 2030; and (v) boosting funding for hospitals by $1.7 billion; and (c) that while the Government is expanding access to bulk billing, by contrast, the Leader of the Opposition as the Minister for Health: (i) never increased Medicare rebates, the only health minister in Australian history not to do so; (ii) doubled down on the then Government's $50 billion cut to hospitals; and (iii) continued the fight for the former Leader of the Opposition's GP tax. Over the weekend, I met Dr Sara Razaghi, a GP at the Forest Hill Medical & Dental Centre. This is one of the practices that has become 100 per cent bulk-billed thanks to the Albanese Labor government expanding bulk-billing incentives to all Australians, the single largest investment in Medicare since Labor created it over 40 years ago. Sara told me this change means that she can focus on her patients and their needs without worrying about how many people she can feasibly bulk-bill. She could see in her patients that a gap fee wasn't sustainable for them, so she did what she could to support her patients and bulk-billed as often as she could, often at her own financial detriment. Now that she's able to bulk-bill all her patients, she can finally focus on their wellbeing and know that the Albanese government has her back. Forest Hill isn't the only clinic in Deakin to go to 100 per cent bulk-billing since we announced our changes. I've also visited Seymour Street Medical & Dental Centre, which is now also bulk-billing every patient. Between Seymour Street and Forest Hill alone, patients in my community will be saving almost $1.4 million. That's just across two clinics. Imagine the savings we're going to see as more clinics take up the incentives and provide more bulk-billing. That's going to make a massive difference in Deakin, and I'm so proud to be part of a government that is making it easier to leave your credit card at home when you seek medical care. Unfortunately, the Australian people had to wait for a Labor government to fix Medicare. When the now opposition leader was health minister, do you know how many Medicare rebates increases we saw? Zero. I would go on further, but I note the opposition leader is having a tough enough week, so I'll leave that aspect there. While the Liberals froze Medicare, the Albanese government has delivered the three largest increases in its history, and we're now making the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation over 40 years ago. We're investing $8.5 billion to deliver an additional 18 million bulk-billed GP visits each year nationwide, as well as hundreds of nursing scholarships and thousands more doctors in the largest GP training program in Australia's history. For the first time since Labor created Medicare, we've expanded bulk-billing incentives to all Australians, with an additional new incentive for practices that bulk-bill every single patient. That means nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030, boosting the number of fully bulk-billed practices to around 4,800 nationally, triple the current number. The Albanese government tripled the bulk-billing incentive in 2023 in what was the largest investment in bulk-billing at the time. Medicare bulk-billing incentives were available to providers if they bulk-billed children under 16 and other concession cardholders. We saw that result in about nine in 10 visits being bulk-billed for that cohort. Expanding these incentives to all Australians will be life-changing for a lot of people. We know that even those who don't happen to meet the eligibility requirements for a concession card are often doing it tough; it doesn't mean they're rich, and they will really benefit from finally having bulk-billing returned to its glory. Already, under our government we've seen almost two million additional bulk-billed visits in Victoria, and I can't wait to see even more people from my community leaving their credit card at home. GPs want this change, and around a thousand practices have already signed up or expressed interest saying they want to go 100 per cent fully bulk-billed, and I expect that more will do so once they see all the financial advantages for themselves and their patients. Doctors like Sara at Forest Hill Medical & Dental Centre want to focus on caring for patients, not stressing about money and not talking about money with their patients. They want to focus on the healthcare needs of those who have come to see them, and this provides them with that very important opportunity. Because of our investment, doctors can focus 100 per cent on their patients, and more patients can be 100 per cent bulk-billed. With such a large investment in the program, Medicare has had the best comeback this weekend other than Oasis. We've seen, finally, a whole lot of green and yellow signs, which has warmed my heart as I go around seeing more and more people and clinics talking about bulk-billing returning to its former glory. We want to get to a point where those who need medical care don't hesitate to go to see a doctor; they get those interventions they need when they need them, rather than letting small things become big things. We've seen too much of that over the last few years. Clinics have copped the Medicare freeze for a long time. They wore it for as long as they could. Then COVID came along, so more and more doctors were left with no choice but to charge gap fees. This is an essential corrective action to ensure Medicare meets its promise to the Australian people: that, finally, people can go with their little green card to see the GP and get the support they need without having to worry about any debt that might result from that. This is an essential public service. It's provided by private providers, but this is an essential public service paid for with a levy that all taxpayers are paying—
That line worked for three years.
Well, we have turned the inflation we inherited around. Now, we find ourselves in a position where our economic management is being compared with that of a government that, for nine years in a...
Well, we have turned the inflation we inherited around. Now, we find ourselves in a position where our economic management is being compared with that of a government that, for nine years in a row—and after entering office with an action contract promising to 'end the waste'—brought in probably every rort in existence: sports rorts, car park rorts and every other form of rort you could possibly imagine. The colour spreadsheets were active! They were overspenders. They never delivered a surplus. They showed that all their rhetoric about being responsible was just 'reduce, reuse, recycle' from the Howard years. They continue to lack credibility when it comes to jobs. We have seen 1.5 million additional jobs created in the economy since the Albanese government was elected. We've got one of the lowest unemployment rates for a new government in over half a century. We have an incredibly good record on jobs. We have an incredibly good record on real wage increases. It is not a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture to suppress wages. We want wages to grow. We want living to improve in our country, and we want to make sure we are readying ourselves for the future. We're going to have a 21st century energy grid that will power a 21st century economy. This means that young people can enter the future with a confidence they simply could not have under the coalition government. The coalition party room is where hope and common sense go to die. I'm so glad to be part of a government that is actually delivering the policy settings we need for the future Australians deserve. That is across policy areas. As we've said, people are doing it tough right now. We take that incredibly seriously. The job is not done yet, but you can tell that this government is committed to making life in this country better. We will do what we need to do to support Australian workers, Australian businesses and Australian industries. It is important for the future of the country that they have at least one side of politics with its eye on the job.
I see the coalition remained unencumbered by self-awareness as they provided that lecture on the running of the economy! They raised a number of topics in their MPI, including tax returns, from...
I see the coalition remained unencumbered by self-awareness as they provided that lecture on the running of the economy! They raised a number of topics in their MPI, including tax returns, from the party that proposed increased taxes at the last election; higher spending; higher debt; higher deficit—well done, coalition; and electricity bills, from the party that caused policy paralysis for nine years and continue to eat themselves over the very topic. The reason we have higher-than-desirable electricity bills is years of policy failure to ensure that the supply of electricity meets demand. It's a simple supply-and-demand problem. But, instead of having a coherent, consistent set of policies, we find a chopping and changing of 20 different policies over a relatively short period of time. They talk about business. How on Earth can business invest in the clean energy future if there is no policy certainty? It is the worst possible thing you could do, no matter what direction you're in, to ensure there is investment in energy. They held up coal. They even wore coal as make-up in one case, but they didn't actually make any new coal-fired power plants. They didn't increase the supply of electricity. There were three gigawatts less of coal-fired power when they left than when they went into office. So, even as coal lovers, they were terrible at their job. Now, we find ourselves in a situation where we need to rapidly deploy technologies to ensure an electricity supply that is sufficient in amount, that is low enough in cost and that we can rely on going into the future. So, instead of finding the policy that says 'renewables only'—they forget about the fact that we've got batteries that pump hydro and that are backed by gas. They go to war on a policy that doesn't exist, and then they promote a policy of their own that also doesn't exist. We had an announcement of nuclear last night, but we don't know if net zero is there, because we're waiting for Matthew Canavan's no doubt independent and well-researched report on the future of net zero. We have to ask: what does that do for industries and households? That policy paralysis means that we are not getting the investment we need, and haven't had the investment we've needed, in this sector for a long time. Thank goodness a Labor government has been elected. We can provide policy clarity. We, unlike the opposition, are not so arrogant as to think that we're smarter than AEMO, smarter than the Treasury and smarter than pretty much every other expert in the energy space—who confirm that the cheapest form of energy is renewable energy. We're deploying it at pace, along with the safeguards to ensure consistency of supply and reliability. We're investing in gas supply. We're making sure that pumped hydro is being rolled out. We're making sure that battery technology is being utilised, and households have voted with their feet: 104,000 homes have thankfully ignored the side show and decided to invest in battery technology. They know that storage of renewables is the cheapest way to power your home and the cheapest way to power your business, as long as the settings are right. People are getting off the grid, and they're not paying higher power bills. People in my electorate, and in electorates all over the country, have been voting with their feet. It's exciting to see a government that is finally committed to a sensible energy policy that maintains coherence in the energy space and gives business the certainty it deserves. In their MPI, the opposition talked about mortgage repayments. They are forgetting that inflation was sitting at about 6.1 per cent when we first came to office. It now has a three in front of it, and we've had, I think, three interest rate reductions in the last year.
Education | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians with a student debt and build a better and fairer education system?
Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025, Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I should know better than to listen to the member for Gippsland. I have to admit, I'm new to this place and I occasionally make the mistake of listening to members of the coalition. I mistake...
I should know better than to listen to the member for Gippsland. I have to admit, I'm new to this place and I occasionally make the mistake of listening to members of the coalition. I mistake them for individuals who have credibility and make worthwhile contributions to debate. This particular bill is a perfect example of one where the coalition have absolutely nothing to contribute to the debate. They have an atrocious record on superannuation. They see it as a lucky dip for their own policymaking rather than as an essential part of the retirement framework of this country. The reality is: if we want the next generation to have a proper dignified retirement, we need to deal with housing, protect super and make sure that our institutions remain as strong and trustworthy as ever before. This is one of the great legacies of the Labor Party. Superannuation for workers finally gave the working people of Australia their fair share of the nation's wealth. Anything designed to undermine that or to use it as a simple slush fund for taking over the consequences of coalition policy over a long time is completely unforgivable. We need to make sure that trust and confidence in the system can be preserved, and we need to get on with dealing with the fact that millions and millions of dollars have been shafted from workers over a long period of time. I will not stand here and allow any suggestion that there is anything insidious about the idea that the workers in Deakin or anywhere in Australia, and their millions of dollars in savings—it is billions if you take it to the total for Australia, $5.7 billion. The idea of trying to ensure that that shafting doesn't happen anymore should be a completely uncontroversial proposition. But, again, we have a little bit of the usual squabble and nuttiness that we have in this House. In terms of the enforcement of these things, we need to make sure that, when superannuation is not paid, the compound interest that could otherwise have been earned from those contributions is also recovered as part of the regime. In the past, we have seen superannuation recovered at just the nominal amount. It's effectively stolen money because they have lost the real value of the superannuation contributions being made—the earnings that they would have received but for the failure to contribute. So these enforcement provisions and the penalties that sit within this legislation are eminently sensible. Then we talk about the transition. The transitionary provisions contained within this legislation enable a period of time for business to adjust. The ATO have already given their draft guidance—I think it was on 21 October—which has made it very clear that they will be taking a facilitative approach to the enforcement of these new laws. We're not out to get businesses. We're there to support them in transitioning their systems to ensure that this can be done right. This is not about punishing small businesses trying to do the right thing. The ATO has made that abundantly clear. We have made that abundantly clear. This is simply about making sure that businesses are supported and enabled to make the payments that are owed to their workers in a reasonably timely way so they can enjoy the benefits of their earnings and have that beautiful magic of compound interest work in their favour as they save for their retirements. It's about ensuring a dignified and decent retirement for Australians. It's about making sure that the promise of superannuation is fulfilled. And it's about safeguarding the superannuation of some of our most vulnerable workers. We're talking about young workers for whom the loss of superannuation income has dire consequences—tens of thousands of dollars less in their superannuation if these failures continue to persist. We see differences in balances of $31,000, $32,000 and up to $35,000 if super isn't paid at my age, at around 35. It can have significant impacts on a superannuation balance at the end of a person's career. As I mentioned before, it is not just at the end of a career. It is ensuring that these individuals continue to have the total and permanent disability insurance that they've signed up to, that they continue to have the income protection insurance and, in the worst-case scenario, that they have access to those funds on compassionate grounds, whether it be for emergency health care, for the funeral of loved ones or for the other reasons that are already provided for in legislation. This is the money of workers. They deserve to have it paid into their superannuation accounts in a timely way. It is what the entire system is for. The proposition that this is part of some crazy cabal, as was suggested by the member for Goldstein last night, is as outrageous as it is foolish. It is absolutely terrifying that a key member of their economic team sees superannuation as some kind of sick conspiracy and has the very idea that superannuation is simply about increasing the money in the Labor Party coffers. By the way, this is a government that just passed laws capping the amount of money that can be put into coffers. This is simply about workers. The very notion of a piece of legislation being purely about benefiting employees seems to be shocking and outrageous to some in the coalition. We need to protect and safeguard this system. We are dealing with an issue that was identified not only by us but by reports commissioned by the coalition themselves. They know this was a problem, and they did nothing about it. We came here, stood up and made a number of changes to protect the sustainability and security of the superannuation system, and all we ask is that you just let us get on with it. These matters are too important to continue delaying. Ten more years of delay on these things will result in the loss of millions and millions of dollars of superannuation savings. We need to get on with it. The sooner we pass it, the sooner business will have the certainty as to what's coming and the sooner they'll be able to prepare for the changes and be ready by the time this comes in in July next year. I commend the bill, and I express my complete dismay and contempt for the suggested amendments by the shadow Treasurer. I look forward to this essential reform becoming law. Debate adjourned.
The amount of unpaid super owed to workers in my electorate of Deakin was $31.4 million, according to analysis by the Super Members Council in 2022-23. The analysis also highlighted that that's...
The amount of unpaid super owed to workers in my electorate of Deakin was $31.4 million, according to analysis by the Super Members Council in 2022-23. The analysis also highlighted that that's $1.4 billion of lost super for workers in my home state of Victoria and a whopping $5.7 billion for workers across Australia. We're talking about a lot of money earned by workers owed to workers; it's not sitting in their superannuation accounts. It is an unacceptable and unsustainable situation. This is a problem we've known about for a long time. There has been report after report, including the 2020 review into retirement savings initiated by the coalition, and likewise. This is a well-known problem. The risks are increased when we're talking about small businesses with low turnover approaching insolvency and workers who are young and vulnerable, and we've seen the consequences play out in a very real way. Not only do we not have the wonderful magic of compound interest playing; we also have a significant loss of insurance coverage, which we've seen many cases of—for example, people not having the permanent disability or income protection insurance that they would ordinarily have, because contributions that were lawfully required to be made weren't paid. We've also seen situations where a person who may be eligible to withdraw their superannuation on compassionate grounds, such as upon the death of a spouse or dependent, have not been able to access super, because, once again, the money simply hasn't been put into the account. This isn't money that is given as a gift to workers; this is money earned, owed and part of their remuneration—and, unfortunately, on a mass scale, hasn't been received. These are debts that need to be claimed in a better, more efficient and effective way, and this bill provides that means. This bill is the commonsense approach. When I talk to people in my electorate, they wonder why the it hasn't already happened and why it isn't already the case that superannuation has to be paid into the worker's account at the same time as they receive their wages. After all, remuneration isn't a business credit facility. It's not there as a loan to pay for other expenses. It is a debt owed to workers. This legislation sensibly adjusts that, and I welcome the fact that at least that principle has been adopted by many people in the coalition. Unfortunately, as I walked past this chamber last night I overheard the contribution of the member for Goldstein, who decided to pop on the tinfoil hat, pull out the coathanger and start speaking in fluent crazy. He went on and on about serfdom and the fact that superannuation was some kind of a conspiracy by the Labor Party to line its own pockets. He said the pre-1992 position on superannuation was somehow more logical. Why? Superannuation did the daring thing of saying that working people had a right to a share in capital wealth. It was the idea that it wasn't just the wealthy or those lucky enough to be with certain employers who got the benefits of superannuation but every single wage earner in the country. It was one of the most important reforms to working life in the twentieth century—and they simply don't get it. I wouldn't be so bold as to presume that it's Liberal Party policy. We all know for a fact that the Liberal Party and the coalition have many different policies simultaneously at the moment, because they can't seem to agree on anything. But one of the saddest things about the member for Goldstein's contribution was that, if that is the sensible centre of the Liberal Party, God help us all! It shows that even their moderates have jumped onto the crazy train, not knowing where they're going. We find that superannuation remains something that causes them heartburn. They hate the idea that workers are in the system, somehow getting their place in the boardroom and taking their opportunity to take their fair share of the wealth of this great country. Superannuation is essential because it is compulsory—the fact that we are together saving for our retirements. We're not relying on the aged pension, which has never provided the quality of life we expect and hope for for our older citizens. In order to live a comfortable and decent life as an older person, as we live longer, as we grow as an ageing population, it's more essential than ever that we look after our superannuation system, we jealously guard it and we make sure all Australians have access to the dignified retirement that they deserve. Unfortunately, we've seen some immature debates around what superannuation is for. Is it going to be an alternative to fixing the housing crisis? Is it something that should be withdrawn at will at the last minute to pay for certain things? Is it something we have decided is essential for the saving of retirement amounts for all workers? I think it's the latter; I believe it's there to provide a dignified retirement to workers as they age. Most Australians agree. They know it's there, they value the system and they have received the benefits. In my electorate of Deakin, we've got an increasing number of people aged over 65 and a decreasing number of people on the aged pension. Superannuation is working. It is delivering a better quality of life for Australians all around the country at all income levels. It is doing exactly what it is designed to do. We can't afford to have any process or change that is going to undermine the accumulation of superannuation savings over time. But, sadly, that remains an item of contention from time to time in this House. Luckily, this approach, payday super, reflects common sense. From what I can tell, even from the amendments with the usual dose of nuttiness, there is at least consensus on the notion that payday super is a way of ensuring workers are getting the amounts they are owed and deserve, that we can safeguard some of our most vulnerable workers from losing the superannuation they've already earned and that we have better capability of enforcing against noncompliance with superannuation guarantee obligations. We've seen many, many occasions where unpaid super going over years is not being repaid. Workers, because of the way the information is delivered to them, can barely tell whether or not superannuation has been paid at a particular time, because they can't just pick up any old payslip and find out whether it's happened—so they find themselves in a situation where it's not being called out in time. By the time they find out they have not been paid, the company has either gone into administration or ceased to exist, and the capacity for that worker to recover either through the ATO or directly has completely expired. We need to get to the point where workers can be confident that the money they've earned has been paid. It is not a controversial ask. But, for some reason, as is often the case in this House, we are seeing some rather strange and eclectic contributions. Among them last night was the conspiracy about what super is—