Rowan Holzberger's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm sorry—the honourable member for Goldstein. I appreciate that there was a bit of a lesson there. That's what happens when you run out of something to say in a 15-minute speech. I...
I'm sorry—the honourable member for Goldstein. I appreciate that there was a bit of a lesson there. That's what happens when you run out of something to say in a 15-minute speech. I thought, 'Well, this is good; he's clearly run out of things to say, so we're going to get an insight into how you handle a speech when you don't have anything more to say.' But, unfortunately, we went on a bit of a kaleidoscopic journey into the honourable member's mind. Looking at the point in his speech at which I'd refer people to in the future, if they ever wanted to get a bit of an insight into what happens when somebody panics, go to the 10-minute mark and you'll be completely entertained. I'm not sure there's anything of substance to respond to in his contribution as part of this debate, but I would very much like to support the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. At first glance, it may not stir immediate passion. It is an uncontroversial bill. It enjoys broad support across the parliament, including from the opposition parties—all of them—and other members in the parliament. I think this bill is a reflection of the calm and methodical approach to economic and financial reform that this government undertakes. Just as this government has approached superannuation reform through the changes to the payday super, and just as we're addressing failures like First Guardian and Shield, this bill approaches digital assets with the same careful consideration and pragmatism that shows that this government is about governing responsibly and ensuring that Australians are protected while the Australian financial system can innovate and grow. The name Sam Bankman-Fried will bring to the minds of tens of thousands of Australians the idea of pain and loss. When the platform FTX collapsed in 2022, many ordinary Australians—not sophisticated investors—lost life savings. In fact, the collapse of a financial product or something financial that someone believed in has a devastating impact on someone's life. I received a letter from a constituent about the collapse of First Guardian. It illustrates why we need to undertake this sort of essential reform. It will take a bit of time, but I'd appreciate it if the chamber would bear with me. It read: 'I'm writing to you as an ordinary Australian, a low-income earner, a layperson. I'm not writing with fancy words or legal knowledge. That's not who I am. Please don't just read my letter and then move on. Please use your position to speak up for the people who are in these situations through no fault of their own. Below are two superannuation scenarios I have personally experienced. My son worked for a company for about five years. That company chose not to contribute to his superannuation account. So, when my son resigned and moved on to another position, he realised that his guaranteed superannuation contributions from his employer had not been paid. He then had to put the hard work in to try to recover what is rightfully his for his future. To date, none of those contributions have reached my son's superannuation account. Scenario 2: my partner and I have lost a portion of our superannuation due to the First Guardian Master Fund collapse. We now have to do the hard work to try and get it back. In 2022 we paid an adviser to look after our superannuation accounts. That appears to have been a very costly exercise—fees, a big mistake and loss. We are the ones now paying for the actions and inactions of others. We have lost years of savings and security, and we continue to lose. We are being punished for trusting the system that's supposed to protect us. We are not wealthy people. We don't pretend to be. We live by our means, and every dollar in our superannuation accounts means a lot to our future. As small as it may seem to others, it is all we have for our future. I'm tired, angry, frustrated, sad, broken, and genuinely don't understand how these scenarios can take place. I live with ongoing mental health struggles and have done for years. I've had two hospital admissions this year and, yes, our superannuation losses have certainly added to my struggles. My partner worked for Woolworths for 25 years in warehousing, and he has to face every day knowing that a portion of his superannuation is gone. This is also unfair and genuinely cruel. The innocent parties need to be compensated and the governing body needs to go after those responsible to recover what's owed. Instead, it looks like we are heading into the festive season with a big, dark cloud hanging over our heads. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.' Her words tell us better than anybody else's in this chamber why consumer protection and trust is central to this bill. This is not abstract policy. It affects real people's livelihoods and retirement savings, and it affects confidence in the financial system. Collapses of digital asset platforms such as FTX and of superannuation funds like First Guardian and Shield demonstrate that we are now operating in a new and evolving financial world where technology changes faster than the law. Innovative financial products carry risks that ordinary Australians may not fully understand, and this bill is designed to respond to that reality. It provides the minister with powers to adapt quickly to technological change, ensuring that rules remain fit for purpose. Reflecting on my own journey in entrepreneurialism gives me some insight into what is happening here. My first business was as a contract musterer. 'Business' is a very fancy way of describing it, because, really, it was a ute and a bike and a couple of dogs and the will to win. But it taught me something essential about entrepreneurialism. I say sometimes that it's about creating something out of nothing. But it's not nothing; it's many things—many disparate things—which are put together so that the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. It is about as far removed from the financial world as you can get. It was only later, when I became really interested in small business and entrepreneurialism in sales, that I really started to learn about what the financial system meant. I set up a little business. I never purported to be a genius or an expert, but I wanted to learn how to sell, so I set up a little sales training business, under the maxim that the best way to learn is to teach. We moved to the Gold Coast, and I ended up doorknocking along Scarborough Street and Ferry Road in Southport. I got a real estate agent, a hairdresser, a telemarketer, a second-hand store owner, an aquarium owner and a mechanic, and through that process I learned a great deal about business and entrepreneurialism. Another client I got was a mortgage broker. That was in about 2005, just a couple of years before the global financial crisis. The financial system had become increasingly complex. Mortgages were sliced and diced and bundled into products that were so opaque, but the ratings agencies deemed them safe. In Australia, we had things like low-doc loans, but they were better described in the United States as NINJA loans—no income, no job or assets. When that system collapsed, it destroyed the livelihoods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, and it brought the world to the edge of financial ruin. Some historians like to say that capitalism began with tulips—but not literally, of course. The Dutch tulip mania of the 1630s was one of the first times that people bought and sold assets purely for speculative profit. Single bulbs were sometimes traded for more than the price of a house, and, when the market collapsed, fortunes were lost. That lesson is timeless. Markets can be exciting and innovative, but, without clear rules and protections, consumers are exposed to unacceptable risks. This bill ensures that Australians participating in asset markets have safeguards against such catastrophic outcomes. That experience also provided a lesson about how money works and how the economy functions. Working with a mortgage broker at the time, I got really interested in the financial system and I learned a little bit about how it all works. The most fascinating illustration was the story of goldsmiths and how they would be safe keepers for people's gold. They would take in the gold. They soon worked out that not everybody was coming back to take all of the gold out at the same time, so they could lend that gold out and earn interest on it. By lending that gold out, they were able to provide loans to merchants, farmers and entrepreneurs, and they fuelled trade, business growth and investment, creating more credit, leading to more economic activity, and creating jobs and wealth. Businesses with credit could expand, improve goods, services and infrastructure, and benefit people. But, if too many deposits were demanded at once, the system collapsed—just like the GFC and FTX—and ordinary people got hurt. So, without clear rules, customer assets can be exposed and customers can be left devastated. This bill addresses that risk, setting clear rules, custodial standards and licensing obligations so that Australians' assets are protected while also allowing innovation to thrive. Crypto is a bit of a mystery. I am no crypto bro. It is not easily understood by many Australians. Despite its glamour and appeal, I don't believe it is quite as revolutionary as what the goldsmiths were able to create with the beginning of the creation of credit. But it does represent a further evolution of the financial system. It's got the potential to make business cheaper and improve productivity and efficiency by lowering the costs of financial transactions. The benefits are significant. The Tech Council of Australia previously estimated in 2022 that supporting a responsible digital asset sector could add up to $60 billion a year to GDP by 2030. It suggested that digital assets could reduce retail payment costs by up to 80 per cent by 2050 and save consumers around $4 billion annually in transaction fees. So, while this does not rival the original development of credit in its impact, it has got the potential to further enhance the way financial systems operate. That's why clarity is essential not only for consumers but also for operators. At present, that clarity is lacking. ASIC's taken a number of enforcement actions, but the outcomes of those actions have been varied and, according to legal analysis, they have provided only limited guidance to the industry. The Australian crypto sector has raised concerns that an apparent regulation-by-enforcement approach has not been a fair or efficient way to resolve uncertainty. Fragmented regulation has increased compliance costs, created barriers to market entry and in some cases inhibited investment and innovation, and it also makes it hard to work out what a business has to do, while leaving gaps for ordinary consumers. This work fits within the government's statement on an innovative Australian digital asset industry. One of the other things raised in that statement is the problems around debanking, which occurs when a bank declines to provide banking services or withdraw those services from existing customers not because of wrongdoing but because of perceived risk. Businesses have accounts closed with little notice, and digital asset businesses are commonly debanked due to regulatory uncertainty. This digital asset bill addresses all of these risks. It requires digital asset platforms to hold proper licences to segregate customer assets to meet minimum custody standards so that Australians can innovate and invest in crypto without gambling their savings. Digital assets are no longer a fringe curiosity, and so I recommend and support this bill.
Tim—I think the honourable member for Goldstein, having come into the same class as me in 2025, showed the experience of having been in a previous class as well.
Defence Properties | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring the future of the defence estate, and what will this mean for defence capability?
Queensland: Infrastructure | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to deliver the infrastructure Australians...
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to deliver the infrastructure Australians need? What other approaches to infrastructure are there?
Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise in support of the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. I am just looking around the chamber. I am not sure that anybody who is here this morning had the...
I rise in support of the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. I am just looking around the chamber. I am not sure that anybody who is here this morning had the absolute experience of sitting through the member for New England's speech on this bill last night. Even people who have been here for a long time, who are used to the long rollicking performances that the member gives, may have been a little bit stunned by some of the things which he mentioned. Apart from the fact that it could be characterised as an impassioned speech against multiculturalism, it managed to somehow drift from the Inca empire to calling Australian workers 'lazy'. But I think, fundamentally, he missed completely the point of this bill, which is: it is not about saying which employers are good or bad but about saying whether or not an employer is accredited to be a sponsor for a skilled visa. Hopefully, that might allay some of the concerns that the opposition has about this bill. I would urge them to reconsider their opposition to this bill and support it. Or maybe it was the member for Riverina, who very typically said people in the city don't understand what it is like to work in the bush. But I know, Deputy Speaker Claydon, that you and I both worked in the bush, we both worked on farms and we spent a lot of our time out in there in the sticks. And we know that, by and large, farmers are really just trying to do their best and that most of them are trying to do the right thing. But as is always the case with government programs—with immigration in particular—the public needs to have some sort of comfort that we have control over how it's working. So allowing the public to know that employers out there are being held accountable for their part in the arrangement gives some sort of comfort to the whole community that the system works. Because, as the member for Mallee said in her contribution, migrant workers aren't an option; they're essential. In order for that to proceed, you would think that the opposition would support this bill to give the sorts of guarantees which people in the Australian community are looking for. Ultimately, despite all of the other contributions, it was the member for Nicholls who really belled the cat on where the opposition are coming from in this, when he criticised us raising the TSMIT—which, at a quarter to 10 in the morning, might be a little bit more of a conversation than it was going to be at 7.30 last night when people were ready to go home. The TSMIT sounds all very complicated, but it really just means 'temporary skilled migration income threshold'. It may have been replaced now, but it means that that's the amount which an employer has to pay in order to bring in a skilled migrant. From 2013 to 2023 it remained at $53,000, and the member for Nicholls criticised the government for lifting it. We lifted it to where it would've been had it kept up with CPI to about $70,000, and he said that it had soared. He characterised that it had somehow got out of control and had now made it uneconomical for companies to bring in overseas temporary migrant workers. I think that really does show where they are coming from here. I would hate to characterise it as a deliberate feature of their economic architecture to keep wages down, but they said it themselves. And it makes me think that maybe they want to use temporary migration as another part of the architecture to keep wages down. Because, if you're keeping the TSMIT down at $53,000 and if you're saying to employers that they can bring people in from overseas to work for $53,000, you are keeping wages down and you are suppressing wages. It makes me think that they are deliberately trying to do that in so many areas, but in the most despicable way. They are out there causing division and beating their chests about migration while, at the same time, wanting to bring in workers so that they can be, effectively, exploited in order to drive down the wages of all Australians. The reason why this issue is so important for the Labor Party is that, in many ways, this is the history of the Labor Party. This is our origin story—combating migrant exploitation. The member for Moreton said it much more eloquently than I could when she described the process of bringing in South Sea Islander workers during the late 1800s. She said that the people not only lost their wages but lost their lives. I could be corrected, but I think she also said something like 30 per cent of the people who were brought into that unthinkably horrible operation lost their lives due to European diseases. So it was from both stopping that outrageous practice out of the sense of justice that working people have but also protecting the wages and conditions of Australians that the Labor Party was formed. That was our birth. And here we are 150 years later still fighting the same fight against forces that are more concerned about the dollar than they are about justice or Australian workers. It is in our DNA to stand up for workers who have been brought to this country, for two reasons: (1) some employers are just trying to get that cheap labour and (2) the opposition will do anything they can to drive down wages and conditions. Here we are, 155 years later—the latest example is a young woman who came into my electorate office, having been exploited at work. She had come here to work in aged care and had become involved in a dispute regarding the workplace treatment, and, acting as a union delegate, she was dismissed. She believed that her dismissal was related to advocating for her workplace rights and is now pursuing a claim in the commission. She was somebody who was working 12 hours a day and being paid for six hours a day. It is like a modern horror movie. It's something that—I'm sure none of us here can imagine what it is like to be in Australia on a temporary visa, working as a virtual slave for an employer that is humiliating you, that is degrading you and that is hanging over your head the threat of whether or not they remove your visa and kick you out of the country that you have come to love and that you want to make your life in. None of us can appreciate what that is like. It must surely be terrifying. When we came to government in 2022, like in so many areas, we inherited a burning wreck of a migration system—a burning wreck that had failed in family reunion and that had failed in skilled migration—and the government commissioned the migration review, which I was very happy to be a part of. Having worked in the community for years, making a statement like 'burning wreck' doesn't really convey the pain and pressure that people were placed under because of a poorly resourced department and also because of poor policy. It was that awful mix of poor legislation and poorly applied legislation. The migration review, which I was very happy to be a part of locally—I remember we organised local businesses and community leaders and local multicultural leaders to feed into that process. Arising out of more than just that process and arising out of Labor's deep commitment to protect the rights of migrant workers and to protect the rights of us all—protecting the rights of migrant workers protects the pay of everybody in the community, which might sound self-evident to us, but those on the other side know that, if you undermine the wages of migrant workers, you undermine the wages of the whole community. Coming out of that philosophy, we commenced that migration review, and, coming out of that, here are some of the measures, in this bill. There are two things here particularly—the whole point of this legislation is to create a register so people like the young woman that came into my office will be able to easily search for another employer who is able to continue to sponsor her. That's essentially what this bill does. This bill also builds on previous bills which crack down on unscrupulous employers. This is where I think—I really do want to be bipartisan as much as I can in this place, but here there is a fundamental difference of values and philosophy. This is probably the best example of the hypocrisy of the opposition—they beat their chest a lot about law enforcement, but they don't fund it. On a slightly different topic of the NDIS, the measures that we've introduced around the NDIS to crack down on fraud mean that we are now reviewing more claims every day in the NDIS in one day than the previous government did in a year, which is an example of the sort of chest-beating that we've come to expect from the opposition, who talk a tough game but are completely missing on the field. Just as it is with migration, they are out there constantly beating their chests, but they totally underresourced the Australian Border Force. They totally undercooked the legislation to allow the Australian Border Force to crack down on unscrupulous employers. Yet again that burning wreck, that smoking wreck of a migration system left to us—it's in their DNA to turn a blind eye to the companies that are doing this. It's left to us to fix it. In fact, that 2019 report from the Migrant Workers' Taskforce recommended tougher penalties and a better resourced Australian Border Force—and what did you think they did? Absolutely nothing. They sat on their own report and left it to us to clean up the mess. In summary, this bill is the latest in a long line of measures the Albanese Labor government has undertaken to put out the bin fire that is our migration system. The hypocrisy of the opposition is exposed the most when it comes to migration. While they are out there stoking division and people's fears, they benefit from a system where people come in and get exploited because they can drive down the wages and conditions of Australian workers. These changes are the latest in a long line of Labor Party initiatives stretching back 150 years, where the Labor Party has stood up for Australians by standing up for the Australians who come here to work and who come here to make a life. This government has brought in new measures to crack down on dodgy employers. We've raised the income threshold under which you can come into Australia on a skilled visa. This bill makes it easier now for that young woman who came into my office, desperate to stay in Australia but also desperate to fight for the rights of the workers she left behind when she was sacked, to find an employer who is properly accredited and who is going to sponsor her dream. The opposition are out there talking about mass migration. They're out there marginalising already marginalised communities. They're out there punching down on some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They should take a good hard look at themselves. The result they got at the last election will be the result they get in future elections because they are now talking to the fringe. The real Australia out there that believes in justice and the Labor Party that has always believed in justice is the community that won't tolerate an opposition that washes its hands of looking after the most vulnerable in our country.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975: 50th Anniversary | Statements on Significant Matters | House debates
I rise on the 50th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act and think that it's a reflection really on how far we've come as a country that it's been 50 years since it was put in place. I...
I rise on the 50th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act and think that it's a reflection really on how far we've come as a country that it's been 50 years since it was put in place. I know from growing up with a name like Holzberger that, even though I might like look like a lot of the kids that I grew up with, just having a name can invite ridicule, teasing and bullying. And while I guess I took it, in most cases, with the sort of humour with which it was intended, it didn't feel great and it did make me feel excluded. I can just begin to imagine what it must feel like for people in the community who might have a different accent or different skin colour. The brutality of that reality for people means that there is a role for government when it comes to passing laws on that. So I think this was something, 50 years ago, that really shows that even though we've come a long way there's still a lot to do. It reminds us that 50 years ago Australia was really coming out of that White Australia policy. And it's remarkable to think that I, now at the age of 52, was born so close to that period in time. It's been a great thing for Australia. Before I conclude, I've got to say that the one thing I never thought I would appreciate so much as a federal member of parliament is going around to school assemblies, particularly primary school assemblies, in Forde, a very multicultural electorate. Seeing all those little kids with different coloured faces and different shaped faces all looking up and singing the national anthem has got to be the most moving thing I have experienced as a federal member of parliament. Multicultural society makes us stronger and all the better for it.
Mental Health Month | Statements on Significant Matters | House debates
I spoke on this yesterday in the Federation Chamber, but I think a longer speech gives me the opportunity to go into this in a little bit more detail. On a light note, the moustache which I'm....
I spoke on this yesterday in the Federation Chamber, but I think a longer speech gives me the opportunity to go into this in a little bit more detail. On a light note, the moustache which I'm. now proudly displaying is 26 days old, I think. It's actually thanks to my friend next to me, the member for Hunter, who encouraged me to raise awareness and funds for men's health but particularly for men's mental health. If the camera were able to look around this chamber, there are three of us sporting moustaches. It's important that guys who don't normally like to talk about their health or situation feel encouraged to do so. I guess my own experience with mental health is informed by where I grew up. I have the great privilege of representing the electorate of Forde now in Logan, in the northern suburbs of the Gold Coast, but I'm a Broken Hill boy at heart, a country boy. Broken Hill is a mining town like Gladstone. It's a mining city, actually, and it is working class to its bootstraps. The men and women out there are tough, hard-working and salt of the earth—everything that you would expect about Australians when you think about Australians. The men are tough working-class men. Even though it's 1,400 kilometres or so away from where I live now—even though the geography is different—the demography is the same. People in Forde are tough working-class people, men and women, trying to do their best, trying to get ahead and putting themselves last so often. When I think about growing up in Broken Hill, I think of two guys who would be my age today if they were still around, but they're not still around. It's been a long time since I've been back to talk to their families, so I won't use their last names, but I'll use their first names. Anybody who knows who I'm talking about will know them—Benny and Jezza. Benny was this magnetic kid with this cheeky smile. When I became interested in politics as a young person, the New South Wales government had come to power and was cutting education. This was back in 1988. All of us who were aware of what was going in politics were getting really outraged, and somehow we managed to foment a school strike. I remember that Benny was one of the people really encouraging me to lead the strike. Benny couldn't have cared less about politics. The last thing Benny was interested in was what was going on with student-teacher ratios. Benny wanted a day off! Benny was just this tough kid with this natural gravitas that attracted people to him. And it was because of Benny getting behind me, and pushing me, that he and I marched up to the principal and announced that we were going to have the school strike. Well, for me, it was a school strike; for Benny, it was a day off. Benny was an amazing character. Jezza was from the same group—we were all sort of southies in Broken Hill. Jezza was a different kind of guy. If you didn't know him very well, he was a quiet, gentle bloke. But jeez, he loved to laugh, and he was the sort of mate you would go into the trenches with. Despite how good they were, Benny and Jezza took their own lives. This is not uncommon in working-class communities, and it's not uncommon amongst men. In many ways, the only thing worse than talking about suicide is not talking about suicide. The reason why it's so important to look at the impact that it has on men is that something like 75 per cent of suicides are men. As much as it is a men's issue, the people who bring it up with us when we're going around in our communities are generally the mums, the wives and the daughters, who are concerned about their man's mental health. Men are usually the ones least likely to bring it up themselves. It is so important for us as a parliament to do what we can as leaders in our community, but also collectively to shine a light on the scourge that is male mental illness. There are a lot of reasons for why it might happen. I think Australia was a much more egalitarian country when I was growing up in the '80s. We were more equal. There was this commitment to mateship that you don't hear a lot of these days. And I think that through the '80s—through economic rationalism, through privatisation, through chasing the dollar rather than community—we moved away from that spirit of doing things for the sake of other people, and we've been left poorer as a society for that approach to economics. When I'm talking to young people today, one of the reasons that they cite for their mental health—I mean, look at the state of housing. It's bad enough when we see it, but imagine trying to grow up in a world where this is the world you're going to come into after high school. So it's tough on kids and it's tough for other reasons too. One of the things that I for some reason had a look at was past royal commissions. There was a royal commission into television back in the 1950s that was looking at whether there would be multiple stations, whether there would be one government owned station, whether television would run 24 hours a day, whether people would pay for licences et cetera. One of the submissions that went into that royal commission was that television would destroy communities, and in many ways they did. Television took people away from those community experiences and stuck us in lounge rooms, gathered around the box. But social media has done that on steroids. Look back at television now. At least there was some shared experience. Now we are completely chopped up into little tiny slices in our bedrooms, separated from family, separated from community, all getting some sort of message through social media. The stress that this puts on young people—and older people as well—has got to be one of the reasons that mental health is so bad, is such an epidemic in our community. But I think that, despite the problems that exist and the problems that in many ways are getting worse, there are real solutions out there. I think the best example of that would be MATES in Construction. Some know, I'm sure, but it started somewhere around 2007 when suicide rates amongst male construction workers were way above the community average. Because of the work that they've done, they've managed to bring suicide rates down to about the community average amongst male construction workers and, the way that they're going, it's going to be less than the national average. So something is going on. They are doing something right. So often it is just one conversation that makes all the difference. It is just a few sessions with a trained professional that makes all the difference. Without having that one conversation, without putting somebody in the right direction, not having that conversation can have catastrophic consequences for the individual and catastrophic consequences for the family. There's so much more to do. The moustache will be coming off on 1 December, but the work will continue, led by the Special Envoy for Men's Health, who we're lucky to have today—led by a position the first time that it exists in the Commonwealth. (Time expired)
Labor Government | Adjournment | House debates
My first adjournment speech in my first last sitting week of the year is giving me a chance to reflect on what I've learnt over the last six months. I have tried to employ a very simple...
My first adjournment speech in my first last sitting week of the year is giving me a chance to reflect on what I've learnt over the last six months. I have tried to employ a very simple philosophy in the electorate that I am privileged to represent, and that is to listen, to fight for what I hear and to deliver for our community. To that end, we've been doorknocking most weekends of the year. Our team have been out there, knocking on doors. I've been organising house visits. We've been holding community barbecues. The sorts of issues I'm hearing are that people are still doing it really tough. It's been a crisis, in many ways, as our housing minister says, 40 years in the making—not just in housing, but in energy, training and so many areas. I think that this government is beginning to turn it around. I think that we are really beginning to deliver. With Medicare, I've never seen, in all of the time that I've been a participant or an observer of politics, one single policy have such a massive impact as that policy to provide incentives to everybody for a GP to bulk-bill. That has meant that, in the electorate of Forde, we went, overnight, from nine bulk-billing clinics to 20—more than doubling the number of clinics. That number has gone up to 21, and that number is only going to continue to rise. I've never seen a policy so successful. I believe that housing is my No. 1 priority in Forde. That is where people are really doing it the toughest, and this has been a failure of policies, as our housing minister says, over 40 years in the making. A complete lack of federal government investment in public housing like we used to has created the problem that we have today. Our post-war economic miracle was very much based on cheap public housing and cheap public energy, and, over the last 40 years, the federal government really has left the field and left people to struggle with what we have now. But we are delivering, and I am delivering in Forde, some very practical policies—policies like the five per cent deposit; policies like the Housing Australia Future Fund, which has already built almost as many houses in Forde in one year as the coalition built in 10 years; policies like they Help to Buy scheme; policies like getting behind the building 100,000 houses just for first home buyers; policies like getting behind National Cabinet's objective of 1.2 million homes to take that pressure off. They are the sorts of policies that this government is delivering in communities like mine. Cost of living is, without doubt, something that housing is a part of and that health care is a part of—not just housing and health care. Cost of living—I can see the member for Hume shaking his head at me and my speech tonight. Member for Hume, I'm shaking my head at the policy that you took to the last election—a policy to bring taxes up on Australian people. When that happened, member for Hume, that's when I thought I had a chance of winning Forde, by the way. That was the very day I thought, 'Hang on, they can't seriously be going to repeal the tax cuts?' When you did, that's when I thought, 'I've got a chance here.' It's not just tax cuts; it's energy rebates and it's cutting down HECS by 20 per cent. When we cut, we're about cutting the cost of living for people. It's things like the real wages growth. I think we've had eight consecutive quarters of real wages growth. That replaced your five consecutive quarters of cutting real wages. Ultimately, the world that I grew up in, in the nineties, was a much different world to the one we have today. The home town I came from, Broken Hill, when I went back there in the nineties, had an unemployment rate of over 20 per cent—Depression-level unemployment. Today, it's different. We've got work. We've got employers screaming out for workers. But, again, a failed system of training has meant that Labor is now playing catch up. That's why things like free TAFE are helping both people get the skills that they need to have a good life and employers employ the workers that they have. There's a lot to do. I'm listening to workers and fighting for workers and people in our community, and this government is delivering. (Time expired)
Movember | Constituency Statements | House debates
I'd like to start with a light hearted observation about what I've got between my nose and my lips at the moment. I think we're about 24 days into Movember now, and this is what I've got! But, on...
I'd like to start with a light hearted observation about what I've got between my nose and my lips at the moment. I think we're about 24 days into Movember now, and this is what I've got! But, on a serious note, it is there to bring attention to men's health and, especially, men's mental health. My experiences are very much informed by where I grew up—Broken Hill, in outback New South Wales. It's a mining town—mining city, really—of about 25,000 people. It's a working-class environment to its bootstraps. It's tough, and it's really there that my early experiences of mental health were born. Even though Broken Hill is 1,400 kilometres away, according to demographics it's not much different to the area that I represent now—tough, working-class people and tough, working-class men. There are two friends that I remember very much growing up with, and I'll use their first names, because I haven't talked to their families for a while. Jezza and Benny were the rough, tough kids. Benny was probably one of the people that really sparked my interest in politics in many ways. When we had a school strike, Benny was the one who was up there encouraging me—not that he cared about the politics behind it all. He just wanted to have a day off! But he had that real, natural leadership, that natural gravitas, that carried people with him. Jezza was slightly different. He was really quiet and just a lovely bloke. And neither of them are here anymore—my age. People say we shouldn't talk about suicide, but I think the only thing worse than talking about suicide is not talking about it. And why the focus on men? I think it's because 75 per cent of suicide victims are men. If we can improve the opportunities for people to access mental health care for men, we will improve those opportunities for everybody. In fact, maybe it's typical of blokes that the people who most often bring mental health support for men up with me are women—the mums, the sisters, the daughters and the wives. In the last 20 seconds that I have, I will say that there are lots of positive things we can do. Look at MATES in Construction. In 2007 or so, when they started, the suicide rate of men in construction was way over the national average. Today it's at about the average, and it's going down. So there are things that can be done. There are some timely interventions that can be made. I think the Albanese Labor government's investment in mental health care, particularly in the Medicare mental health clinics, is really going to hold us in good stead.
Student Debt | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to build a better and fairer education system, including helping Australians with student debt? What...
My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to build a better and fairer education system, including helping Australians with student debt? What other approaches have been put forward?
Medicare | Private Members' Business | House debates
I rise to speak against the motion this morning. My neighbour the member for Bowman is actually the mover of this motion, and it just proves the old adage that you can choose your friends but you...
I rise to speak against the motion this morning. My neighbour the member for Bowman is actually the mover of this motion, and it just proves the old adage that you can choose your friends but you can't choose your neighbours, because I feel as if I would like to offer a little bit of political advice. Maybe they're better off not talking about this issue. Maybe there needs to be a little bit of self-reflection here, because when it comes to the reason people are finding it difficult to access health care today, it is because of the policies that they presided over for more than nine years. The member for Bowman mentioned a woman who has to come deep into Logan to access a bulk-billing doctor. Perhaps that's because in Logan, on the northern Gold Coast, we managed to increase the number of bulk-billing clinics overnight from nine to 20. That's more than double, and that number has only gone up. That was overnight, between Friday night and Saturday morning. Now we have gone up to at least 21, and that number is going to continue to rise. So I would suggest the member for Bowman direct more people to Logan because that's where they are going to find it. He won't need to, because that's not the only place this constituent of his is going to be able to find a bulk-billing doctor; that number is going to continue to rise in his electorate as well. The opposition whip mentioned that we have been in power for 3½ years and it's time that we took responsibility. We are taking responsibility for the solution—if they won't take responsibility for the problem. When I was campaigning in 2021 for the seat of Forde—unsuccessfully, mind you—and in 2022 we all noticed that bulk-billing was beginning to ebb. You could see that one clinic had decided to stop bulk-billing, and then another clinic. You got the sense that this was the beginning of a landslide, which did happen. Unfortunately, as we came to government that landslide came crashing down, and while it came crashing down as a result of the policies of the former government, thanks to the practical incentives for kids and pensioners, we have now begun to turn things around. In Queensland, for instance, as a result of those incentives, we have gone from a bulk-billing rate of 73.6 to 77 per cent. After 3½ years we are taking responsibility and we are turning it around. The member for Casey made the misleading claim that Albo heartlessly cut, from 20 to 10, the number of mental health appointments for which you could access assistance, but I think the point needs to be made that the 20 visits was a temporary measure due to COVID, just like the bulk-billing rate was artificially high due to COVID, as people got their vaccinations. That underlines the point that the collapse was even greater, because that number was kept artificially high as people sought vaccinations. The real problem was masked by that fact. We're talking about mental health, and, in Forde, we've not only invested in the Medicare mental health clinic in Logan but also upgraded it since the last election, and we'll be opening up a new one on the northern Gold Coast. In terms of responding to what the member for Cook had to say, unfortunately there wasn't anything I could find that merited responding to. I'd underline the fact that this is a problem 10 years in the making, and it's turning around. I visited the Holmview clinic and the Bannockburn clinic, and there are a list of other clinics that want to get me out there, as the local member, because we have, in the words of one clinic, saved bulk-billing. One clinic had bulk-billed for 10 years, and it was going to stop bulk-billing, and, had these new incentive payments not come in, it wouldn't have been able to continue bulk-billing. Only Labor has Medicare at its heart. Only Labor protects Medicare. While Peter Dutton was voted the worst health minister in history, perhaps those people voted too early, because there's one health minister that has the dubious record of having never approved an increase, and that's the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government helping deliver cheaper, reliable energy for Australians? Are there any risks to our energy security?
Health Care | Statements by Members | House debates
I remember some advice that Peter Duncan, the former member for Makin, gave me ages ago: with politics, you come into it and you think you're going to change the world, but it's actually really...
I remember some advice that Peter Duncan, the former member for Makin, gave me ages ago: with politics, you come into it and you think you're going to change the world, but it's actually really about the changes you make for individuals at a constituent level. But every now and then a policy comes along and it's such a great honour to be a part of it that actually really does change the world—that's the incentives that the government has introduced for bulk-billing. I have never in my time in politics as an observer or as a participant witnessed a policy have such an immediate and positive impact as this one. I had the great pleasure of being able to ring around the clinics in Forde the other day. Out of 45 clinics, we started off with nine bulk-billing on Friday, but on Saturday that number had gone to 20. That was an increase from about 19 per cent to 43 per cent overnight in the clinics that now bulk-bill. That's more than doubling the number of clinics that bulk-bill in Forde. I'd like to say thank you to Dr Danish and Dr Murtaza at the Holmview Doctors and Skin Cancer Clinic, who showed me around and told me that they were just waiting for something like this to come in to be able to fully bulk-bill. They know that, in our community, people need full bulk-billing. They know that, in our community, working families won't go and see the doctor if it means that they have to pay for it, because it's either that or feed your kids. This is a measure that not only relieves the cost-of-living pressures but improves the health of our community.
Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025. In preparation for this, I have said that title a number of times out loud and in my head, and I stumble over the word 'regulatory'....
I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025. In preparation for this, I have said that title a number of times out loud and in my head, and I stumble over the word 'regulatory'. It's difficult enough to say the word, let alone complete the task. When you're a businessperson or an individual dealing with government bureaucracy, regulation is confounding, it is constraining, it is a break on productivity, and it is very annoying, to say the least, on a personal level. I'm reminded of the story I came across years ago of the young kid watching their grandmother cook a leg of lamb in a saucepan. He observed that the grandmother would chop off the end of the leg of lamb, put it in the saucepan and then cook it. It would be, of course, delicious, as all of those meals were. Years later his grandmother came to visit his house. She observed him cutting off the end of the leg of lamb, sticking it in the saucepan and then cooking it. She said, 'Why did you bother cutting off the end of the leg of lamb?' The grandson said, 'Well, that's what you used to do.' She said: 'Yes, but the only reason I used to do it was so that it would fit in the pan. You've got a bigger pan. You don't need to cut it off.' So often, regulation is just like that. It is about doing something which, at some time in the past, made sense but doesn't make sense anymore. And it is about looking at things which have become almost tradition but, really, when taking a second look, have become entirely superfluous. It is something that I came across when I was in small business for myself. I used to run a small contract-mustering business in western New South Wales, where I learned that idea about personal responsibility and creating something out of nothing. Entrepreneurialism really is that—it's about taking what you have and forging ahead to create value for yourself and for the people in your life. I then took the lessons that I learned there, when we moved down to the coast, and I ran a construction company in Beenleigh. The same spirit of entrepreneurialism and creation is something which almost all entrepreneurs are seized by, but the most frustrating thing is dealing with unnecessary government regulation. As we go into the future, I think it is something that becomes more important to look at—that the regulations that are in place actually have some purpose and that they are about helping businesses and individuals rather than constraining them. Particularly as our economies move into the future, there is a need for us to move quickly as individuals, as businesses and as a country. That's why I commend this government for the work that it has done over the years but, more particularly, for the work that it did around the economic roundtable. We were lucky enough in Forde to host our own economic roundtable, thanks to Anne Nalder from the Small Business Association, and I heard time and again that people were frustrated by government regulation. It is something which held them back in their businesses, held them back from employing people and held them back from providing a service to their customers. We were able to take some of those local examples and feed them into the national economic roundtable. Let's just step back and reflect for a moment. Paul Keating often spoke about the moral purpose of economic reform. He argued that policy is not just about efficiency but about fairness, dignity and opportunity. This bill carries that same vision. It recognises that government is a servant and not a master; regulations are tools and not obstacles; and the goal is a system that protects, empowers and enables. Paul Keating might have also said that trying to navigate government services is like trying to do a crossword puzzle with half the clues missing while riding a roller-coaster. Now, thanks to these reforms, Australians can solve that puzzle and keep both feet on the ground. Of course, it's not just businesses that are going to be advantaged by this bill but people too. We all have frustration dealing with government departments or, indeed, with private bureaucracies; everyone these days seems to want us to get onto a web portal and do their paperwork for them. This bill does deal with some of the personal problems, the individual problems, that people face when dealing with a government department. Think about somebody called Robert living in Logan. He relies on Medicare and Centrelink to manage his family's health and financial needs, and for months he has been owed Medicare benefits. In fact, something like $270 million in total is owed to nearly a million Australians who are in his situation. The problem is simple: his Centrelink bank details are up to date, but Medicare doesn't have the same information. Today, under the current system, he could wait weeks, even months, to get these funds—if he knew he was owed anything at all. With the changes in this bill, the so-called 'tell us once' approach will allow information shared with one agency to be available to others, meaning that he can get the money he's owed without repeated phone calls, multiple forms or frustration. But, of course, he is not alone. Linda, a resident at the northern end of the Gold Coast, fled domestic violence. She has had to update her details with multiple government agencies: her new address, her child's name and her bank account. Today, every form she fills out is a chance for delay or an error—a potential stressor, when she should be focused on safety and rebuilding her life. This bill allows for her details to be updated once and shared securely across relevant government programs. In practical terms, it means that she spends less time repeating herself and more time supporting her child. Take the healthcare provisions in this bill. The time frame for accessing multiple diagnostic imaging services has doubled, from seven to 14 days. Think about Simone, another young woman living on the northern Gold Coast, referred by her GP for both an X-ray and a CT scan. Under the old system, if she missed one appointment she had to go back for another referral. That wasted time, travel and stress is now gone, with this bill's changes. She can complete that imaging without unnecessary repetition, allowing her to focus on her recovery rather than on paperwork. For people in outer suburbs, where GP visits can take quite some time, this is not a small improvement; it is a transformative improvement. One of the most important reforms is the 'tell us once' system. Currently you have to tell multiple government agencies the same information. It's like being stuck in a loop with your own life story, over and over again. There are real examples of benefits available through this bill, such as healthcare identifiers. Digital sharing improves care and outcomes. For seniors, cards can be reissued automatically after overseas travel. Regarding childcare subsidies, simplified language encourages vulnerable families to apply. On fuel and energy security, companies can respond more flexibly to disruptions. These aren't abstract numbers; they're real and tangible improvements in people's lives. This bill reduces unnecessary burdens across government. For example, marriage celebrants can now use secure digital documents instead of chasing paper. It means fewer trips to offices, less stress and, frankly, fewer opportunities to lose your sanity. Agencies can share information more effectively in projects like offshore gas development, which streamlines processes and reduces costs. So, for families and businesses in outer suburbs, this is a real win—less paperwork and more time for work and family or, if you're lucky, a chance to just have a cup of coffee without feeling guilty. This takes a whole-of-government approach. It isn't piecemeal tinkering. It amends 28 acts and repeals two, and it affects 13 agencies. Government is a complicated machine. You can't oil just one cog and expect the engine to purr. This is orchestration, not patchwork. By coordinating reforms across departments, this bill ensures consistency, efficiency and coherence. It's a recognition that change works only when the system changes together, like a well rehearsed band. Everyone needs to play in tune. This bill boosts productivity. Less regulatory friction means businesses can invest and operate efficiently and families can spend more time doing what matters. For Logan, for the northern Gold Coast and for outer suburban and regional areas, small and medium businesses drive local employment. This bill will help them grow without losing the protections that keep employees and consumers safe. So today is not just another day of legislation. Today is a step forward in how our government serves the people and the small businesses of this nation. especially those in the outer suburban communities, like Logan on the northern Gold Coast. This bill is about making government work for Australians rather than Australians working for government. When we talk about regulation we really need to ask: Is this fit for purpose? Is this fit for the modern time? Why do these rules exist? What should they achieve? Yet we know that, if a law or rule exists for its own sake or because it has always existed, it loses its meaning, like cutting off the end of a leg of lamb. Entrepreneurialism is the way of the future. Deputy Speaker Chesters, your advice the other day about ringing up Medicare clinics in our area was something that I took very much took to heart. It was about not waiting for the bureaucracy to tell us when the local GP clinics had taken up the government's bulk-billing incentive. It was about getting out there and doing it yourself. It was about getting out there and using your own skills to create something of real value. I now have a list of GPs in our area which have taken up the incentive. The number of GP practices in our area that are bulk-billing has in fact doubled, by the way, and we now have that list and are able to give it to people in our community. It is something that has created value for them. It is something that we have done outside of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy will get there in the end. I'm sure they'll do a more accurate and thorough job than we have, but taking that spirit of entrepreneurialism—which you did lead, Deputy Speaker—is something that I think is an example of the future of Australia. It is the future of work as we become less dependent on the old ways and less dependent on the recipes that we got from our grandparents, as successful and timely as they were. It is a recognition that people are now going to have the opportunity to create their own future, and the less regulation that gets in the way, the better. This is only the start, so to anybody who thinks of opposing this bill: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is about continuous process. This is the first in a series of regulatory reform bills that will improve productivity across government and the economy. I commend the bill to the House.
Economy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
That's right. That is what they are calling a spree. But in one year—and I will say it is in one year—we have built more houses in Forde than the opposition built in almost 10 years...
That's right. That is what they are calling a spree. But in one year—and I will say it is in one year—we have built more houses in Forde than the opposition built in almost 10 years of government across the whole country. I say one year because they spent two or three years trying to hold it up because they saw it as a spree. Finally, in skills and training, we have free TAFE, which the opposition said people would not value because it is free. When I was working on farms I learned that with the right skills you can fix everything. As I am sure the member for Riverina knows, with a bit of silicon and fencing wire, you can fix just about anything. And it turns out that with the right skills you can even fix the broken skill system that we were left with after the opposition gave it to us. The thing that Australia has which is our most valuable resource is not underground but on top of the ground. It is the people of this country. With the right skills you can skill up and you can get a return on that investment and that is what all of these things are—they are a return on an investment. They are carefully calculated, methodically thought through returns on the investment that we will see for generations to come. Do you know what really costs? Doing nothing. That is the bill that you do not get until after the election. Because when governments do not invest it is Australians who are left to pick up the tab. There are just some things that it is better to do collectively, for the government to invest in. Health care is one of them; otherwise, you end up with a health system like the American system, where it is every person for themselves. Public housing is another one of them. Skills and training is another one of them. While the Australian people are sick to death of privatisation and economic rationalism, for some reason the opposition wants to continue with that failed policy. There is a role for government investing in the economy, just as there is a role in the good management of a company investing in its plan and its people. The opposition say if you do not pay for it, you do not value it. But if you cannot afford it, you are locked out, and the country suffers.
Thank you. When I gave my first speech in the House, I said that I don't have political heroes, but I've got plenty of sporting ones. One of my greatest heroes is Dean Jones, one of the greatest...
Thank you. When I gave my first speech in the House, I said that I don't have political heroes, but I've got plenty of sporting ones. One of my greatest heroes is Dean Jones, one of the greatest batters ever to play for Australia. There were times when you were watching him, where the poor bowler was being hit all over the park. They must have been thinking, 'There is nowhere we can bowl to this person.' That's exactly what it is like watching the shadow Treasurer bowl up to the Treasurer of this country at the moment. That's exactly what it must be like when they have to come up with an MPI every time. Where can they hit the government that is so focused on the Australian people, so focused on their game, while they're divided on themselves? Where do they hit it? So today they've come up with the words 'spending spree'. Let's have a look at what is meant by a 'spending spree'. To me, a spree is something you do carelessly, throwing around money frivolously on things that don't matter. But, when the opposition say, 'Spend less,' what they really mean is, 'Invest less.' I've run a small business, and it's been an enormous privilege. You learn quickly that there are two ways to run a small business: either you invest in your plant and your people and build something sustainable, or you strip the profits out and run the business into the ground. Running a country is like running a small business: you can slash and burn, or you can build and invest in your people and your future. Let's look at what we're investing in. We are investing $8.5 million in Medicare. One of the most profoundly moving experiences that I have had in politics was this week when we were ringing around the GP clinics in Forde. We have only got to about three-quarters of them so far but already we have found out that it is going from seven bulk-billing clinics to 15 overnight. I have never in all of the time that I have been either watching or participating in politics seen a single policy with such an immediate impact as this one. It saves Australians money, improves our health, helps the economy, supports families, but it costs money. Let's look at housing. There is $43 billion invested in housing.
Labor Government | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
When I saw that I had an opportunity to address this MPI, I opened up the email and I couldn't believe my luck. I thought, 'You've got to be joking!' because, if the opposition reckoned that...
When I saw that I had an opportunity to address this MPI, I opened up the email and I couldn't believe my luck. I thought, 'You've got to be joking!' because, if the opposition reckoned that we're the ones not governing for all Australians, then they either haven't been watching what's going or have been watching their favourite television programs a bit too much again. But they certainly haven't been listening to people out in the regions, where I come from, and in the outer suburbs and suburbs, so maybe I could tell them what is going on. We've just opened our 90th Medicare urgent care clinic. That's 90 places where mums and dads and pensioners and battlers and everyone in between can walk in and see a doctor and walk out without paying a cent—bulk-billing, no drama. There's one in the northern Gold Coast in the suburb of Oxenford, and there's one in Logan at Browns Plains, which I hear is one of the busiest in the country, because it's our people that really need this sort of help the most. And there are more urgent care clinics on the way. Compare that to when the opposition were in government. They watched bulk-billing collapse. They starved Medicare. They abandoned Australians who were at most vulnerable. This government, though, stepped in. We tripled the bulk-billing rate for pensioners and for kids, and now we're extending it right across the board. That's governing for everyone. Health care is just one part of it. Let's talk about housing. I spoke about housing the other night in here, about how, back in postwar Australia—really, the foundation of the economic miracle that was postwar Australia was Labor and Liberal state and federal governments working together to build housing, create jobs and lay the foundation for this country's postwar miracle. They weren't mucking about with culture wars and cheap shots; they were rolling up their sleeves. In fact, I like to surprise people a bit when I say that one of my economic role models is actually Thomas Playford, the longest-serving premier in Australia and a Liberal. It's a bit of a surprise to some people I know. Playford understood something that the current opposition don't understand, which is that you build public housing not out of the goodness of your heart but to keep the cost of living down, to give workers a roof over their heads and to help business by keeping wages manageable. Housing is the backbone of productivity. It was inspiring to hear the housing minister, this week, talk about housing being the Labor project of our generation—from five per cent deposits to Help to Buy, where the government is going to share the equity to dramatically slash the cost of entry into the market; to supporting National Cabinet's ambitious but necessary plan to build 1.2 million homes, 100,000 of which will be earmarked for first home buyers; and to undertaking the biggest public housing program in a generation to build more homes, making it easy to buy a home and making it better for renters. It's the same story with energy. Back then, post war, governments built the energy networks. They made sure that power was cheap and reliable not just for households but for businesses as well, to help manufacturing and local industries. That's how manufacturing was built in Australia. Now we're investing in renewables, backing cheaper and cleaner power because it's good for the environment and it's good for business. Australians don't want yelling or finger pointing. They just want progress. They want a government that puts people first, and that's what we're doing. Whether it's free TAFE, the 20 per cent cut to HECS debts, cheaper child care, cheaper energy or backing in local manufacturing, we're not just governing for some; we are governing for all. Here's the bit that gets up the nose of Australians the most; it's the sheer negativity and the divisiveness. Every time we bring forward a policy, whether it's on health or whatever, those opposite just say no—no alternatives, no vision, just no. Well, guess what? You can't build a nation on no. I say this to the opposition: genuinely get involved, change tack, back in these policies and take a hint from the last election. The invitation is there. Let's work together, like we did in postwar Australia. If you're actually interested in governing and not just grandstanding, let's put Australians first, because all Australians want is results, and that's exactly what we're delivering—for pensioners; for parents; for apprentices; for the outback, where I come from originally; for the outer suburbs, where I'm privileged to live now; for the inner city; and for everywhere in between. Spare us the lectures. Take a good hard look in your rearview mirror at your own record.
Housing Affordability | Adjournment | House debates
During the election I said that housing is my No. 1 priority. That's for two reasons. First, housing is one of those basic human needs. Once you have met it, it gives you the literal space to...
During the election I said that housing is my No. 1 priority. That's for two reasons. First, housing is one of those basic human needs. Once you have met it, it gives you the literal space to become the person that you were meant to be and to do the things for your community that only you can do. Without a roof over your head, nothing else is possible. The second reason is that there is no greater impact a government can have on the economy than providing affordable housing. It really twigged for me in a casual conversation that I had about 20 years ago, when somebody told me that public housing was to be built around a meatworks in Brisbane to provide affordable housing to workers. That one conversation sparked an interest, and I went on to learn that the postwar economic miracle of Australia was achieved through two things: cheap housing and cheap energy. It was state and federal Labor and Liberal governments working together to build Australia. It's largely forgotten now. But, before World War II, in the heart of Australian cities, there were great slums. Look at those genteel inner-city terrace homes today and just remember that, before the war, three or four families would be jammed into each of them—and those families were the lucky ones. Governments knew that it just wasn't good enough for our veterans to come back from World War II and live in slums, and so that was one impetus to build affordable housing. The other impetus was the economy. It was to provide cheap rent not just for vulnerable people but for workers. It's easy to think that cheap rent means more money in people's pockets to spend in local businesses, and, sure, that's important. But the economic benefit is much more profound than that. The real economic benefit is that cheap rent means wages don't need to be so high. That helps attract business. In fact, it's how the car industry, for example, became an industry. Public housing came to Australia. Public housing was built around car plants. One of the greatest proponents of public housing was the South Australian Liberal premier Thomas Playford during World War II and for 20 years after it. He put into the charter of the South Australia Housing Trust that it would aid in the economic development of the state. By the 1990s, over 40 per cent of every rental in South Australia was public housing. Now that number is half. Nationally, public housing was about 20 per cent of every rental at the start of the nineties. Now it's about 10 per cent. On the Gold Coast, public housing accounts for about five per cent of every rental. You wonder why we have a housing crisis! I don't want to play the blame game, because, like the Minister for Housing said, this problem has been over 40 years in the making—so it's both sides of politics. But it became the most extreme in the nine years of the former government, when just 373 social and affordable homes were built. The only way out of it is for all political parties to work together again, just like in postwar Australia. I'm sure the National Party wants to do it. Joh Bjelke-Petersen was famous for building public housing—for saying to mining companies that they could have their lease, but they'd need to develop towns like Moranbah and Dysart. So I implore the other side of the House: change tack. Let's work together. Support the HAFF—the Housing Australia Future Fund—which is undertaking the biggest public housing program of a generation. Support the expansion of the five per cent deposit program. Get behind National Cabinet's ambitious but necessary target to build 1.2 million homes, 100,000 of which will be for first home buyers. Get behind the Help to Buy program, in which the government will partner with buyers to share the equity and dramatically slash the cost of entering the market. Support measures which will help make life better for renters. Like the housing minister said, housing is the Labor project of our generation. But wouldn't it be even better for our grandkids if they could look at us and say that housing was the project of our generation, from all political parties—just like we look back on the postwar generation, who worked together across the parties to literally build Australia and who set us up for decades of economic prosperity. House adjourned at 20:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Mascarenhas ) took the chair at 10:30.
Cost of Living | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare while easing cost-of-living pressures for Australians?
Albanese Government: Economy | Statements by Members | House debates
The Albanese Labor government has achieved something positive that you just won't read about in the economic textbooks. I've always believed that you need to run the economy like you run a...
The Albanese Labor government has achieved something positive that you just won't read about in the economic textbooks. I've always believed that you need to run the economy like you run a business. Having run businesses, I've learnt that there are two ways to run a business: you can invest in your plant and your people or you can strip out the profits and run the business into the ground. The Labor way is the better way, and that is to invest in your plant and your people. Now, the figures speak for themselves. A couple of weeks ago, in the same week, interest rates came down, unemployment came down and real wages went up. When I was studying economics in a country high school in the 1990s we were told that's not supposed to happen, but it did happen, and for two reasons: because of the economic policies of the Albanese Labor government, led by the Treasurer, and, more importantly, because of the hard work of the Australian people. We know there is still a lot of work left to be done, but in this government we are focused 100 per cent on the cost of living and the economy. By doing it the Labor way—investing in our infrastructure and investing in our people—all Australians will enjoy the benefits.