Tony Burke

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Nicolette Boele

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), omit "members.", substitute "members; and".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), at the end of subsection 110ABA(2), add:

(e) 2 persons, each of whom is a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator but not a member of the Government or the Opposition.

In this year's federal election, Independents and minor parties received more votes than the Liberal-National coalition, achieving 34 per cent of the primary vote. While Labor would have us focus on their 94-seat so-called supermajority, only about 35 per cent of Australians gave Labor their first preference. This is no anomaly. This is a very long trend in Australian politics. In 1975, minor parties and Independents accounted for only four per cent of the primary vote. Fifty years later, the non-major-party vote of 34 per cent represents the highest recorded since the emergence of the two-party system. That's nearly a ninefold increase. This is the modern Australian political landscape—a third of the votes for Labor, a third for the coalition and a third for the rest. Understandably, the major parties do not like this trend, and, understandably, they would like the status quo to remain where the two major parties are the only voices in Australian politics, and this bill is evidence of that.

For good reason, the government is creating a parliamentary joint committee on defence, and the stated aim of the bill is to inject greater parliamentary transparency and accountability and oversight of Defence. In fact, I was very interested to hear the member for Fremantle speak on this bill last week. He seems to share my view in relation to the committee, noting it is important that, with respect to matters of national security and the national intelligence community, ordinary parliamentarians who are not members of the executive can have some visibility over these matters. These are worthy aims, and I am very much on board.

Other committees in this place have rules that not only allow but require crossbench members to be part of them. Membership of this proposed committee has no such requirement. It has no requirement that a member of the crossbench be included—members of parliament who the Australian people have entrusted with a third of their vote, the same as Labor and the same as the coalition. The bill provides only for government or non-government members. In fact, the appointment provisions are identical to the appointment provisions for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This means that, in practice, both the Intelligence and Security Committee and the proposed Defence Committee will never include members from the Australian parliament's crossbench.

There is something wildly arrogant about this—that when it comes to security and intelligence matters, when it comes to the defence of our nation, only Labor, Liberal and National Party members are considered qualified to weigh in; only major-party members are to be trusted to oversee these vitally important matters. This is despite the breadth of experience on the crossbench in relation to these matters—the member for Calare, for example, and the member for Clark. The member for Clark has been a lieutenant colonel in the Australian Army, has had senior management roles with an American defence contractor, has served as an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments and is a two-time winner of the Australian Intelligence Medal. That membership of the Labor, Liberal or National Party makes you more qualified than this to serve on a defence committee is preposterous. The defence of our country, the security of our citizens is a matter for the entire nation, not just those elected to major parties. My constituents and the constituents of every one of the 13 members of the crossbench in this place deserve to be represented. It's profoundly undemocratic. I fail to understand how it can be justified.

The amendment that I am proposing to this bill simply requires that one crossbench member from the House and one crossbench member from the Senate be appointed to the Defence Committee—simple, fair, democratic and entirely reasonable. To repeat, this is now a firmly established trend in Australia's voting patterns. At this year's election, 34 per cent of voting Australians—that's 6,150,000 people in this country—put their trust in independents and minor parties. That is 6,150,000 who wanted those candidates to represent them in parliament, in all aspects of the business of this parliament. Locking out elected members in order to protect the major-party duopoly does not pass the pub test. The duopoly ignores the reality of the Australian political landscape of the 21st century at its peril. I commend this amendment to the House.

Peter Khalil

I thank the member for Bradfield for her contribution. The government will not be supporting this amendment to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. The membership arrangements of this proposed committee reflect, quite rightly, the arrangements of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and the reason they reflect those arrangements is the success of the longstanding and well-respected PJCIS. It is a key model for the parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence which allows for effective, balanced oversight of defence matters by both government and non-government members. The selection of members of parliament is made in the same way as for the PJCIS—by the Prime Minister, who will select up to 13 members, non-government and government members.

Andrew Gee

I rise to support the member for Bradfield in her comments and in her amendment. This parliament operates on the principle that every representative comes here with an equal voice. The fact that, on certain committees, crossbench members are effectively being shut out is profoundly undemocratic and shows that it's the old political parties at work. This is a case of the major parties looking down their noses and sneering at crossbench members by suggesting that somehow we can have crossbench members on some committees but, when it comes to defence and intelligence, they are going to be shut out. I think it is disgraceful, and I think the Australian public expects that everyone comes into this place and gets an equal go and has an equal say. The fact that the major parties are trying to shut out crossbench members is disgraceful. It's profoundly undemocratic and it will not be forgotten on the crossbench. At some point, our friends on that side of the aisle and our friends over here are going to need the crossbench, and we will remember the condescension and the sneering nature with which you have treated the crossbench members when it comes to this legislation. We will not forget this.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.

Tony Burke

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring today:

(1) in the House:

(a) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting; and

(b) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until:

(i) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or

(ii) 10 pm; or

(iii) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm;   .at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 5 November at 9 am;

(2) today in the Federation Chamber, government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns at approximately 9.30 pm;

(3) the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 being debated in cognate with government business orders of the day Nos. 5 to 10; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

To explain to the House what all of that procedure means, firstly, the 6.30 rule still applies, so after 6.30 pm people who are not expecting to speak or not rostered on in the House certainly won't be required for divisions or for quorum calls after 6.30 pm.

Secondly, in this House, if you are rostered to speak on the adjournment debate, the adjournment speeches will still go ahead, but at 8 pm the House will not adjourn. The House will return to government business and continue on government business until 10 pm. The only circumstance where a minister might ask for it to go longer than 10 pm is if we've got a final speaker and they've got a few minutes left in their speech. Other than that, it would be a 10 pm cut-off, unless we end up with fewer speakers.

Thirdly, the Federation Chamber would also be continuing until 9.30 pm tonight, and the final thing is, instead of debating the seven bills separately, we would have the cognate debate that was circulated earlier today with respect to the environment legislation.

Alex Hawke

The coalition supports working on cup day—good idea, a very Australian principle. We'll all share the productivity gains we can make here in parliament. However, the government has constructed this motion with the cognate debate, which we do not support. We think inherently that the 1,500-page bill, or the five bills, should be debated separately for good reason—policy reasons—and, for a proper consideration in detail process, we will oppose this motion on that point only. But the rest of the arrangements are agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Andrew Wallace

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following:

(1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referred to the Federation Chamber;

(2) the bill being called on for debate upon resumption of the meeting of the Federation Chamber today at 4 pm, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and

(3) proceedings on the bill having priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today, and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following:

(1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referring to the Federation Chamber;

(2) the bill being called on for debate upon resumption of the meeting of the Federation Chamber today at 4 pm with the time for each second—

Milton Dick

Order! The member for Fisher will pause for a moment. The Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

Under standing order 45C, I move:

That order of the day No. 3 be called on.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Melissa McIntosh

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Senate has passed a motion to establish an inquiry, to be conducted by the Environment and Communications References Committee, on the triple zero outages of 18 September 2025, with the committee to report by 11 February 2026;

(b) the Senate has requested that its resolution on this matter be communicated to the House;

(c) on 8 October 2025, the Government blocked a motion moved by the Member for Lindsay to establish a select committee to be known as a House Select Committee on the Triple Zero Ecosystem to inquire into and report on the health of the triple zero ecosystem;

(d) the Opposition expedited the passage of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025 through the House upon a motion first moved by the Opposition; and

(e) the recommendations of the Australian Government review into the Optus outage of 8 November 2023 (the Bean Review) have still not been fully implemented by the Government; and

(2) requires:

(a) the Minister for Communications, as a House Minister, to fully cooperate with the inquiry and appear in person to outline in full her role in the serious outages that have occurred in the triple zero ecosystem; and

(b) that the Minister provide transparency around the failure of the Government to ensure that the legal obligations of telecommunications providers to enable emergency services calls at all times are met.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Lindsay from moving the following motion immediately:

That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Senate has passed a motion to establish an inquiry, to be conducted by the Environment and Communications References Committee, on the triple zero outages of 18 September 2025, with the committee to report by 11 February 2026;

(b) the Senate has requested that its resolution on this matter be communicated to the House;

(c) on 8 October 2025, the Government blocked a motion moved by the Member for Lindsay to establish a select committee to be known as a House Select Committee on the Triple Zero Ecosystem to inquire into and report on the health of the triple zero ecosystem;

(d) the Opposition expedited the passage of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025 through the House upon a motion first moved by the Opposition; and

(e) the recommendations of the Australian Government review into the Optus outage of 8 November 2023 (the Bean Review) have still not been fully implemented by the Government; and

(2) requires:

(a) the Minister for Communications, as a House Minister, to fully cooperate with the inquiry and appear in person to outline in full her role in the serious outages that have occurred in the triple zero ecosystem; and

(b) that the Minister provide transparency around the failure of the Government to ensure that the legal obligations of telecommunications providers to enable emergency services calls at all times are met.

Mr Speaker, people died when they couldn't call triple 0 during that Optus outage, and the Albanese Labor government has had multiple chances to come in here. We have moved amendments. We have suspended standing orders. We have reached out to the minister and offered our assistance in coming to a solution so that this never happens again. Yet the government and the Greens have teamed up to block increased penalties for telcos who do the wrong thing. We moved amendments three times. Three times the government had opportunities to increase those penalties from $10 million. We said it should be $40 million. They did a dirty deal with the Greens and now we're at $30 million. But we gave them that chance. This could have been done weeks and weeks ago.

Shame on the government for failing every Australian in this country and not holding telcos to account for their failures. The Albanese Labor government teamed up with the Greens and blocked each and every coalition amendment on the bill that would have forced those telcos to pay for their mistakes. They blocked the coalition's amendment for a public triple 0 outage register. They have, however, instructed ACMA to change the industry standard to require the telcos to publish this data, not publicly but on their own website—so, multiple telcos publishing their own outages. Do you think that's really going to happen?

These are the very telcos, like Optus, who failed to detect an outage for almost 13 hours and then failed abysmally at every turn to provide notifications of the outage to everyone. Every update that they provided to the minister, to her office, to the Department of Communications and to ACMA, the regulator, was wrong. How on Earth can Australians have their confidence in the triple 0 network restored when the Albanese Labor government is choosing to outsource this work right back to the very telcos that have failed to uphold it?

Even worse, the reporting mechanisms created by the triple 0 custodian bill are absolutely useless. The bill requires a report to be produced every six months by the new custodian and ACMA, but the reports won't be publicly available. People won't know what is in those reports. Both the coalition and Senator Payman called for this amendment in the other place, but the Albanese government and the Greens blocked both amendments. I, along with so many Australians, am disgusted at the actions of the Albanese government on this matter of protecting Australians.

Yesterday the Senate supported the establishment of a Senate inquiry into the absolutely catastrophic Optus outage that occurred in September. I moved a motion in this place three weeks ago that would have established a House inquiry that could have already been underway. Parliament has now wasted three weeks in getting on with the job. Those on the other side of the chamber chose to block that inquiry, despite its being supported by the coalition and the full crossbench. This is despite the Standing Committee on Communications, the Arts and Sport having absolutely nothing to do, as was revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday.

Rather than have common sense prevail and put the safety and wellbeing of all Australians first, this arrogant and transparency-phobic Albanese government have tried to dodge a bullet, but they've failed. The Senate inquiry established will use all its powers to interrogate not just Optus but also the Department of Communications, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and any other relevant and involved stakeholder.

Relevant stakeholders, I will point out, include the Minister for Communications. I expect that a request for the minister to attend a committee hearing will arrive very soon. I don't have to use any psychic abilities to foreshadow what will happen; I can guess that the minister won't be available. I think that's a pretty strong prediction. There will be some sporting event or international travel commitment that will prevent her from attending. They love scrutiny on that side of the House, which leads me to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025. You can duck and you can weave and you can stack the numbers in this place all you like. You can't dodge the Senate inquiry on this matter. I've no doubt that the government will try.

Just the other day, there were media reports on yet another triple 0 outage in Gippsland, Victoria. According to the ABC, a 70-year-old retired nurse discovered the triple 0 network outage after she attempted to call an ambulance when she had a fall. Her call, just like more than 600 calls back in September, failed to connect. Optus have advised my office that this outage was due to a site upgrade in the area. But what concerns me is the apparent lack of communication to the community that services may be impacted. People didn't know. In the current environment, after so many catastrophic failures, failures that have cost Australia, communication outages, planned or unplanned, should be at the forefront of every telco's mind.

When it comes to the Senate inquiry, it needs to be about the full ecosystem. The inquiry needs to ask the question: how can a telco receive millions of dollars in government contracts at the same time as potentially having to pay millions of dollars in fines for letting down Australians? That just doesn't stack up. Every single Australian will be asking how they can get away with that. The inquiry needs to look at every single telco and what they do to ensure the safety of Australians.

It is unconscionable that a human error within a telco could cause a complete failure where hundreds of people could not call our most essential triple 0 service. How can a process error cause such disaster? What is happening within these companies? Where is the accountability? How can ACMA, the regulator, be the investigator in this matter when they are caught up in the failed process? ACMA knew about the outage on the Thursday. By law, Optus had to alert them. Yet, the minister didn't know about the outage until the Friday. Multiple emails went to ACMA and to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, yet the minister didn't know. How can ACMA investigate itself? There needs to be a thorough independent investigation, which is what we on this side, the coalition, have been calling for all along.

More communication, not less, is required to ensure that every Australian is informed and can take appropriate steps to protect themselves. More needs to be done. What will it take for the Albanese Labor government and telcos to take this seriously and put the needs of all Australians first, protecting the triple 0 network from these outages? There is nothing more important, no other higher priority, for a government than to protect its own citizens.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Anne Webster

I second the motion. There are serious questions to be answered about the triple 0 outages on this government's watch, and, if the minister and government are adamant that they did nothing wrong, why not bring the Australian public into their confidence and share, through a proper and transparent inquiry, what they knew and when they knew it? The government has commissioned ACMA to stage an inquiry, but, as ACMA is part of the failed system, how can it be held to account if it is running the inquiry? Independence is the key here. ACMA's inquiry is not independent.

We must remember the gravity of the issue at hand. We're talking about the loss of lives—four lives lost. Shirking responsibility is not an option. The Australian people deserve to understand what went on, how the system failed and how it will be rectified to ensure this does not happen again in the future. The minister, the department and ACMA must all transparently explain, at an independent inquiry, when they were first alerted to an issue with the triple 0 connectivity and what actions they took. Serious questions remain about welfare checks and whether they were quick and comprehensive enough to identify the full scope of the problem early enough. Did the minister act appropriately in leaving ACMA to investigate, rather than herself swiftly acting on 18 September?

It simply is not good enough to hide behind Optus's indication about the scope of the outage, which, it turns out, significantly understated the problem. The key issue is notification of the problem, not the estimate of the scale of the problem. If someone reports a fire on their property and tells the responsible authority, 'It's okay; it's only a small fire,' do the authorities take that on trust and adopt a small-scale response, or do they deploy all available local resources to make their own threat assessment and prevent it becoming a disaster?

It is imperative that clear processes exist to ensure triple 0 outages are managed swiftly. There must also be resilience in the system to ensure it does not rely on a single point of failure—for example, a telecommunication company's incorrect estimation of the size of an outage. Triple 0 is the service that underpins all emergency service responses, and Australians need to have absolute confidence it is working. This is not the first outage on this government's watch but the second. And remember: this government sat on a recommendation to legislate a triple 0 watchdog, as per the Bean review, for 12 long months.

They also failed to adequately protect Australians from negative outcomes as a result of the 3G network shutdown, which occurred one year ago yesterday. We do not yet know the full scale of the fallout of that shutdown, with reports in the last week of the discovery of certain models of Samsung phones, which do not currently have triple 0 connectivity as a result of the 3G shutdown.

Regional Australians are acutely aware of how their mobile connectivity has deteriorated since telcos chose to turn off 3G on this government's watch. Many have been left with reduced or no connectivity as a result. No connectivity means no net zero—sorry, no triple 0, full stop. That was a very, very—

Pat Conaghan

It was on the mind.

Anne Webster

Yes, it is on the mind. Luck will not fix this Labor government's problem with transparency, timely action and responsibility. Australians want to know that when they call triple 0 they will connect; they want to know that the government understands their experience and will act to improve connectivity in the regions; and they want the minister for communications to take responsibility and take action to ensure this is the case. She needs to turn up to the Senate inquiry that will take place.

Michelle Rowland

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Zali Steggall

I move:

(2) Schedule 7, page 132 (line 1) to page 132 (line 13), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 7 — instant asset write-off for small business entities

Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997

1 Section 328-180 (heading)

Omit "to 30 June 2025".

2 Subsection 328-180(1) (definition of increased access year )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

increased access year: an income year is an increased access year if any day of the year occurs on or after 12 May 2015.

3 Subsection 328-180(4)

Omit "Temporary increase", substitute "Increase".

4 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d)

Omit "$20,000", substitute "50,000".

5 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d)

Omit "and on or before 30 June 2025" (wherever occurring).

6 Paragraph 328-180(5)(e)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(e) were a reference to $50,000, if the amount is so included at any time on or after 1 July 2023.

7 Paragraph 328-180(6)(e)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(e) were a reference to $50,000, in relation to a deduction for an income year that ends on or after 1 July 2023.

This amendment is in relation to schedule 7, in relation to the instant asset write-off, which was first introduced as a stimulus measure some years ago. It is a practical way to boost cash flow and support investment, but, over the years, it has become a vital business planning tool. The problem is there's no ability for business to actually plan with this tool because there is no consistency. Each year it's implemented it is prey to politicking and becomes a political football. And it has changed over time. Usually it is for a limited time, and the thresholds keep changing. It's now at $20,000. When it was originally introduced, it was actually $150,000, but now it's back to $20,000 and is drip fed with the legislation every 12 months to extend the measure.

The amendment I move is to make this instant asset write-off permanent so that businesses can in fact have the certainty of knowing they can invest in their business, in innovation and efficiencies, ahead of time. The amendment increases it to an amount that is actually meaningful for small businesses to allow them to actually invest and boost their productivity. We know that nearly four million small businesses rely on this, and they want this. They want this to be at the $50,000 mark, and they want it to be permanent.

According to MYOB, who assist so many small businesses, nearly 60 per cent of small business would support a permanent instant asset tax write-off because the uncertainty undermines the confidence small businesses need to invest in their business. So if the government were genuine in their desire to assist small business, it would accept this amendment, because we have been calling on the government to make this instant asset write-off permanent for sometime. In the last two parliaments, we've seen this kicked around like a political football, and the people paying the price are small businesses. They are the ones who cannot invest in their business with certainty because they don't know whether the legislation will ultimately pass. In the last term of parliament, it passed on pretty much the very last sitting day, which was only a short period of time before the end of the financial year and which meant there was no ability for a business to genuinely look to this measure to invest in their business and boost their productivity.

There is a high-stakes roadmap. At a time when Australia needs policy settings that help to boost productivity and growth, we should be looking at ways to enhance investment by local businesses. The proposal to extend this doesn't provide the certainty that businesses need. When the amendment was before the House in the 2023-24 financial year, leading professional bodies, including the CPA, the Tax Institute of Australia and the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia, all called for the instant asset tax write-off measure to be made permanent. Permanency would reduce red tape for business, government and tax agents. While the government deserves credit for continuing the scheme, it's time to stop treating this as a temporary fix. Small businesses need long-term certainty.

Also, the current $20,000 threshold does not provide the economic stimulus needed for small businesses to have confidence to grow and invest. That's why my amendment seeks to make the instant asset write-off permanent and increases the threshold to $50,000 so that businesses have got a meaningful ability to invest in their businesses. I commend the amendment to the House.

Andrew Gee

I rise to support the amendments proposed by the member for Warringah, and I commend her for bringing these very important changes and amendments to the House. It is no secret that small businesses have been doing it very tough right around Australia but particularly in country Australia. There are high interest rates, high energy costs, inflation and too much red tape. There is red tape seemingly at every level of government. There's the stress that our small-business people experience of having to borrow money and lie awake at night hoping that they will be paid so they, in turn, can pay someone else.

It is not easy being in small business, yet our small-business people are key to driving jobs, prosperity and growth in the regions and right around the country. The instant asset write-off is a very important measure to support our small-business people. It enables our businesses to make key investments to keep their businesses thriving, which has been very difficult lately, but it could be made better. This is what the member for Warringah has put to this House. She wants to improve this key piece of legislation and this key measure for small business.

At the moment, as members such as the member for Wentworth have eloquently pointed out to this House, the instant asset write-off has been a year-to-year proposition. Businesses have not had certainty that the instant asset write-off will be there from one year to the next. Because of delays in the implementation and the passing of legislation relating to the instant asset write-off, it has meant that some businesses just haven't been aware of it. Some businesses have missed the opportunity to take advantage of it. So it should be made permanent. By making it permanent, it allows businesses to plan their investment decisions. It would allow them to steer by the stars instead of navigating by the lights of each passing ship, and that certainty is a very important thing for small businesses right around the country. So I'm very supportive of that measure in the amendments.

I'm also very supportive of actually extending the instant asset write-off and increasing it to $50,000. This will allow more businesses the flexibility to make larger investment decisions and receive the tax benefits that the instant asset write-off brings. It will drive more growth and more investment and will actually help our businesses thrive. I'm very supportive of the amendments. I commend them to the House, and I implore all members of this place to get behind the amendments and back our small businesses—the engine room of the Australian economy.

Milton Dick

The question is that amendment (2), put forward by the honourable member for Warringah, be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fairfax be agreed to.

Zali Steggall

In respect of this bill, there is a particular schedule that I want to focus on, and that is schedule 7. Schedule 7 extends the 20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses to June 2026. What we are seeing, again, is this eking out, this drip feeding to small business the support they so desperately need year to year to year, rather than finally making this permanent. Rather than giving small business some certainty so that they can manage their cash flow and their commitments knowing that something has been legislated, what we've seen, during the last term of government and this term, is this constant uncertainty. I support the member for Mackellar's call in how we can help small business by having a 20 per cent tax-free threshold for small business and to make the instant asset write-off permanent, and I will come to that in a moment.

The instant asset write-off extension is welcome, but, again, it is too low and the government needs to provide certainty by ensuring that it be permanent. I will be introducing an amendment during consideration in detail, before the third reading, to make it permanent. I'd also like it extended to a level that actually reflects the needs of small businesses, that makes it meaningful in assisting them with their investment within their small businesses and their assets. We need to also ensure we are incentivising small businesses to become more effective and efficient, to reduce waste. Requiring energy efficiency and waste reduction in small business is an important part of this puzzle.

We know small businesses are the lifeblood of so many communities, and Warringah is the same. Recently, I've had the pleasure of meeting with local small businesses across Manly to discuss the staffing and other regulatory changes they are facing. Our local businesses are facing the perfect storm, grappling with higher costs, tight margins and slowing consumer demand alongside an inability to find workers to fill key roles. Whether it's a chef, waitress, landscaper, childcare worker or bus driver, across so many industries, businesses are struggling. The growing shortage of skilled workers is hurting our local businesses' ability to grow and serve the community. This is not just being felt in Warringah. It's being felt all across Australia but more acutely in regional communities, where small businesses drive local economies and the pool of available labour is even smaller. So you would think that they would come in this place or before the media and champion support for more skilled immigration and more workers to come in and support small businesses, but no. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

What small businesses have raised with me are concerns around the complexity and cost of the current visa process, the complexity of the tax systems for small businesses and the burden of successive legislation that's been passed by the Albanese government. Our skilled worker visas can take up to eight months to process, which is far too long for a small business trying to meet immediate demand and fill a role. Local operators have shared their concerns as well, with the GST threshold remaining at $75,000 for small businesses since 2007 without indexation, which has added extra burden as costs continues to rise. That compliance cost is something that continually small businesses raise. So, whilst this amendment to try and make this instant asset write-off again for one year is good, the government seems to be completely deaf to the concerns small businesses have and their continued challenge when it comes to meeting the administrative burden but also the additional cost.

We want to have a strong, ambitious and productive economy. We've heard a lot from the government and the Treasurer about that, but we're not hearing a lot about how to help small businesses achieve that. We need companies to be able to invest and innovate—companies of all sizes—but too often the ear of government is only for big business. They have that scale and ability to deal that small and medium businesses do not. So it was disappointing there wasn't a bigger focus in the Treasurer's productivity roundtable on how we're going to support small and medium businesses to innovate and invest.

I would say, respectfully, that the instant asset write-off levelled at $20,000 is just not going do it. It doesn't cut it. All that does is allow for the write-off of a small investment in an asset for a small business. It doesn't really allow a business to invest in better technology, significant sustainability or waste management, or innovation within a business. So what we need is that certainty and an instant asset write-off that is scalable to the challenge and costs that small businesses are incurring. If we want a strong, ambitious and productive economy where companies and small businesses are encouraged to invest and innovate, then we need to provide certainty, fairness and a regulatory framework that assists us, not shifting goalposts.

Anne Aly

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Whilst I support the bill in its entirety, it would be natural for me to focus on a part that is particularly important to my portfolio of small business, which is schedule 7. Schedule 7 extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off until 30 June 2026 for eligible businesses. What this measure does is make a real difference to 2.6 million small businesses in Australia. That includes 1.5 million small businesses that are sole traders and who are also benefitting and have also benefitted from our government's tax cuts.

As everyone in here knows—because I hear it head said often enough that people support small business in this House—small business owners are out there every day, and they're working hard. They're working hard to fulfil their dreams. They are your Indian grocer. They are the place you go to to get your eyebrows threaded. They are where you get your Vietnamese pancakes. They are the translators and interpreters who operate with an ABN. They fix your cars. They cut your hair. They cater your birthday parties. They resole your shoes. They help you with your tax returns.

An example of a small business is My Aunt's Handmade Noodles, which I visited the other day with the member for Reid and the local mayor in her electorate. This is a family owned business, run by a formidable mother and daughter duo, and they craft these handmade noodles using time honoured techniques. The passion and care that My Aunt's Handmade Noodles brings to each and every bowl of these perfectly chewy and flavoured noodles is a level of dedication that I see in the small businesses that I visit and that I meet with right across the country.

The Albanese government is backing small businesses just like My Aunt's Handmade Noodles to ensure that they have the support that they need to thrive, because we know that not only are they building a better life for themselves and for their families, but they are also building a better future for Australia. They employ locals. They train apprentices. They give young people jobs, and they keep regional communities alive. They sponsor local sports clubs, and they donate to school raffles as well. They are not just the engine room of the economy, as is often said; they are also often the beating hearts of communities. That's why our government developed Australia's very first National Small Business Strategy.

You would think that an intimate understanding of small business would necessitate a strategy that brings together all levels of government to look at how we can collectively support small businesses to grow and to thrive. You would think that this is something that would have been done a very long time ago, but, in fact, this was done by this government, the very first National Small Business Strategy, bringing together different levels of government and focusing on three key areas: levelling the playing field for small businesses, easing the pressure on small businesses and supporting small businesses to grow.

The extension of the instant asset write-off is a really key part of our commitment under this national strategy. What it means is that small businesses with an aggregate annual turnover of less than $10 million will continue to be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000. That's $20,000 per asset, not just once but right across the business. Let's have a look at what that means. What that means is that restaurants, cafes, grocers, hairdressers, tradies, accountants and small retailers can actually start to buy the equipment that they need today to keep their businesses going, today and into tomorrow. No matter where I go, when I speak to small businesses, the one thing that constantly comes up is how important the instant asset write-off is in helping them grow and modernise and the extension of the instant asset write-off, giving these businesses the confidence to plan, to budget and to invest as well.

For small businesses looking to grow, the instant asset write-off frees up cash flow so that they can purchase new equipment that allows them to expand their operations or open new locations. At a recent roundtable that I attended in the member for Swan's electorate, in Belmont, a group of small businesses there told me that managing cash flow was one of their biggest daily challenges. Really, that makes sense, doesn't it?

Andrew Giles

It does.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the House agree to the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume.

Tim Wilson

I move:

That the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment for consideration and an advisory report by 7 October 2025.

During the election, the Albanese government put forward a proposition and ran a successful scare campaign amongst the Australian community that there was a serious issue—that penalty rates across this nation were at risk. There was simply no basis to do so, but, since the election, the Albanese government has put forward legislation to bring effect to its scare campaign, to make sure that they can deliver on the basis on which they went to the last election.

We understand that. The coalition supports penalty rates, but there has been a fundamental problem since we have got to this point. The legislation which has been put forward to this parliament is sloppy and poorly drafted, and there has been very poor consultation with the Australian community. We have seen this. As an example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said:

This change is a backwards step and out of touch with the realities of a modern economy …

…   …   …

This Bill is at odds with the Government's plans to improve productivity, and instead injects more rigidity and complexity into the Fair Work laws.

When the minister was asked directly about the number of small businesses that will be impacted as a consequence of this legislation, there was no answer because there was no consultation and there was no consideration. We have heard directly from the Australian Industry Group, who have said:

This is badly drafted legislation that is going to make it harder for employers to employ people who want to work when it suits them.

It will reduce avenues for lifting productivity when we are about to convene … on how to lift it.

We have industry saying there is no consultation or engagement on this sloppily drafted legislation from the minister. We know a very serious and real impact is that it will undermine the capacity for Australians to get employed by small businesses, and, as we know, we have a much bigger challenge across the Australian community right now with the record number of business insolvencies. That could then have a direct impact, where we could see Australians lose their jobs because businesses no longer exist.

There is a simple reality. When you have sloppy legislation that is poorly drafted, where stakeholders are now directly calling it out, where the minister can't even answer how many small businesses this legislation impacts, where a regulatory impact statement has not even been completed by the minister and there is clearly no interest in doing so, it means at every single step of the legislation to this point we have had a minister incapable of doing their job and consulting with the industries that are going to be impacted. Ironically, the people that they claim they are going to assist and support as a consequence of this legislation are the ones most likely to bear the brunt of the sloppy work being done by this government.

It's simply a reality that we need a proper process to give due consideration to this legislation to remove the risks that are now being proposed as a consequence of the sloppy work of this government, because we simply cannot have a situation in this country right now where the government isn't on top of its agenda. But, in addition, there's this downstream impact where we could see Australian small businesses go into the Albanese government's sinkhole and, further than that, see jobs lost and lost economic opportunity. I'll keep making the point that there are no penalty rates applied to jobs that don't exist.

When you look at the broader economic environment that we have right now—you've seen the data—the number of small businesses is declining and unemployment is rising. Everything that should be going down is going up, and everything that is going up should be going down. This is the lived reality of small business. We should make sure they are fully considered in the conversation on this legislation. But, instead, the approach of the government is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, or see no small business, hear no small business, speak to no small business. That is the reality of the engagement this minister has had currently on her industrial relations legislation, and the impact is not going to be felt just by small businesses—although, of course, it absolutely is. Deputy Speaker Young, you understand the realities of small business very clearly. The impact is going to be felt by the workers of this country because they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the sloppy work of the Albanese government, who don't understand how to draft the legislation to bring their legislative victory lap to full effect.

There is simply a reasonable request on behalf of the opposition that, when we have legislation of this nature in the context of trying to change the laws around penalty rates and overtime rates, we have a reasonable process of consideration, consultation and engagement to bring small businesses and their voices into the parliament of this nation. It is so important. Small businesses in this country right now feel abandoned by this government. They feel they have no voice and no say in the national conversation. It's important that they have the opportunity to stand up and speak for themselves, to directly challenge the agenda of the government when they are not acting with any goodwill and to make sure that they have a pathway to be heard on the record of this nation. We are not getting that from this government. As I said, the minister has not consulted them successfully to date. She has not really even engaged with the sector to date. They are now raising their deep and abiding concerns about the legislation that has been put forward that the government is trying to ram through. They're trying to ram through the legislation because—believe it or not—they actually want to block workers from getting pay rises.

This whole process began because the retail industry applied to Fair Work to aggregate up penalty rate arrangements so that workers could be given a 35 per cent pay rise. So all those mums out there who work in retail during the week, but who don't want to work on weekends because they're supporting their families, and all the young students who might decide that they want to have flexible education arrangements, are all losing out because of the Albanese government. All we want to do is to give them a say by making a recommendation to the employment, workplace relations, skills and training committee for proper consideration of this legislation. It is a reasonable request, but we have sloppy work and sloppy legislation being put to the parliament. There is a time now where those voices need to be heard in this parliament. We want to make sure that we can stand up and give them their say in the nation's house and in the process of the legislation that is so important for the future of this country. We want to make sure that we're actually doing things to lift up and empower small business to be part of the success of this country. But if we see a situation where the government wants to silence small business—to silence those who would benefit from the economic opportunity of having terms and conditions that work for them—to silence and shut down any debate from the voices in this important issue, then we will see revealed the real face of the Albanese government once the mask has slipped.

We get that they have a political agenda; we completely understand. Of course they'll engage in their legislative victory lap after the last election. But Australian jobs, Australian wages and of course small businesses and their success as part of the foundation of the future success of this country are on the line. We are not simply going to allow the government to trample over and ignore proper process, including the sloppy drafting of the legislation by the minister. We simply want a process where a committee can go off to look at the legislation and give it due consideration: socialise it with the community, look at the reality of what it is going to do and, more importantly, seek the feedback and counsel of small businesses across the country and bring those voices into this nation's parliament.

It's a simple proposition, and I would have thought that if the government were so confident about their legislation—if they believe their legislation is so good and that it's going to do exactly what they think it is designed to achieve—they would of course support the process. Why wouldn't sunlight be the best disinfectant for the legislation put before the House? That is why we table this here; to bring in the voices of the future to the parliament of this country. That is what I think members in this parliament should want as well. I want to make sure that the members of this parliament have the opportunity to enable and mobilise the small businesses of this country to be able to have their say into the committee process as well. That's because we are on the side of empowering Australians to do the best they can. If it is your first job—your first opportunity in the workforce—and if you want to see a lift in the standards of wages and work, then we want to back you in as part of the bigger conversation. We want to see your success tied to Australia's national success. When we win, we all win.

So the legislation before the parliament right now still needs work. I understand that the minister wants to ram it through the parliament and doesn't want to go through the process of inquiry—probably not in the House or the Senate, but who knows what goes on in the mystical land of the red chamber! But it is so important that we have this process right now, because the sloppy drafting that the stakeholders have raised raises really serious issues about what needs to be done so that we can protect Australian jobs, Australian small businesses and, of course, penalty rates and economic opportunity for this country.

I'm just going to draw attention again to the realities. The Australian Retailers Association, who wanted to give workers a 35 per cent pay rise, made the case that it would remove flexibility in wage negotiations and introduce additional cost complexities and administrative pressures. Retailers argue that many workers prefer consistent, reliable income rather than complex penalty structures, and that modern agreements which include higher base pay offer stability and simplicity without sacrificing take-home pay.

The Minerals Council, once they saw the legislation that came out of the vault from within the government and the drafting process, before the minister had socialised or consulted successfully with anybody to the point where anybody would have highlighted its significant short comings, reflected:

The government's changes will reduce productivity and compromise Australia's competitiveness in global export markets. The laws are also becoming a decisive material factor in whether new projects proceed or not—

Again, the difference between whether you get a job or not—

and whether billions of dollars in investment capital is invested in Australia or elsewhere.

This is simple. I would have thought, if the government so believes in their legislation, they would have no problem sending it off to a committee to have the proper consideration of the legislation. All we want to do is make sure that Australians have their say in the laws that come before this parliament.

We had an election. We're respecting the fact that of course the government has a right to go on. They've run their scare campaign, and they've succeeded in it. They're now trying to implement it. Let us be realists. That is, make sure that you do no harm in the process of implementing your scare campaign and that we actually do things to back Australian workers and jobs so that we have the pathway to bring in Australian voices, small businesses, into the conversation when the minister wants to shut them out.

As I will go through again, the Australia Industry Group's own observations, 'This is badly drafted legislation that is going to make it harder for employers to employ people.' When you get that sort of language from employer groups saying that it is going to be harder to give people jobs, give labourers jobs, allegedly the people that the Labor Party claimed they represented—today it's not really clear who they represent, but that's a separate issue and a topic for another day—the reality is, when you get that sort of language and that sort of clarity, what you get is a reflection that they do not understand what they're doing. I get they've their political priorities. It does not mean 'Hear no business, see no business, speak to no small business.' We want them to be part of the conversation.

Now is the time for them to turn up. Now is the time to stand up and support our simple recommendation of inquiry, and I'm quite sure that the gaggle of Labor members appearing in the chamber, including the Leader of the House, is of course because they are going to come in here and support an inquiry to back their legislation.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Tom Venning

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Long debate text truncated.