Terry Young

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

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (line 5), after "that you", insert "acquired after the commencement of this section and that you".

(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (line 7), after "superannuation interest", insert "acquired after the commencement of this section".

Like everyone, I was pleased to see that the government bowed to coalition pressure to remove the unrealised gains measure in this bill, along with introducing indexing of the $3 million threshold. Australians rightly raised serious concerns about the proposal to tax unrealised gains—in other words, taxing people on money before it was even earned.

The title of this bill speaks of a stronger and fairer super system, but the key questions Australians will ask is: what exactly is fair about changing the rules after people have already made long-term decisions based on the rules that existed at the time? Australians plan their financial futures over decades. They work hard, save diligently and structure their retirement based on the frameworks set by the government. When governments change those rules after the fact, it undermines confidence in the system. Let me be clear about one thing. Most Australians will never have $3 million in superannuation. Sadly, that includes me. That is not really the point of this debate. The point is whether Australians can trust that the rules they plan their lives around will remain stable. Stability creates certainty for investors which inspires confidence. Ask any fair dinkum Australian how fair it is to move the goal posts after people have structured their entire financial future under one set of rules only to have those rules changed later on. We have a bill here that penalises hard-working and aspirational Australians—farmers, small-business owners and others who have worked for decades to build their retirement savings. Many of these people have made financial decisions—

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Sorry to interrupt the member. There's far too much noise. The conversation level is too high. I ask people that, if they want to have conversations, to leave the chamber, or sit quietly and listen to the member for Longman.

Terry Young

based on the rules that existed at the time. For some, those goal posts have been shifted right as they approach retirement.

Another concern is the precedent this sets. If a government begins changing the rules after people already have made long-term financial decisions, it creates uncertainty across an entire system. Today it might be superannuation. Tomorrow it could be investment properties. One day it could even be the family home. If we're going to change the goal posts for people during their working career, then maybe we should change the rules for members in this place elected before 2004 on the defined benefit scheme. If it's about fairness, this shouldn't happen, but, if it's about revenue raising and saving taxpayers money, then it should be done even though it would be unfair to those affected. Australians expect that when they make decisions set by government that those rules will not be simply changed after the fact. Regardless of the amounts involved the principle must remain. The government should not change the rules halfway through the game.

There are also economic consequences to consider. If people believe the rules around superannuation can be changed at any time, confidence in the system will erode. Many will choose to move their money elsewhere, including offshore, rather than invest in super. If that occurs the policy may well have the opposite effect to what it intended to achieve which is higher tax revenue created by a higher tax rate percentage. If investment shrinks the net result will be worse. A higher percentage of a lower number is worse, not a better outcome. Last time I checked, 40 per cent of zero is zero.

If we are talking about fairness, then fairness must apply in practice. That is why I've moved this amendment. My amendment will simply ensure that existing superannuation balances are grandfathered. Australians who make long-term financial decisions under the current rules will not have those rules changed on them retrospectively. Under my amendment, the legislation would apply only to new superannuation arrangements created after the law comes into effect.

This amendment is a litmus test on whether this legislation is actually about fairness or whether it's simply a revenue grab to repair the economic damage created by this government. If the legislation is really about fairness, then protecting those who made decisions under existing rules should not be controversial and my amendment would be agreed to. If, however, this measure is simply about raising additional revenue, then this amendment will not pass. Sadly, I suspect it'll be the latter because at its core this proposal is not really about fairness at all. It's about raising revenue to deal with the consequences of out-of-control government spending.

I note that this amendment does not remove the suggested low-income superannuation tax offset which I, of course, support as anything that assists low-income workers in this cost-of-living crisis is welcome even though they will not see the benefits now when it is needed but in the years to come. Anyone who votes against this amendment will show by doing so that this bill is not really about fairness and is instead about revenue raising. Australians expect fairness. They expect stability in the rules that government their financial future. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.

Daniel Mulino

The government opposes the proposed amendment. The legislation is about making the superannuation system fairer from top to bottom. The amendment would effectively mean that pre-existing interests would not be subject to the policy, which is inconsistent with the policy intent. This bill is already designed to apply only to future earnings, including by providing capital gains tax adjustments for APRA funds and self-managed super funds, or SMSFs, for pre-commencement capital gains. This is just another attempt by the opposition to undermine a stronger and fairer superannuation system.

Milton Dick

The question is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Longman be agreed to.

Anne Aly

I move:

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

(1) government business order of the day No. 4, Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, being debated in cognate with government business order of the day No. 5, Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026; and

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

Cameron Caldwell

This is a regrettable step by the government. We know that these are extremely consequential bills.

Steve Georganas

Order. The member will resume his seat for a moment. The Chief Government Whip?

Joanne Ryan

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question is that the question be now put.

Angus Taylor

I move:

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

(1) the Member for Hume presenting a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour;

(3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.

The standing orders must be suspended to allow me to introduce a bill today, without delay, because this issue is urgent and must be resolved today. We must be clear-eyed about threats to this nation. Consider what we've seen in recent years. The day after Hamas gleefully tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered 1,200 citizens in Israel, a rally was held at Lakemba in Sydney. There, a crowd cheered a radical Islamic cleric, and he described the terrorist attack on Israel as a day of pride and a day of victory. The following night, a seething mob gathered on the steps of Sydney Opera House. They chanted: 'Where's the Jews? Eff the Jews!' They sought to strike fear into our Jewish community. It was one of the most odious events in our nation's history, an event where we didn't even recognise our own country. But it was an event where we did realise that something sinister had taken root in Australia.

In the aftermath of that sordid evening, there was an opportunity—an opportunity for strong political leadership grounded in moral clarity, an opportunity to stop the spread of antisemitism and an opportunity to come down hard on extremism. Instead, there was weak political leadership engulfed in a moral fog. What followed was the tolerance of even more intolerable antisemitic incidents: marches where genocidal slogans were chanted; encampments on university campuses; homes, cars and memorials graffitied and vandalised; extremist preachers spreading hate with impunity; synagogues firebombed. And then came the bloodshed on Bondi Beach. Fifteen innocent people were gunned down by radical Islamists. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil in our history.

I say again: we must be clear-eyed about the threats to our nation. Our borders have been open to people who hate our way of life, people who don't want to change for Australia but who want Australia to change for them. Of course, those who seek to change Australia exist on a spectrum. There are some who would use violence and terrorism, as we saw on Bondi Beach. There are those who seek to incite violence, as we've seen with radical clerics. There are those who seek to import foreign hatreds, as we've seen in rallies where protesters chant 'globalise the intifada'. And there are those who, while rejecting violence, still reject Australian values. There are people who don't believe in equal rights for men and women, people who don't believe in the rule of law and want to establish parallel legal systems, people who don't believe in freedom of speech, association and religion.

We have to be clear: Islamist extremism has no place in this country, nor do other extremist ideologies that are weaponised for harm. The vast majority of Muslims in this country, be they migrants, confirmed citizens or Australian born, embrace our values and our way of life. They are not peddlers of political Islam, and that's all the more reason our nation must confront radical Islamism and political Islam, which are threats to us all—threats both imported and home grown, threats that will be amplified with the repatriation of the 34-strong ISIS bride cohort.

Let's be clear about these ISIS sympathisers or the ISIS brides, a label which conceals all manner of sins. These people chose to abandon Australia. They chose to travel to terrorist hot spots. They chose to support one of the world's most evil and barbaric death cults. They chose to steep their children in a monstrous ideology. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve condemnation, and they pose an unacceptable risk to Australia because of their terrorist sympathies. Their children, likewise, pose a risk to Australia because of the hate which has undoubtedly filled their minds. The 34-strong cohort, if they are allowed into Australia, would import hate and be incubators of hate. Their repatriation fails the values test, fails the security test, fails the fairness test and fails the pub test, yet repatriation appears to be proceeding.

The government has tried to shroud this process in secrecy, but we know a few things. We know DNA testing has been conducted. We know passports have been granted and citizenship applications have been processed. We know that just one temporary exclusion order has been issued, raising more questions than answers. The Home Affairs minister has power to issue more. He does not need to hide behind advice. He has chosen not to. This is a crucial part of the way this legislation is put together—he can issue temporary exclusion orders independent of intelligence advice. We know the Home Affairs minister has discussed repatriation with Save the Children and with his mate and political backer Dr Jamal Rifi, and we know the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales have been engaging with the Commonwealth for months on return and reintegration issues.

The Albanese government is not being upfront with Australians when it pretends to be at arm's length from these repatriations, but what is absolutely clear is that, under Labor, non-government third parties have been empowered to facilitate the re-entry of terrorist sympathisers. In other words, the government is outsourcing decisions that affect the security of all Australians. That loophole must be closed, and the coalition seeks to close this loophole with a Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026.

The proposed legislation that we bring before the parliament today has three clear objectives. First, it will end the freelancing of non-government third parties who seek to bring dangerous individuals into the country. It amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 and creates a new offence that would make it a crime to assist the entry into Australia of an individual who has been in a terrorist hot spot, who has links to a terrorist organisation or who has committed terror related offences. They are crucial pre-conditions. In this, the bill seeks to achieve a second objective, which is restoring ministerial accountability. Through our proposed legislation, any non-governmental third party that seeks to provide repatriation assistance must obtain written prior permission, and both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs must approve any non-government third-party repatriation assistance for individuals affiliated with a terrorist organisation. In other words, they must be accountable for the decision. That's how ministerial accountability should work. Such authorisations will ensure that ministers are responsible for significant national security decisions. We want the government to take back control over who comes into our country, instead of outsourcing control to third parties and turning a blind eye. The third objective is technical. Under section 1192 of the existing Criminal Code, it's a criminal offence to enter or remain in a declared terrorist area. This bill seeks to extend the sunset date of this provision from 7 September 2027 through to 7 September 2030.

Australians have had a gutful. They can see the country they love changing for the worse. The coalition's goal is clear: we want to shut the door on returning ISIS sympathisers. We want to shut the door on Islamist extremism. We want to shut the door on those who don't subscribe to Australian values and our core beliefs. The bill that the coalition has brought before the parliament is a test for the Prime Minister. Will he keep the door shut to protect our way of life? Will he shut the door to protect our way of life, or will he keep the door wide open because he cares so little for our way of life?

Ted O'Brien

I second the motion. A means by which we protect the way of life of everyday Australians is to seek greater national unity. Under this government, Australians' way of life has been under attack, not protected. Under this government, Australians themselves have been divided and not united. The more that Australia diversifies as a country, the more important a common set of values is to ensure that we have unity.

We know that Australians come from every part of the world. They bring with them their own histories, their own ethnicities, their own food, their own way of talking, their own way of walking and whatever else. The one thing that unites the Australian people today, and even more importantly moving forward, is a common set of values. Those values are values of freedom, of equality, of a fair go—Liberal values, which are Australian values. These are the values which have been under attack under the Albanese government. In many ways, people have suggested that values are embedded in a people's culture. There's only one thing that can shift the dial on culture. It's not a strategy. It's not kind words. It's leadership. History has proven such. Only leadership has the capacity to move the dial on culture.

What we have seen sorely lacking over the last almost four years now has been moral clarity in the leadership of this country. This is why we have seen, through the bill the coalition is putting forward, the coalition stepping up where the government has stepped back. It is why you hear from the Leader of the Opposition the importance of protecting Australians' way of life—because the Prime Minister is leaving Australians vulnerable and their way of life under attack.

This bill that we are proposing is also a direct response to the ISIS brides. This cohort of people, the adults of which, made a decision already. They chose violence over peace. They chose ISIS over Australia. They chose an extreme ideology over a common set of values which unite our country. And because this government claims to know nothing, do nothing, yet again, it's the opposition who takes the lead. What you see in this proposed legislation is the leadership that should be provided by this government.

As the Leader of the Opposition has already made crystal clear, the example of the ISIS brides sees the government outsource decision-making and actions. That is not leadership; it's an abdication of responsibility. It is a sad indication of the direction this country is going, as everyday Australians see their way of life eroded. It is a lack of leadership.

The responsible minister has said, on public record, that he has been actively doing nothing. Doing nothing is no excuse. That is not an example of leadership; it is an example of cowardice. It is why this bill deserves the support of the entire house—both chambers. Why? Because Australia is worth fighting for and because Australian values are worth fighting for. We need leadership in this country, not cowardice. There is nothing more important in this country than not only lifting people's standard of living but protecting their way of life. That is what the opposition is prioritising.

Tony Burke

Fortunately, the bill is not very long, so I've had a chance to be able to have a look at it. But I really hope, for his own sake, that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't read what he's tried to introduce. You'll see why if you go through what this bill is that he's now wanting us to interrupt the business of the day to be able to focus on.

Point 1 is the description of the people involved doesn't necessarily capture the cohort that has been debated publicly. Read the definition. Read what's there. It doesn't actually capture that cohort. What it does capture is this: the fighters, for example, who came in under their watch—fighters who were clearly guilty of a terrorism offence. We know that fighters did come in under their watch.

Who are the people that this bill would criminalise? Because they were people who came back with Australian passports under the previous government after having gone off—not women and children, but people who went off—to hold guns on behalf of ISIS. They're the ones who came in under the Abbott government, under the Turnbull government and under the Morrison government—fighters. This would criminalise the pilots of the commercial plane that flew them back. This would criminalise the baggage handlers.

Importantly, the main group wanting people to leave those camps has been our American allies. When they've made public requests to Australia—I know it's a long bow, so why is it in the act? Why is it in the bill? If you think it's ridiculous, why are you trying to legislate for it? The Leader of the Opposition right now is wanting parliament to debate legislation that will not deal with the cohort that we've been talking about. If you look at what happened under their watch when he was a member of the cabinet of Australia, he was very quiet when fighters came back. Did you ever complain about the fighters returning?

Milton Dick

Order! The Leader of the Opposition is just going to pause.

Tony Burke

The people who came back, having gone there to fight—did you oppose any of that?

Then why didn't you apply? He says that's why the legislation was put in place. If that's the case, why were fighters still returning under the Morrison government? Senator Paterson might say they weren't, but I can tell you that fighters returned under the Morrison government as well. In fact, one of the fighters who returned under the Morrison government—

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! The minister will pause. There are far too many interjections. People are interjecting outside of their seat. If you wish—hopefully, you don't wish—to interject, please return to your seat. It's highly disorderly. The people who aren't sitting in their seat, trust me: do not interject. That includes the Chief Opposition Whip. We've got to have a debate here, not a yelling match. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, and he was given that courtesy. We're just going to moderate this a little bit more, okay?

Long debate text truncated.

Tim Wilson

I move:

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

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) during the matter of public importance discussion on 5 February 2026, the Minister for Small Business suggested that the 33,426 small businesses which have closed under the Government did so because "maybe they were dodgy"; and

(b) the Minister for Small Business told the House she would take the opportunity to correct the record about these disgraceful comments but that she is yet to do so; and

(2) therefore, requires the Minister for Small Business to present a formal apology in the House, apologising to the thousands of small business owners and their staff whom she slandered, before the House rises today.

We know very well we are all sitting here during the matter of public importance last week, when the Minister for Small Business, in response to talking about the 40,000 small businesses that have gone insolvent under this government, said, 'Maybe they were dodgy.' Never has there been a more contemptuous response from the Minister for Small Business—the person whose job it is in this parliament to advocate for their interests—to slur and denigrate them and the hard work of Australians who are standing up and fighting for the future of not just themselves, their families, their communities but the millions of people who work for small business all across this country.

We are at a crossroads as a country. We have a private employment crisis in Australia right now. The government is responsible for eight in 10 jobs either being created directly or indirectly because we are seeing such a crisis in confidence in private investment and private employment. What we have now, when those businesses are trying to get ahead, when they're drowning under the problems and the pressure of inflation, is nothing but contempt from the Albanese government. To say to people who have saved and sacrificed to get themselves into a position to support themselves—who have done the hard work and are making sure they can employ millions of Australians—'maybe they're dodgy' shows a shocking level of contempt from this government and this minister in response to the importance of small business.

The crisis small business in this country is facing right now directly correlates to the problems of inflation. We just heard the Treasurer throughout the entirety of question time continuously saying that there was no correlation between private demand and government expenditure. We heard from the minister and the Treasurer dismissing the problems of inflation and the impact they are having on the small businesses, family businesses, sole traders and self-employed. But the Reserve Bank Governor last Friday, in answer to the question from the member for Cook—and congratulations to him on asking incisive questions in the House of Representatives economics committee—very clearly drew the correlation between public expenditure, inflation and how that is putting upward pressure on interest rates.

This is particularly important because we have so many small businesses that borrow to manage their challenges of liquidity. We have so many small businesses that borrow to raise the capital they need to invest in their own future and to be able to buy the assets they need. And, of course, we know right now that that future is being compromised while the Treasurer floats out options of getting rid of the capital gains discount, as a consequence compromising future investment in this country.

But, even worse than that, so many of those small businesses, because they have to back themselves with money that they borrow from the security they put in their own private home, risk their own future to give a better future to others, often have to go to non-bank lenders and end up paying a higher interest rate than the standard retail rate that so many Australian households pay. So, when interest rates go up and inflation goes up, small business is hit multiple times over. They are also facing a cost-of-business crisis because all those costs that are increasing as a consequence of inflation are going through small businesses.

Large businesses and big corporates can shed those costs across millions of units that are moved. Small businesses are fully exposed and have one choice: pass them on to their customers. And, when they pass those costs onto their customers, people make choices and vote with their feet when households are already struggling so much about how they're going to keep their head above the rising inflationary water of the Albanese government. So they have a cost-of-business inflation crisis, but then they have the cost of inflation on taxation arrangements.

Deputy Speaker Chesters, coming from the great state of Victoria, you would know that, increasingly, state governments tie their tax rates to inflation and to CPI. So, when inflation goes up, tax rates go up, and who do Labor state governments make sure they target more than anybody? It is always small businesses who are trying to get ahead and employ the future generation of Australians. So inflation is going up, interest rates are going up, and the cost of taxation inflation is going up, and that's before we've even got to the problems of industrial relations inflation.

Many of the different pieces of legislation in the last term of parliament are still washing through our industrial relations and employment landscape. When those costs get passed through, it means higher costs for small business, who are being crushed by the consequences of the Albanese government, and they haven't stopped. They've passed legislation for multi-employer bargaining, and now that is slowly trickling its way through our employment and industrial relations landscape.

We have unions deliberately going out and finding ways to leverage costs and to make it more expensive to hire tradies and contract workers, and where does that land? It increases the costs of things like housing and construction. That hits small businesses and first home buyers, and it means the costs are flowing through to every single Australian. So we have inflation costs, interest rate costs, industrial relations inflation and tax inflation all going up because this Labor government has lost control of the books. This Labor government continues to borrow from tomorrow with debt spending to fuel inflation today, to cover their employment and private sector investment crisis.

There has to be a point where this government understands the damage it has done. But you won't see it from the Minister for Small Business, who has overseen the highest number of small business insolvencies in Australian history, on record. Their response in this House last week was to say:

Maybe they were dodgy.

This is the problem. After we gave that speech and a number of members constantly repeated it, she got up in this chamber and claimed, or started to claim anyway, that that was not what was said. She claimed she was verballed. Well, there's just one problem—and I can't table this document, because it's already a public one—which is the Hansard caught her interjection and exposed that she had said what she had said.

Even more than that, she then tried to mislead the House to cover her tracks. She knows her shameful record. She knows the shameful record of the Albanese government—we all do—but the problem is small businesses in Australia are living it, and more importantly the insolvent small businesses are living it right now. People have lost their futures, lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods and are increasingly finding it challenging to get back up on their feet and start again.

This is the legacy of this Labor government. They have no empathy and no concern or consideration for the small businesses that want to get ahead. This Labor government has absolute contempt for those people who stand up and back themselves to get ahead, and they do so for one simple reason: they can't control them. The modern Labor Party has one objective: maintain control over the lives of Australians. One of the things they don't like about small businesses is they're fierce, they're independent, they stand on their own two feet, they back themselves, they don't look for handouts, they make sure that they fight for their own futures, and they take agency and control of their own destiny. Nothing terrifies the modern Labor Party more than Australians standing on their own two feet and not simply being dependent on the government when they can control them.

That's why we on this side of the House stand up so clearly for small business. That's why every single member here understands that backing small business is not just backing people who are standing up to be able to get ahead; it's backing communities. It's backing the people on the front lines who support our local sporting groups and charitable organisations. When they go under, our social fabric is torn in the process. You should understand this, Deputy Speaker Chesters, coming from a regional electorate. Small business is on the front line, and that's why we have to back them every step of the way. I can sure as hell say that is not what we're getting from the Albanese government.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Simon Kennedy

I second the motion. At the end of last year, I held a small business forum in Caringbah. I met dozens of small-business owners struggling to make ends meet. There are now vacant shops there. Behind each shop is a family and a person who has lost it all. This morning in Canberra, I spoke to a gentleman from there who has lost his house in one of these insolvent businesses. We hear this number of these thousands of businesses. I spoke to one of those people today, and that is the face of Jim Chalmers's economic failure.

These small businesses employ 70 per cent of Australia. Seventy per cent of Australia is in small and medium enterprises. They make up almost 98 per cent of all businesses, and they are on their knees. There are around 2.6 million of them operating in Australia, and most of them are micro, with zero to four employees. They've got families that surround them, and they are falling over, with 14,722 collapsing—a 33 per cent increase—in the prior year. Their mortgages are going up, and their loans are going up.

Today in question time we heard Treasurer Chalmers be a little bit tricky. Yes, it comes quite naturally to him. We asked him about government spending time and time again. Listen closely to how he answered. He came back and spoke about public demand. He talked about public demand coming off, and that was quite deliberate, because government spending is more than public demand; it shows up in private demand. Public demand does not include energy rebates. It does not include Centrelink. It does not include pensions. He likes to talk about public demand because it obscures the fact that government spending is at a 40-year high, at 27 per cent of GDP. It has never, ever been a higher share of the economy than this year. The only year it might be at risk of being higher than this year is next year.

So what does the Treasurer do? Instead of admitting that, he goes into clever little tricky weasel words and talks about private demand and public demand. He says public demand is coming off. Well, that ignores the electricity rebates. It ignores Centrelink transfers. It ignores all these other transfers where payments are at an all-time high. So, Treasurer, why are you misleading the Australian people? Why are you putting these small businesses under pressure? You're putting mortgages out of reach for Australian people, rents out of reach for Australian people and small businesses under pressure.

These small-business owners were recently surveyed, and it showed a large proportion of them are dealing with lower profits—64 per cent. That is, almost two-thirds of small business have their profits down year on year. Two-thirds—that is amazing. Sixty per cent of these businesses are not paying themselves and not declaring dividends, and 72 per cent said rising costs were their biggest obstacle to growth. These small businesses aren't just numbers; they play essential roles in our community. The record closure rates—these rising insolvencies—are not a normal part of the cycle; they're a symptom of mounting cost pressures. In the developed world, Australia has had the shortest cycle of easing to now hiking rates. It's the shortest cycle ever on record for the Reserve Bank of Australia, underpinned by record government spending. The housing crisis is getting worse. The small-business collapse is getting worse.

For the Minister for Small Business to insinuate they are dodgy, in this environment—why isn't the Minister for Small Business here? She should come back into the House, withdraw those shameful comments and apologise not just to the House but to all these hardworking small-business owners in the seat of Cook and right across Australia. If the Minister for Small Business won't do it, the Prime Minister should come and do it. It is 64 per cent of these people with their profits down year on year, 60 per cent not paying themselves, 60 per cent explaining to their family why they are poorer, why they may risk and lose their house—if a minister can smear tens of thousands of Australians and refuse to correct the record, what does that say about standards in this House?

Andrew Charlton

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Anne Webster

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:

37 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments made by this Schedule apply only if a declaration under subitem (2) is in force.

(2) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, declare that the amendments made by this Schedule apply on and after a day, or throughout a period, specified in the declaration.

(3) However, the Minister may make a declaration under subitem (2) only if:

(a) a trial of nurse prescriber treatments (within the meaning of the National Health Act 1953) is conducted in at least one State or Territory; and

(b) after the end of the trial, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia conducts a review of the trial; and

(c) the review demonstrates a suitably supportive evidence base for the safety and effectiveness of the amendments made by this Schedule.

I rise to speak to the amendment circulated in my name to the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill seeks to enable eligibility for PBS rebates for medications prescribed by a new category of prescribers, 'authorised registered nurse prescribers'. It acknowledges the essential role nurses play in our health system, especially in the regions, and the important work they do. It also acknowledges that nurses are the largest component of the health system and the most well-distributed workforce in regional Australia.

The Nationals want to see improved access to health care and progress for the nursing profession and for multidisciplinary care more generally. However, I am moving an amendment because implementation of new policy must have appropriate testing to ensure it is safe, effective and won't have unintended consequences. The Nationals have two key concerns. The bill is not evidence based, as it fails to follow normal processes where testing of any new model of care occurs in a state or territory in Australia prior to the application of PBS rebates, and this bill does not have a funding model to enable registered nurse prescribers to work in primary care as no funding model or structure has been developed. It is important to differentiate the new RN prescriber model from existing master's qualified nurse practitioners who are autonomous prescribers.

My amendment is that this legislation should not be enacted until there has been a trial or pilot of this new model of nurse prescribing in a state or territory which is then reviewed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia to ensure suitability and a supportive evidence base for safety and effectiveness of the model. This is about following due process, ensuring accountability and transparency for Australian consumers and making good use of Commonwealth funds. There must be clear evidence that any new model of nurse prescribing will improve access to high-quality care, especially in the regions, and will not have negative unintended consequences for patient safety or continuity of care. RN nurse prescribers will still require an autonomous prescriber in primary care, such as a GP or a nurse practitioner, to oversee that prescriber. The problem is that there are not enough GPs or nurse practitioners in the regions now. How is this going to work?

The process of a nurse practitioner gaining PBS access was debated in the late 2000s, and nurse practitioners had already been prescribing under state and territory law for many years from the mid- to late-1990s. Governments, therefore, had real world prescribing data, independent evaluations, patient outcome studies and safety audits. These formed the evidence base for Commonwealth reform which enabled PBS access to commence from 2010, though restricted. Major reforms to PBS access for nurse practitioners have occurred only very recently. PBS access for nurse practitioners was based on extensive safety and effectiveness evidence in states and territories. That evidence was synthesised nationally. It directly informed the Commonwealth's decision to grant PBS access in 2010. PBS access was therefore an evidence based policy decision, not simply a political concession. While it arguably took many years too long, PBS access for nurse practitioners was a thoroughly evidence based policy decision, and this amendment seeks that the same evidence base be produced before implementation of the bill currently under consideration. I urge the House to support this amendment.

Mark Butler

As I indicated, we won't be supporting this amendment. The effect of the amendment would really be to ensure that this particular group of registered nurses, who are now able to seek this endorsement through changes made by the board and will now be able to prescribe as state and territory parliaments change their legislation, which they have all committed to, will not be able to access the PBS. It would effectively make medicines more expensive for patients who had those medicines prescribed under changes that have already been decided on by the board and that are in the process of being made by state and territory parliaments. This legislation will simply ensure that those patients are able to pay PBS prices, not the market prices that the National Party would have them pay under their amendment.

I also indicate—and I think I said it in my summing up—that this has been the subject of almost a decade of consultation and modelling by the nurses' board. All the doctors' groups were involved in this as well as, obviously, a range of other groups. The member said that there was no funding available for this. As the member well knows—I know she's very familiar with primary care—the workforce incentive payment already supports the employment of registered nurses in primary care settings. This will simply ensure that they're able to do some more work subject, obviously, to the oversight of medical practitioners working in those practices. Importantly, this will also enable registered nurses, subject to the endorsement of the board, to play a prescribing role, in the appropriate way, in other settings such as: aged-care settings; hospital settings, including for discharge; mental health settings; and others. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the amendment.

Milton Dick

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

Andrew Wilkie

I seek leave to move the motion as circulated.

Leave granted.

I thank the government and the minister for granting leave. There is clearly an urgent need to address this motion, because there is an urgent need to give all members of this House a free vote so that they can use their own judgement, informed by their own constituents, on whether or not there should be a three-year phase-out of advertising on gambling, which, as the motion makes clear, was the flagship recommendation of the Murphy report, brought down almost 2½ years ago.

The importance of addressing this urgently cannot be stated enough, because this is a very, very real issue that needs to be tackled quickly. Not only is the community broadly—clearly, the majority—sick to death of the endless gambling advertising; the community is also sick to death of the way that advertising is normalising gambling. The community is sick to death of the way that advertising is effectively grooming children to start gambling as soon as they can.

That's not an exaggeration. When you look at the evidence prepared by the Australia Institute, they found that last year almost one million young people aged between 12 and 19 gambled. That's all the evidence you need to make absolutely clear that all of this advertising is grooming young people to gamble as quickly as it can.

This isn't some esoteric argument.

Terry Young

Order! I need you to move the motion. You asked leave; if you could move the motion, that would be great.

Andrew Wilkie

I move:

That the House:

(1) notes that the report of the inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, 'You win some, you lose more', also known as the Murphy Report, was handed down two years and five months ago;

(2) further notes that the cross-party Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs unanimously endorsed the 31 recommendations contained in the report, including the flagship recommendation to implement a three-year phase out of gambling advertising; and

(3) calls on the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to grant their party members a free vote on the implementation of this flagship recommendation.

Deputy Speaker Young, there's been a little bit of confusion on the clock there on account of that. Am I right to assume that my 10 minutes starts now?

Terry Young

Yes.

Andrew Wilkie

But, mercifully, I will not speak for 10 minutes, because I would like to leave at least five minutes for the member for Curtin to make a contribution to this debate. As members would be well aware, the member for Curtin has done as much—or more—as anyone in this House when it comes to gambling reform.

I make the point again—and I'm pleased to make the point again—that there is an urgent need for this parliament to decide on whether or not to allow individual members to exercise their personal judgement, informed by their communities, on the matter of whether or not there be a phase-out of gambling advertising in this country. The reason we need to go to a free vote is that this place is currently absolutely paralysed on this issue, which beggars belief because there is clearly a strong majority of members in the House of Representatives who want to see a phased ban on gambling advertising. How we could have a clear majority of members want a ban yet the place paralysed—honestly, it beggars belief.

We have to crack this open. We have to end this impasse. That's what the community wants. That's what the community is calling out for because the community is sick to death of the endless ads. The community is sick to death of the way the endless ads are normalising gambling. The community is sick to death of the way the endless ads are grooming children to become gamblers as soon as they can.

It's no wonder the Australia Institute found that last year almost one million people aged between 12 and 19 gambled. It's not because it's in their DNA or because they just had a bright idea one day—'I'm going to start gambling'. It's because every time they look at their phone, their iPad, their laptop, the TV and, I would add, the newspapers, even if they're not looking at an ad directly—they're looking at, say, the cricket ground during the first Ashes test, the ball is racing towards the boundary, and there are bet365 ads on the rope. You can't escape it. Just going through the day, people in the community encounter literally hundreds of ads for gambling.

And let's not forget that this isn't some esoteric debate we're having in here. This is a very real matter affecting people every day. Remember that, as we encourage gambling, more and more people will become addicted to gambling. With addiction to gambling, we see countless people going broke, losing more money than they can afford. It destroys relationships. It affects mental health. It leads to homelessness. It leads to violence in the home. It leads to an elevated rate of suicide in the community.

I make the point again that this isn't some academic argument we're having here. This is about whether or not we in this place do what the community want, and whether or not the government does what the majority of members want, and implement the very well researched flagship recommendation of the Murphy report to ban gambling advertising—and not straightaway. The Murphy committee recommended three years to phase it out, giving more than enough time to change the landscape and to allow the gambling companies, the media companies and the major sporting codes to transition.

And, yes, that might take a little bit of government financial help, but when you consider the billions of dollars that are at stake here, with money lost and the countless cost to the community of gambling addiction, a little bit of government assistance is more than justified, particularly to wean the media companies and the sporting codes off—I'll say it clearly—this blood money, this money that is harvested from people who are often the most disadvantaged and most vulnerable people in the community. They should be weaned off that blood money, and the government has the means not just to pass the legislation to do so in this place; it has the financial resources to make that transition workable for all of the people involved.

I'll end it there because I am keen for the member for Curtin to have her say. I just say to the government and the opposition: do the right thing by the backbenchers, who are just having to suck this up. They get confronted every day with constituents who say, 'Why won't you ban the advertising?' I feel for the backbenchers. You've been handed a sour lemon to suck on. I don't think it's fair on them.

Terry Young

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Rebekha Sharkie

It's a privilege to second this motion from the member for Clark. I've stood in this place for nearly a decade and talked about the harms of gambling. I've stood in this place for nearly a decade and talked about the families that have been torn apart and the people who have taken their lives. We are in this last week of parliament. Surely now is the time to do something right by the Australian people, so I urge the government to look at this motion, to follow this motion and to simply just allow a free vote on an issue that your government presented a unanimous report in support of—the ending of gambling advertising.

It's not saying: 'Ban gambling.' We know that's not going to happen in this nation. We know that this is a legal thing to do. It's like what we did with smoking. Decades ago we banned advertising because we recognised that there were inherent harms in smoking. It's a legal product, but there are inherent harms, and gambling is exactly the same.

It has been 29 months since the Murphy report, called You win some, you lose more, was released. Every day, when I walk into this place, I go through the House of Reps gardens. There is a bank of roses, and those roses, which have plaques in front of them, are for members who passed away while they were in this place. And Peta Murphy's name is there on that plaque. I often stop and look at the roses—they're all in bloom at the moment—and I think about Peta Murphy. I think about her courage and I think about how she gave so much of her last months of life to this place and, in particular, to this report. She wanted to make sure that she finished this report to the absolute best that she possibly could, and there are recommendations from that report that the government hasn't even bothered to formally respond to. One of the most important recommendations on there was to ban gambling advertising, because it is pernicious, it is saturated, and it is everywhere. There is not a young person in Australia, I would say, that hasn't seen that advertising. We're banning social media because we recognise that, for under-16s, there is an inherent harm there. But, once you're 18, it's open slather. You can be targeted with advertising from Sportsbet, BetStop, Ladbrokes and the whole list. You can't even watch a game—you can't go to a game—without seeing it everywhere. We have normalised this so much in Australia.

I would say to the Prime Minister—really, I plead with the Prime Minister. You love your Rabbitohs, and you love a sports game. Think of what it was like when you were 20 and you were going and watching your beloved Rabbitohs or think of what it was like when you were watching them on television—you were not bombarded like a 20-year-old is bombarded today. They can't get away from it. This advertising is being targeted particularly at young men. We know that, between now and Christmas, there are going to be people who can't escape the advertising, who are so triggered by the advertising, who feel that there is no hope in their lives and who will not be here at Christmas. How awful is that! We have the power in this place to do something about it, yet, here we are, nearly 900 days later, and the government is really saying: 'This is not an issue for us. This is not a priority for us.'

I've stood here, I've given speeches before, and I've been really cranky; now, I'm heartbroken. I'm heartbroken that we are doing nothing about something that is affecting so many young people in our nation. It's our last sitting week of the year, and we could do so much better. We could do so much more. So, please, Prime Minister, allow a free vote for your backbench. They desperately want this leadership from you.

Matt Keogh

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Terry Young

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for transparency and accountability in the Government's failed Administration of the CFMEU and the consequences for housing affordability.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Tim Wilson

I know the government is going to do everything it has tried to do at every single point throughout the past two weeks to shut down a conversation about the corruption within the CFMEU and its direct connection back to this government. More important than that is we have a minister who is running interference and simply does not want to have accountability in the context of administration oversight.

So we are proud to stand up right now and speak out about the challenging problems of CFMEU corruption in Australia. We know the reality that is being faced. Fifteen months ago the CFMEU was put under administration by this government because there were systemic issues of corruption, including those revealed on television programs like 60 Minutes. Organised crime, criminal gangs and bikie gangs were infiltrating public projects and receiving cartel kickbacks that were going into the hands of those organised groups. They were being paid for by taxpayers. They were being paid for by mums and dads. They were being paid for by first home buyers, through the increased costs of housing, and by taxpayers and through debt, inflation and the high interest rates that Australians are experiencing right now. It led the Labor Party to, after letting the CFMEU off the leash, eventually accept administration.

It should never have come to this in the first place. The Labor Party should never have abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and removed the leash on the CFMEU to allow the corruption that has pervaded across the Australian community. But, once they did—once they accepted that they had become the enabler of corruption across Australian building sites, construction sites and public projects—they were shamed and embarrassed by the media into eventually taking action. What was that action? They appointed administration designed to break the back of the corrupt culture that sits at the heart of the CFMEU.

Well, 15 months later, we now have a report card from whistleblowers. It's not the opinion of the opposition. It's certainly not the opinion of the government, who have the view to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil in the context of CFMEU corruption—and they certainly don't want to hear about CFMEU corruption. From whistleblowers through to the Nine press and of course 60 Minutes, people have been saying explicitly that the problems of CFMEU corruption are now worse, 15 months on, than they were beforehand. This is a scandal and a disgrace. When we have asked basic questions in this parliament we have gotten no answers. Yesterday the Prime Minister shut down question time rather than have a question asked of him about CFMEU corruption. And it looks like the Leader of the House is going to do exactly the same thing right now.

Sharon Claydon

The Leader of the House?

Tony Burke

First of all, on a point of order, I was listed to follow him—and I was really looking forward to it! But in effectively missing that opportunity for myself, I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Milton Dick

The question is that the business of the day be called on.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion 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 in relation to proceedings on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025:

(1) on Thursday, 6 November when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on each bill is called on:

(a) questions being put immediately on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(b) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill occurring, with:

(i) no longer than five minutes of debate on each set of amendments moved, unless a Minister specifies an extended time for debate; and

(ii) the question that the bill [as amended] be agreed to being put immediately after all amendments have been resolved; and

(c) the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question is that the question be put.