Andrew Gee

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member from Calare moving the following motion—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) all the major parties have let the residents and communities of Central Western New South Wales down with broken promises, empty announcements and funding cuts with respect to the Bells Line of Road and Great Western Highway;

(b) the people of the Central West see expressways and tunnels being built all over Sydney, the north coast and south coast, yet are told to make do with a bridge built by a convict chain gang in 1832 as their main access road in and out of Sydney; and

(c) the indefinite closure of the Great Western Highway demonstrates that the people of the Central West are being short-changed and ripped off when it comes to the funding of a decent access road to Sydney; and

(2) calls on:

(a) the Australian and New South Wales governments to introduce a support package for businesses in the Central West being devastated by the indefinite closure of the Great Western Highway; and

(b) the Australian Government to commit significant and substantial funding in the upcoming budget for improved road access between the Central West and Sydney

Today is April Fools' Day, and the current state of the Great Western Highway is an appalling joke. The people of the Central West are done playing the fool for governments that have been neglecting our region for decades. Our region isn't facing just one disaster and emergency. We are being choked by a dual failure of infrastructure and essential fuel supply. I speak of the indefinite closure of the Great Western Highway because a bridge built by a convict chain gang in 1832 has, unsurprisingly, failed. You cannot make this up. The urgency of this matter was clearly brought home only two days ago when a single-vehicle crash on Chifley Road proved how precarious our situation is. When one vehicle can shut down the only remaining route between the Central West and Sydney, the system hasn't just failed; it has collapsed. There was no access in and out of the Central West at all.

We now have an extra 12,000 vehicles a day being forced onto a detour that was never designed for this volume. Our local roads are being pounded into the dust. Little Hartley, which used to be a bustling tourism and trade corridor, is now a ghost town. I've stood on the ground with local business owners—people like Margaret and Alan Jackson from Maple Springs Nursery. They've had their income cut to one-tenth of what it was. Shannon Kus, a father of six and owner of Erin's Quality Outdoor Power Centre, has a 20-minute commute which has blown out to 70 minutes. His customer numbers are at zero and he has warned that, without government assistance, his business—his family's livelihood—will fold.

Ian Fitzgerald operates ICF Haulage, running trucks from Hartley to Sydney multiple times a day. He employs 14 permanent staff members. This is what he has told me:

To send our trucks around through Lithgow, Chifley Road and the Darling Causeway adds around two hours per trip. Add to this the current fuel price, and we are going broke. We will be laying off staff within the next week or so unless we can get some sort of support.

For transport operators, including Ian and others like Ken Muldoon from Mully's Transport, it's twice the cost for twice the time for half the profit. That's what they have told me. The pain is being felt across many sectors, from hospitality and tourism providers to retail and transport.

For the Central West, Easter and the autumn period is peak season for tourism. You don't get these months back. Once a small business closes its doors, it often stays closed. But what really gets us, what really infuriates us, is that we see billions being poured into gold-plated tunnels under Sydney and world-class expressways to the north and south coasts. Yet our region is treated as an afterthought. We've just seen $2 billion dropped on the expressway to the new Sydney airport. We see announcements about high-speed rail to the Hunter, which will cost about $93 billion. But all we get out west is cheap words and small change and a patched-up convict bridge built in 1832. It is disgusting. The people of our region are disgusted. Words cannot convey the depth of anger and disgust that our residents feel over this issue.

We produce the food that feeds the cities and we do the mining that underpins the economy. If our farmers can't sow because of fuel shortages and our businesses can't move goods because of a crumbling antique bridge then the whole nation will suffer. We need direct financial relief—emergency assistance for those businesses smashed by the highway closure. This is not a handout. It's a survival kit for a crisis that government neglect has created. We are done with the white papers and the planning studies. We need a genuine commitment in the upcoming budget for a long-term solution that doesn't depend on convict engineering from 1832.

This must be designated a national infrastructure priority as a matter of urgency. You cannot fix a major artery with a bandaid. You need a permanent high-speed connection to Sydney. The most terrifying word for our business owners right now is 'indefinite'. They need certainty—not forever roadworks. They need real financial support, and they need it now. I'm calling on the government to stop treating the people of the Central West like second-class citizens and deliver on these two demands. One, we need an immediate business support package that will provide direct financial relief for the local families and business owners who are being smashed by this highway closure. Governments created this disaster and they now have to step in and clean it up and fix it. Two, we need the federal government to commit significant and substantial funding in the upcoming budget for improved access between the Central West and Sydney. Surely it's not too much to ask. The government know what the issues are. They really do.

When the Prime Minister was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in 2010 he put out a press release which said that a corridor for sections—including 'a tunnel as part of a bypass of the township of Mount Victoria and Victoria Pass'—'will be preserved so work on them could proceed when additional funding becomes available'. Here's the release. That's what he said. He was talking about a tunnel in 2010 and saying that a corridor had been preserved for one. Plans and announcements have been going on for decades. The National Party turned the first sod on the Bells Line of Road expressway in 2007. It never happened. Then we had the tunnel, which the Perrottet government refused to commit any funding for and which, in June 2022, they effectively mothballed and walked away from because they said it wasn't a priority. Where was the National Party then? The tunnel was then totally killed off by the Minns government. And then you had the current federal government making off with $2 billion in federal funding that had been committed to the highway. It was an epic funding snatch and grab, so there is plenty of blame to go around.

In question time last week, the Prime Minister said:

The truth is that all governments, state and federal, probably should have done something about this …

He's right. The Prime Minister is right—they should have. But, with state and federal government failures having caused this, those governments now need to proactively get in there and help with a support package and a longer term solution. I'm sorry, but you cannot keep kicking this can down the road any longer, because the road can't handle it anymore. It's time for the government to actually have our backs and invest in a 21st-century solution we all deserve. We've had a gutful of the empty words and the empty promises. Action is needed, and I call on this government to step up and lead.

Bob Katter

In the last wet season, as usual, North Queensland lost people due to flooding on the highways—six people. At the Gairloch and Seymour River areas, just north of Ingham, the national highway was cut—I emphasise 'national highway'. Nearly half a million people live north of Ingham, in Australia. The greater Cairns region, the greater Innisfail region and greater Mareeba-Atherton region are big population centres by any standard in Australia, and they're cut off every year by rivers. No-one's doing anything about it. They are also cut off by the Herbert River.

I am well aware as an historian that, very tragically, the Aboriginal story for that area—including the town of Ingham, a town of about 20,000 people just north of Townsville—which is Quinkan area, is: 'Don't go there. There's water from mountain to mountain.' At some stage, the whole of the coastal plain went 30 foot underwater. If you have simultaneous floods in the upper and lower Herbert, goodbye, Ingham. The death toll that's mooted would be about 300 or 400 people. Nothing's been done about the Gairloch or Seymour River areas. There's nothing being done about the Herbert River diversion, which Dr Bradfield spoke about back in the 1920s. The Bridle Track tunnel, to some degree, caused those six deaths in the last flooding. We can't get off the coastal plain. We're trapped, because the Great Dividing Range is there and there's about 30 kilometres before you hit the sea, and at Cairns the Great Dividing Range hits the sea. So we're trapped in that area every year. Heaven only knows they know about it, because not only I but numerous other people have screamed about it.

Doomadgee is cut off every year for about three months, and I can't help but think—'they're blackfellas; don't worry about them.' I don't have any other explanation as to why Doomadgee gets cut off every single year for three months. I don't know any other town in Australia that fits into that category. There probably are some that do, but I'm not aware of them. Also if you put a higher level—I make this point to the Parliament of Australia. If we're going to build a bridge, don't build a bridge. In South-East Queensland, they build bridged dams. So they build a dam and they have a roadway across the top of the dam. It serves a double purpose, and, if you like, halves the cost of the dam and halves the cost of the bridge.

A magnificent example of that is Georgetown, which is inland. The gulf country is completely cut off every year by the fourth-biggest river system in Australia, the Gilbert River, and it's an ideal site for a bridged dam—almost right where the road is now. But little, tiny Georgetown would grow to a town of 25,000 people. That's what happened in Griffith when irrigation went in. That's what happened in Mareeba when irrigation went in, and that's what happened to numerous other towns I could quote. So wouldn't it be wonderful if this government put a city out there in the middle of nowhere and developed the beautiful opportunities for tourism? The current failure to have that bridge is costing the Australian people about $15 million a year in lost tourism.

When the Einasleigh bridge went in, the figure was $20 million a year, and this'll be just about the same as the Einasleigh River Bridge. The wonderful governments of the old Country Party built the Australian beef roads scheme. Now it's no use—a mate of mine and I bought 500,000 acres for $25,000. Why? Because you couldn't get in or out of the place. There's no road. If you put a road in, now it's producing $6 million a year— (Time expired)

Tony Burke

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Andrew Gee

I support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026. The government has finally listened to the call of many on the crossbench, including me, to cut the fuel excise. Last week I introduced my fair fuel price bill into parliament. When I did so, I called on the government to slash the fuel tax. In fact, when I raised it in question time last week with the Prime Minister and I asked him to slash the excise, certain members in this place laughed. Well, they're not laughing now. The announcement that the fuel excise will be halved for three months is a welcome piece of news. It's a step in the right direction and it is what the crossbench had been calling for. This is what I had been calling for. So I appreciate the Prime Minister heeding the call. It's the right decision to make and it's the right call, but more is needed.

City motorists might see some immediate relief, but regional Australia knows that it will take a lot longer before even a cent of that relief filters down to our local pumps. Residents in the Central West are concerned that there is no guarantee that this reduction will actually be passed on at all. Given the predatory patterns we have seen so far, we know that any relief may be short lived. In regional Australia, we are very concerned that potential savings could easily be eaten up by service stations, fuel retailers and petrol companies jacking up the prices yet again. We saw fuel prices jump before the effects of war had even started. Prices were rising on fuel that was already in the country. Since then, pump prices have been rising faster than crude oil prices, which means that price gouging has been occurring. So this initiative on excise can't be the end of the story on fuel price relief; more is needed to complement what the government has put in place.

The government has increased penalties for price gouging, but it hasn't made it any easier to prosecute price gouging offenders. You can count the number of successful price gouging prosecutions over the last 20 years on one hand. What the government has done is akin to doubling the jail time for theft but never actually finding very many people guilty of it. It sounds good, but it doesn't deliver the fuel price relief that our communities are demanding.

The underwriting of fuel shipments to Australia is a good thing, and I support it, but it's still not going to stop the price gougers and the rip-offs. That is exactly why my fair fuel price bill is so essential—it stops the rip-offs. They are happening and have been happening for a long time. We're no stranger to it in country New South Wales.

We can't wait to act. The parliament is not going to sit again until May, so either we can do more now or we can watch prices continue to spiral towards $4 a litre. My fair fuel price bill would allow the Commonwealth government to temporarily regulate fuel prices during periods of extraordinary global disruptions, such as a war or similar crises. It would allow the minister, in consultation with the Treasurer, to set and control the price of unleaded petrol and also diesel.

This bill demands to be heard urgently because our country is in the midst of this devastating crisis. Both country and city communities are being pummelled by these prices. It's smashing our local businesses and it's stinging everyone, from pensioners to families. So urgent action is required and leadership is required. That is why this fair fuel price bill, which I brought to this place, is so important. It will reintroduce fuel price controls of the type ushered in during the Second World War to Australia. In 1939, this parliament passed the National Security Act, which gave the federal government the power to set fuel prices for the duration of that conflict. It was aimed at preventing price gouging, and it was effective. The fair fuel price bill gives the government the power to set fuel prices for the duration of the current conflict in the Middle East.

Our communities expect that members of this place come in with constructive comment, constructive ideas and constructive legislation, and that is what I have done with this legislation. Sky-high prices are throttling our country, community members and businesses. Our farmers can't get the diesel they need to put their crops in the ground. As we are speaking, farmers in the Central West of New South Wales are meeting and talking about whether they should actually put a crop in the ground. That's where we are. If farmers aren't going to be putting crops in the ground, the food's not going to turn up on the supermarket shelves in the cities and this country will not eat. So this fuel crisis can very easily turn into a food security crisis. It's happening before our eyes.

People in the bush have been putting up with sky-high fuel prices for many years. We've been campaigning on this in Mudgee for a long time. Prices in the main street of Mudgee are regularly 40c a litre more expensive than they are in other parts of the state. If you want to have a look at the current market, look no further than Yeoval. Today in Yeoval, the price for diesel is $3.479. These prices are not just high prices; they're like ransom notes to country people. We know that people in country communities have further distances to drive, so these skyrocketing fuel prices have a disproportionate effect on country people.

I saw that the Treasurer is writing to the ACCC to ensure that this excise saving is not eaten up by price increases. It's just talk. We're sick of the talk; we need action. When I was raising the issue of sky-high fuel prices in Mudgee with the Treasurer, he helpfully set up a meeting with the ACCC, and we met with them. But it didn't result in any action, because they don't have the ability to take it. All we've done is double penalties for price gouging, but we haven't actually given the ACCC more or better powers to prosecute petrol price fixes.

Our communities are tired of there being all talk and no action, and we want decisive leadership on this. The ABC's Alan Kohler recently pointed out that Australian retail petrol prices have risen to levels higher than they were in 2022 even though global crude oil prices have not returned to these peaks. He points out that this discrepancy indicates that margins have expanded significantly. In other words, it's petrol price gouging. We know it's happening. Everyone in the country knows it's happening, and it's got to stop. That's why my bill, the Fair Fuel Price Bill, is so important. But I want the House to be made aware of how much pain this issue is causing in our area.

I received an email from Kristy, who is an assistant in nursing. She has to drive about 45 minutes to get to work. She's earning $26.61 an hour. She says:

With current fuel prices, it is no longer financially viable for me to continue in my role. Despite working full-time, I have been forced to take on a second job just to survive. Even then, I am left with only $2.30 in my account this week after paying my mortgage. I am currently limiting myself to one meal a day so that my children can have three.

That's one example.

Bathurst Community Transport have contacted me. They said:

This latest crisis of fuel prices, coupled with the closure of Victoria Pass has brought us to our knees …

…   …   …

Without immediate relief, Bathurst Community Transport will have no choice but to reduce services to only those assessed as highest need—leaving thousands of clients in your electorate at risk of losing the transport that allows them to live independently.

Alex runs a disability support business. He said:

I, like many, am also feeling this at the hip pocket both from my business and my family. My business is a small, family run disability support company who prides itself on being able to get the members of our community out and about to much needed medical appointments and social engagement with friends and family.

While our fuel use isn't as much as other businesses, it still hurts. Our usage is generally around 900L a month, and climbing. When fuel hits $3 a litre this means our business will be consuming around $2,700 a month in fuel alone, that's $32,400 a year. This is not sustainable long term for us.

Elise writes in and tells me about the school excursions which are being cut because of these skyrocketing fuel prices.

Luke Knight from L-Con Building & Construction in Orange has written to me. He told me about the skyrocketing price increases from suppliers for the materials used to build our homes and factories. He says:

Using PVC as a prime example, the rise will be basically equal to the entire covid and subsequent 4-year period combined. This is extraordinary.

I am very alarmed by these increases. Let's hope it's not for long as any momentum with housing supply increase will be lost, just as we get traction.

People really can't afford building now, let alone if pricing will increase again.

Ric Ross from the Mudgee area believes that 'to not have adequate supplies is inconceivable in the current world economic climate and shows a lack of foresight and complete incompetence'. My former colleague the late Jim Molan would agree with that. He championed our country having greater fuel reserves, but, sadly, that fell on deaf ears.

Edward Brown from my electorate has written in to point out the discrepancy between the price of crude oil and the price at the petrol pump. It is proof of the price gouging and the profiteering that is occurring.

Josh from the Calare electorate indicates that the price increases are soaring, and they are increasing multiple times per day. He says:

Whilst I am aware that the ACCC has threatened to investigate wholesalers and retailers, we cannot afford to wait for a potential investigation which will not see proceeds returned to the customers being hit. Regional NSW also does not have the luxury of relying on public transport infrastructure as a an alternate form of commute due to decades of federal and state government neglect of this issue.

Jules Fotheringham writes:

Of particular concern in regional communities like ours is the availability of diesel. Supply disruptions, cancelled shipments, and increased demand have led to shortages at service stations, with some areas experiencing difficulty accessing fuel altogether. This is deeply worrying given the reliance of regional economies on diesel for agriculture, transport, and essential services.

Jules is absolutely correct. It is extremely concerning.

Liz Hammond has written to me. She lives in the Cargo area between Orange and Canowindra. She says:

As someone who lives out of town and has a child attending school, reliable access to diesel is not a convenience but a necessity. Daily travel for school drop-offs, work, and essential errands depends on being able to obtain fuel when needed. The current situation is making this increasingly difficult and stressful, particularly when supply becomes uncertain.

Tom Brownjohn from Godfrey Smith Funerals writes in basically on behalf of the funeral industry and says:

Our operations rely heavily on transport, particularly diesel-powered vehicles, to attend places of death, transfer the deceased into care, and conduct funeral services across multiple locations. In regional areas, this often involves significant travel distances.

He worries that their ability to carry out those vital services are heavily impacted by this fuel crisis, and he wants funeral services classed as an essential service.

Those are just a few stories from the Central West of New South Wales, and that is why action is needed on the double. What the government has put forward is a start, but it simply does not go far enough. My Fair Fuel Price Bill 2026 provides a tangible and effective solution. It brings in price controls and allows the federal government to set prices on fuel, just as it did in the Second World War. Until we have the courage to step in and regulate these prices during this extraordinary period of war and disruption, the national interest will continue to be ignored in favour of fuel company margins. The price gouging continues, and we all know it is.

The bill that we are discussing today is a step in the right direction, but it can't be the end of the story or the last word. In this fuel crisis, profit is being put ahead of people, the very people who work in our hospitals, teach our children or put food on supermarket shelves and tables. I would urge the government to support my Fair Fuel Price Bill and bring prices back to reality. (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will now put the question that the amendment as circulated by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

Michelle Landry

This is in continuation from earlier. Regional communities are feeling it first and worse. This is not an abstract policy debate. This is about whether people can afford to live their lives.

The coalition's position is clear. We will support this bill because securing supply matters, but we will also continue to call on the government to do more—to act with urgency, to back Australian production and to deliver immediate cost-of-living relief, because restoring fuel security is not just about imports and financing; it's about protecting living standards, it's about supporting small businesses and it is about making sure Australian families can get ahead, not fall behind. Australians deserve a government that is prepared, responsive and focused on their needs. Right now they are looking for leadership, and they need action.

Anne Webster

I want to congratulate the government and the Prime Minister for today doing precisely what the coalition recommended, on Friday, that he do. It only took four days, after four weeks of not a lot happening—a lot of meetings, but not a lot happening. We called for the halving of the fuel excise and the reduction of the heavy-vehicle road user charge. In fact, this last week I've spoken with the Trucking Association and I've also spoken with the bus industry; both were very concerned about the costs that they were incurring. In my electorate, nine earth-moving employees have found themselves without a job this week because the employer cannot pay what he's being required to pay for fuel. Twenty-six cents a litre—yes, we suggested it; we think it makes a difference. Removing the road user charge for heavy vehicles impacts the trucks on the road. Earth moving, basically, as far as I understand, is on land; therefore, it won't incur that cost. I'm happy to be corrected on that.

But these are still very difficult times for businesses and companies. We have citrus growers who are really thinking twice about whether they will harvest their citrus, because it uses so much fuel to do so, and then to get it to market—the agents down there are saying, 'We can't afford to buy it at that price because we can't sell it afterward.' So we have fruit, we have vegetables and we have crops at risk.

And this is a time of great difficulty for Australia. Not only are we going through a cost-of-living crisis but inflation continues to rise and we expect another couple of rises, potentially, in this next month. Australians are doing it tough. Mortgages continue to increase—$28,000 on an average mortgage. How do people get through this? This is not about politics. This is about how Australians are finding life right now, without a clear message of hope in front of them.

The Albanese government, by contrast, have accused Australians of panic buying—and they were still doing it today—while they have been panic legislating. We can only say that this Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 is another piece of 'quick, let's get it out the door by tonight'. The Prime Minister said, 'Let's just get it moving.' Hardly any Labor members are speaking on it because of the urgency. This is the pattern that we are seeing time and time again from this government—lost in the waves in the ocean of despair because it really doesn't know what it's doing. We will see a shortened debate today, for sure, and the bill sent to the Senate so that we have laws passed by Good Friday.

Today's measures, we hear, will come at a $2.55 billion cost for three months. Let's not forget that the Commonwealth and, in turn, the states have gained $300 million in GST receipts since the crisis began, and it's pleasing that the states are considering what they're going to do about that. But we have meeting after meeting—

Ben Small

Roundtables.

Anne Webster

roundtables, summits. 'Anyone for a forum? Anyone for another meeting? How about we have a phone hook-up? Let's see if we can make a decision to improve the lives of Australians!'

The Albanese Labor government is asleep at the wheel and out of gas—unnecessarily so. As we have seen all too well this week, the Albanese Labor government has been gaslighting Australians and blaming the Australian public, particularly farmers, for buying fuel—fuel they need because unseasonably wet conditions mean that crops need to go in or weeds need to be sprayed. Once again, we see the government blaming the victims of this crisis when they should be taking responsibility, gaslighting Australians that there was no such supply crisis—even at the beginning of last week there was no supply crisis, apparently—and then being dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledging, actually, there is a crisis.

Australia has immense reserves of oil and gas—and, I might say, coal and uranium. Geoscience Australia estimates that we have over 100,000 petajoules in proven and probable resources. That's around 17 billion barrels. The US Energy Information Administration estimated 13 years ago that we have a further 403 billion barrels of shale oil, with around 17½ billion barrels deemed recoverable at that stage. Theoretically, based on a daily oil consumption of over one million barrels a day, we could use our recoverable shale oil for around 42 years. That's just a starting point.

Australia also has an incredible capacity to produce biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, but stocks on hand at present are not being brought into the mix. Take, for example, biodiesel. Australia produced 2.14 million tonnes of canola in 2019 and more in recent years, and we could have used that to produce 5.5 million barrels of biodiesel. Instead, 70 per cent of that canola, or carinata, went to the European Union for them to make into biodiesel.

This is a crisis that was entirely foreseeable. The late former senator Jim Molan was saying as much—that our fuel security was at risk and we needed domestic, sovereign capacity.

Ben Small

Good man.

Anne Webster

He was a very good man. I've been saying similar for some time now as well, as has most of the coalition. The world has changed. The international security context has changed, perhaps for a generation. We hope not, but we must take the world as we find it, not as we hope it would be. Australia is blessed with every energy resource under the sun, including not only the sun but also oil and gas and coal and uranium. It's time to stop the self-inflicted harm of anti-Australian political ideologies and tap into our enormous energy reserves.

These bills are about reconfiguring Export Finance Australia to become a body that invests in imports for fuel security, not just our export capacity. Let's look at the numbers. Over 50 per cent of Australia's total energy demand is from liquid fuels. Cars and passenger vehicles make up just 30 per cent of our liquid fuel demand; the other 70 per cent is freight, aviation, mining, agriculture, manufacturing and construction. Liquid fuels make up 60 per cent of our total imports by volume. It is actually insane in a country blessed with the resources that we have.

The USA, Brazil, Norway, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China and India—most of them large countries—considering their onshore and offshore reserves, have been pursuing energy independence. Australia's refinery capacity meets just 20 per cent of our demands. Over 95 per cent of our liquid fuel supply depends on ships arriving at our ports, which in this time, with the war in Iran occurring, is incredibly risky business.

Ben Small

All foreign owned, all foreign owned.

Anne Webster

All foreign owned. In government, the coalition spent over $260 million, adding 40 per cent to our diesel storages. We created the minimum stockholding obligation—not Labor, as the minister likes to claim. Labor was mugged by reality on the role of gas in the energy transition. High costs of doing business and the cost of living due to Labor's renewables-or-bust approach drove Labor to accept reality. So too, the Iran war has forced Labor to accept the reality that we need fuel security.

Labor had all their eggs in the renewables basket. They proposed that everyone own electric vehicles, despite the geographic realities in regional Australia, and that all our electricity would be from intermittent solar and wind. As I said, 50 per cent of Australia's total energy demand is liquid fuels. Labor have been dragged kicking and screaming by the realities of global geopolitics to do what the rest of the world was already doing: build up energy capacity on fossil fuels and renewables.

Labor was pursuing Greens votes in inner cities and throwing families and our economy under the bus. Part-time Energy Minister Bowen has been preening and posing on the international stage as COP31 president in charge of the COP31 negotiations. This is a government more focused on looking good on the international stage than on Australian national security. Minister Bowen spoke today about being ahead of the curve. That word 'curve' might be triggering for some—tired old Labor dusting off the old playbooks. This is a government that has been behind the curve since it took office four years ago. The dog didn't eat their homework; there was no homework to eat. The dog is innocent.

Here are some potential solutions to this fuel security crisis from a party of government: prioritising and investing in Australian exploration and drilling for oil, gas and unconventional petroleum; exploring options to produce more liquid fuels from our coal reserves; further building up the in-country fuel reserves the coalition bolstered in government; investing in our refining capacity; supporting complementary fuel streams; and establishing a dedicated fuel security budget. I look forward to seeing what the Labor government does with that.

Alison Penfold

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Government spent three weeks denying the existence of a fuel crisis—first dismissing concerns, then blaming consumers, and only acting once the problem became unavoidable;

(b) that after four years in office, the Government has failed to strengthen Australia's sovereign fuel capability, and now proposes to fund imports of the same resources it has banned funding for domestic production; and

(c) that Australia enters this crisis weaker, with higher debt, higher taxes, persistently high inflation, and falling real wages as a direct consequence of the Government's economic mismanagement; and

(2) recognises that the former Coalition Government took decisive action to strengthen fuel security, including establishing the Minimum Stockholding Obligation, legislating the Fuel Security Act, and securing Australia's last two refineries".

Lisa Chesters

Is the amendment seconded?

Ben Small

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question now is that the suspension as amended be agreed to.

Dan Tehan

I move:

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

(1) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 being called on immediately and having precedence over all other business;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding without interruption, with the time for each speech limited to 5 minutes;

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

(4) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with:

(a) one question to be put on all government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments;

(c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and

(d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to;

(5) any remaining questions required to conclude consideration in detail being put from no later than 1 pm;

(6) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

(7) any variation to these arrangements being made only on a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.

The standing and sessional orders must be suspended, because the opposition is being forced to do the government's job for it during this national fuel crisis. The government made a big deal about this ACCC bill. They said that it was urgent. We had the minister saying that it was urgent. Yet here we are, on Thursday of this parliamentary sitting week, in the middle of a national fuel crisis, and all we've had is this bill introduced. They've made no efforts to come to the opposition and say: 'This is what's in it. We want to get it done quickly.' There've been no briefings for the shadow Treasurer. And all this is happening while diesel and petrol prices are going through the roof. I've just had a report in Warrnambool, in my electorate, that the diesel price has just hit $3.20.

It gives me no joy to be in here doing the government's job for them. As a matter of fact, I find it quite sad, because there doesn't seem to be an understanding on the government benches of what is actually occurring out in Australia at the moment. They seem to be just caught in some sort of bubble where they don't have any realisation about what is happening in Australia right across the nation. At the moment, families are sitting at their kitchen tables, saying: 'Are we going to be able to afford to go on Easter holidays? Are we going to be able to travel to where we normally go, and is there going to be fuel there for us to be able to get home with?' All they're getting from the government is—and we saw this; there were five senior cabinet ministers out there yesterday saying, 'We've got more fuel than we did when the Iran war started.' Where is it?

We've been saying to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy: 'Why don't you do your job? Find out where the fuel shortages are, and get the fuel to where the shortages are.' Yet we've had nothing. They've said that they're going to make this big impact on anyone that's gouging—'We're going to double the fines.' Where's the legislation? It is not here. Where is the urgency in dealing with the national fuel crisis?

You have to remember: this is the minister who made changes, because there was fuel being exported out of Australia, to say that it will stay here. He basically changed the sulphur requirements. Guess how long the paperwork sat on his desk for him to do that? Over five days for the paperwork! This is in a national fuel crisis. Guess what we said to him two weeks ago? There are more changes that you could make around the fuel standards. Guess what the minister did? It took him till yesterday to do it. That was two weeks. And he accuses us of not being positive, not offering solutions, during a national fuel crisis.

Well, here is another one. This ACCC bill—we've been through it. The shadow Treasurer spent all night last night going through it because he wants to make sure it's fine. He wants to make sure that we can bring it on and bring it on immediately. That is exactly why we are seeking to suspend the standing and sessional orders—so that we can do this.

If the government wants to sit on its hands and pretend there is nothing happening out in our country at the moment, why not be honest with the Australian people and just come out and say that? Everything that we're hearing on our side shows there are real issues and real problems everywhere, and yet we've got a government which seems hapless and helpless about trying to do anything.

Just to give you a sense of what's happening in Western Australia, there's a cyclone that's coming through. Hopefully, that won't do too much damage, but that's going to bring rain with it—and we've got the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry here. It means that, as soon as that rain goes through, all those grain growers in Western Australia are going to want to get on their tractors and start sowing but, if they don't have the diesel, they're not going to be able to do it. Then you go to a family in Tasmania. They might be thinking, 'We might go over to the mainland for the Easter school holidays,' but they're worried. They're worried about the cost of petrol. It has hit $2.60. The cost of diesel has hit $3.20. They're worried that they'll get over there and won't be able to get fuel to put in the car to get back. This is what people are dealing with.

This weekend, there will be mums and dads across Australia who will be doing the drop-off to sport. As they go to netball, as they go to soccer, as they go to football, as they go to gymnastics, they'll be sitting there thinking, 'Gee, this is costing me a lot. We will probably have to limit the Easter eggs that we buy for Easter Sunday. We're probably going to have to think about, okay, are we going to get those pair of soccer boots? Are we going to be able to get those runners for netball?' They are the sorts of things that they will be thinking about. What's the government thinking about? They're not thinking about anything. I mean, there is no urgency whatsoever, and it's going to be an absolute insight into this government's dealing with this issue, this national fuel crisis. Remember, the only reason we got it called a 'national fuel crisis' was because Minister Bowen, finally, under enormous pressure, had to admit that that's what it was.

But this is going to be the biggest test yet, because here's the opposition offering bipartisanship. We've got this motion. Let's just suspend everything else to do with the parliament and let's bring the ACCC bill on. Now, guess what I think the leader of business in the House is going to do? Guess what I think he's going to do? I reckon he's going to gag us, so this will be a real test. Here is a genuine offer of bipartisanship, so will you agree to our suspension and will you bring the bill on? Will you let us debate it? Will you let it pass, go into the Senate and, hopefully, then it will offer a little bit of reassurance? I mean, the Australian people are going to need a lot more reassurance, because nothing else that's been done has been done with any sort of urgency. But this will be a test for the government, because, if you're serious, here we have bipartisanship being offered to bring this on and away we go. Let's whip it through the parliament and, if there's any other legislation, here's the offering to the government from the opposition.

We understand how people are hurting. We understand the importance of this, so, if you're genuine, we will work in a bipartisan way with you with any legislation that we think will make this better. As a matter of fact, we're happy to go and sit in the minister's office when the paperwork comes up so that he doesn't sit there for four or five days while fuel's being exported out of this country. That's the type of offering that we are making to you because we want you to understand how serious this issue is—

Sharon Claydon

Please direct your comments through the chair.

Dan Tehan

and we want the government to understand that they are asleep at the wheel. They're sitting on their hands. They're not acting with the immediacy that this requires and that's why we're bringing on this motion.

Sharon Claydon

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Tim Wilson

I second the motion. I really welcome the motion being put forward by the member for Wannon and shadow minister for energy. Australia is facing a national crisis right now. If every member goes and looks at the cost of petrol or diesel in the petrol stations across their electorates, they will see the consequences of this crisis and, more importantly, how their constituents are doing it tough.

Before I came to the dispatch box today, the price of petrol a litre was about $2.50 in the Goldstein electorate; it was about $3.20 for diesel. As the shadow minister correctly pointed out, there are going to be so many families driving between soccer and various other sports this Saturday, questioning whether they can afford to do it and keep supporting their kids. But more importantly, they're going to increasingly be carpooling to see how it is that they can save a buck, particularly in the lead-up to Easter. In the lead-up to Easter, it's so important to understand, habitually, how important it is that families connect. They can't even afford to drive to see their family or afford the holiday that they have booked and had had booked for months at a caravan park or somewhere where they're driving. That is increasingly being put at jeopardy because of soaring energy prices and fuel prices. This is something that Australians are fixated on right now.

What do they expect of their government? They expect leadership. They expect action. But instead what they're hearing is silence. And this is what is so terrifying for so many Australians. We've gone through a situation where, within one week, we've had the Minister for Climate Chang and Energy go from saying, 'There is no problem; we've got plenty of abundant fuel,' to three days later declaring a national crisis, to now already having our second National Cabinet on the national energy crisis. This government has been caught not just flat footed, not just asleep at the wheel—though they have been—but in a state of denial about the scale of the challenge that is being faced by our country and the cost impact it's having on Australian farmers, manufacturers, the freight industry. Of course all of that gets picked up by Australian consumers and also Australian small businesses.

Think about it. Right now, we have small businesses that are already living with the consequences of industrial relations inflation, monetary inflation stoked by pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire because, under the Albanese government, there's always fuel for inflation, just not for farmers or families. All of the other costs and taxes and charges are going up. And now those that are holiday destinations or part of the tourism industry are getting cancellations for Easter because families are saying: 'We can't make ends meet under the Albanese government. We can't make ends meet when you add on the extra cost of fuel.' Australian households are the ones that are living the consequences of this government, but it will cascade.

This is always the worry about these sorts of events. The first tremor can often be the sign of a bigger earthquake that is to come. The economic earthquake that is going to happen under the Albanese government if we don't take prompt, immediate action to stand with consumers—to make sure they can get the fuel at the pump so they can be in the position they need to be—is a central thing this parliament should be focused on this week. Instead what we've had is a government that has dithered. They introduced this bill. They have not brought it to a vote to drive it through legislatively, to increase the penalties for those who seek to price gouge or take advantage of vulnerable Australians at this time. I've written to the Treasurer and asked for a briefing on the legislation. He hasn't even bothered to respond.

It's quite simple. We need action and we need it immediately. We should expect the Treasurer and the minister for energy to step up to the plate, let alone the dispatch box, and do their job, but instead they have not worked with us in a bipartisan fashion in the way that we have wanted. They are not seeking to bring out a sense of urgency about the importance of this legislation, and the only people who are going to pay the price are going to be Australian families, Australian small businesses and of course, particularly, rural and regional communities.

We've had this consistent delusion from the government that there is no problem around fuel—this denial from this government that there is no problem around fuel. Yet, after initially saying there's no problem, the minister for energy has had to come into this parliament every single day and answer simple questions in question time and has had to read out the number of petrol stations that are going dry. Australians are living that. Increasingly I'm hearing stories in urban areas of Australia, including in Melbourne, where people are parking cars deliberately to stop people accessing petrol pumps. This is urgent. It is real. Can the Albanese government please act?

Long debate text truncated.

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.