Lisa Chesters

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to:

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

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading, and calls for an independent review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, with terms of reference to provide recommendations on how best to:

(1) encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal freedom of information requests;

(2) maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful freedom of information requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure;

(3) improve the timeliness of dealing with freedom of information requests, including review processes;

(4) ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government;

(5) create a robust system for the resourcing, training, auditing, and oversight of authorised officers responsible for freedom of information decisions;

(6) manage vexatious and frivolous requests;

(7) address the potential impact of artificial intelligence, both to improve freedom of information processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests; and

(8) provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence-based advice".

Question negatived.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Tim Wilson

I move:

The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing.

We have a fundamental problem at the heart of the Australian democracy right now, where we have a union that is operating beyond the law. This isn't my opinion; this is an opinion of the whistleblowers of the CFMEU. We know full well that the administration was established more than 15 months ago by the Albanese government, shortly after there were deep, serious allegations of cartel kickbacks from graft connected to Australian organised crime, criminal gangs and bikie gangs on public projects—that the government put the CFMEU in administration because they believed that there was something structurally wrong. There was something structurally wrong deep within the culture of the CFMEU for one reason: that the Albanese government took the CFMEU off the leash as a result of the abolition of the ABCC. Ever since then, we've had a continuing problem with the CFMEU. We have had issues of corruption directly at the heart of our democracy, and there needs to be proper accountability and responsibility.

We've seen this very directly in recent weeks, where there have been a number of whistleblowers who have come out publicly and said that the situation of corruption in the CFMEU has got worse since it's been put in administration. As a consequence, we now have a situation where we have referred the matter to a Senate inquiry to properly investigate the issues around CFMEU corruption. The minister has been blocking at every point an attempt for an inquiry—

Peter Khalil

I move, under standing order 45(c):

That order of the day No. 3, government business, be called on immediately.

Milton Dick

The question is that order of the day No. 3 be called on immediately, as moved by the assistant minister.

Milton Dick

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

This Government's betrayal of regional Australia is hurting family budgets and businesses.

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—

Tony Burke

I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion—that the business of the day be called on—be agreed to.

Julian Leeser

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Berowra from introducing the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 without notice, with the debate being adjourned to the next sitting following the moving and seconding of the motion for the second reading.

We're seeking urgency because this bill is about the safety of our children. It's also about sending an unmistakable message: those who exploit, abuse or prey upon children will face justice. Child sexual offences are some of the most serious offences on the Commonwealth statute book. Any person who commits one of these crimes should expect to do serious prison time, and I don't think there's a parent in the country who'd disagree with me. This bill is about restoring community confidence that the law treats these crimes with the seriousness they deserve. When I speak to people in my community and across the country, time and again I hear families who are concerned about child sexual abuse and its proliferation. They're concerned about what we saw in the childcare centres. They're concerned about the safety of children online. They want their children to be safe, and they're sickened by the offences we've seen reported in the media.

Data released by the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation revealed that there were 82,764 reports of online child exploitation in 2024-25. That's an average of more than 226 a day. It's a figure that bears repeating. Over the course of the last year, there have been more than 226 reports of online child sexual exploitation every single day. It's an epidemic of child sexual abuse. In just the last year, we've seen a 41 per cent jump in online child sexual abuse exploitation reports. It's sickening, it's sadistic, and it's happening every day. It's clear that more needs to be done and in particular that there's an urgent need to strengthen our sentencing regime to remove predators from our communities and protect all Australian children.

The need for urgent action to strengthen our sentencing regime is highlighted by the case of DPP and Maloney, which has attracted significant attention in the last fortnight. That's the case that was handed down in the County Court of Victoria. It involved a father who abused a five-year-old daughter on 19 separate occasions, producing and transmitting 77 separate files of child sexual abuse material. These files included 13 videos and 64 images. The judgement makes for very difficult reading, and I don't intend to repeat it here. Like every child in that situation, she was powerless. She was five. She was vulnerable and dependent. But the point that made it particularly difficult for me was when it became clear that, as she was being abused, the young girl knew what was happening to her was wrong. On at least two occasions, she told the father she didn't like it. She told him she didn't like it. No child should have to do that.

The worst thing about it is that there are literally tens of thousands of instances that involve that type of horrific abuse or worse every year. We know this from data released by the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and others. Australian families rightly expect that any person who commits these appalling crimes should be removed from the community for a very long time. They should serve serious time in prison. But the Maloney case also highlights a problem: the offender in that case will be eligible for release after just 2½ years. That's a shockingly low sentence. It means that the young girl who was so shockingly abused by her father will not even be eight years old when her abuser is back on the streets. When you dig into the detail of the sentencing, it gets worse. The need for action by us here in this federal parliament becomes clear.

The offender in the Maloney case was convicted of three offences: one state offence for the sexual abuse of their child and two Commonwealth offences for producing and transmitting child sexual abuse material. Each of those Commonwealth offences carries a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment, but, shockingly, in the Maloney case, the court directed that the offender serve just six months for those Commonwealth offences. After that, the offender will be released on a recognisance release order, which is similar to good-behaviour bond. Six months—it's just appalling.

It's for Victoria and the Allan government to account for the justice system in that state, but, at the Commonwealth level, there is something seriously wrong with our sentencing regime if a person can produce 77 separate files of child abuse material and then transmit them to the world at large via the internet and face just six months in prison. These sentences don't reflect community expectations. They're a travesty, and this bill seeks to correct that.

The Commonwealth doesn't have a general power to make criminal laws; that's the preserve of the states. Commonwealth crimes must be linked to a head of constitutional power, and that means the Commonwealth Criminal Code deals with child sex offences in Australia in two ways. First, it establishes child sex offences that involve the use of a carriage service. Those are offences that involve the use of the internet or communications networks. Second, it establishes child sex offences that involve the use of a postal service. This bill today is a simple bill. It's about the sentences that are handed down for five existing offences.

There is using a carriage service for child abuse material, which is an offence under section 474.22 of the Criminal Code. This is the provision that, among others, makes it an offence to transmit child abuse material. This is one of the offences at issue in the Maloney case. Another is possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service, which is an offence under 474.22(a) of the Criminal Code and is more or less self-explanatory. Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through a carriage service is an offence under 474.23 of the code, and this appears to have been the other offence at issue in the Maloney case. The bill also deals with sentences for analogues of these offences that involve the use of a postal service. That's using a postal or similar service for child abuse material, an offence under 471.19 of the code, and possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through postal or similar services, an offence under 471.20 of the code. These are all existing offences.

The bill that we seek urgency to bring on does not change them or introduce new ones. We're not asking the parliament to deal with complex questions of fault and criminal guilt; we're dealing with sentencing only. More specifically, we're talking about the existing mandatory sentencing regime found in part 1B of the Crimes Act. The existing mandatory sentencing regime in part 1B of the Crimes Act is a legacy of the former coalition government. The case for the scheme was clear. Before it passed into law, 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders did not serve a single day in prison. There was a clear need to strengthen our sentencing regime, so the coalition introduced a bill in 2019. Among other things, it delivered a carefully calibrated mandatory minimum sentencing scheme for child sex offenders. This is not the sort of flat scheme that's usually criticised in academic literature. It has significant flexibility and important carve-outs for things that underage offenders so you don't end up with a situation where children themselves end up being in prison.

It's been the subject of a statutory review. As the Attorney herself has acknowledged, the review showed the existing scheme's been effective. As a result of that scheme, we've seen the proportion of offenders pleading guilty increase, imprisonment and total effective sentences are generally longer, and a higher number of offenders commit to rehabilitation. What does this lead to? It leads to safer streets and safer communities for all our children.

I want to acknowledge that that bill was eventually passed with bipartisan support. Labor initially pressed the Senate to remove the mandatory sentencing regime and in fact were successful in doing so. But, when they saw the extent of community backlash, they dropped their opposition. They didn't insist on their amendments to the scheme, and they facilitated its passage on a bipartisan basis through the parliament.

The mechanics of the bill that we propose to introduce if we get urgency are very straightforward. The bill would amend the Crimes Act to establish mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for the five offences I mentioned earlier. This is done in items 1, 2 and 3 of the schedule to the bill, which amend section 16AAA of the Crimes Act. This is the first-offence regime. Section 16AAB of the Crimes Act deals with the second and subsequent offences. This bill, in items 3 and 4, increases the existing mandatory minimum sentences for a second or subsequent instance of these offences. In those cases, the minimum will now be six years.

The remaining items deal with the recognizance release order scheme, which was the mechanism used in Maloney to release the offender after only six months for the Commonwealth offences. The bill addresses these issues by making it clear that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a court that is sentencing a person for child sex offences must not grant a recognizance release order.

I want to conclude by emphasising that from the very beginning the coalition has sought to take a constructive and bipartisan approach to this issue. I wrote to the Attorney on 6 October flagging the coalition's grave concerns with the outcome we'd seen in Victoria and our intentions to introduce this bill. We asked for the government's support to do so. Yesterday I saw the Attorney's comments on Sky News indicating that she was open to the bill, and I welcome the bipartisan spirit in which they were made. In that same spirit, last night I wrote to the Attorney again, attaching a copy of the legislation, flagging our intention to introduce it today and again asking for support. It's disappointing that the spirit of bipartisanship did not extend to allowing us leave to introduce this bill today. I would have preferred not to attempt to suspend standing orders, but this is an issue on which there's clear and legitimate need for urgent action.

This is an issue on which we've sought to find common ground, and that common ground is very simple: any adult who sexually abuses a child should do serious prison time. I don't think there's a parent in Australia who'd disagree with us. I commend this motion to the House, and I encourage members to vote for the urgency that is needed to deal with these matters today.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Darren Chester

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), omit "subsections (2) to (9)", substitute "subsections (6) and (9)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 19) to page 5 (line 27), omit subsections 110V(2) to (5).

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 5) to page 6 (line 24), omit subsections 110V(7) and (8).

(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert:

8A After section 110V

Insert:

110VAAA Notification of review rights

If a reviewable decision is made, the decision maker must, in writing, notify any person who is affected by the decision of the effect of sections 110VA and 110VAA.

(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 33) to page 9 (line 24), omit the item, substitute:

9 After section 110VA

Insert:

110VAA Time limit for making an application for review

(1) An application for review of a reviewable decision can only be made within:

(a) 6 months after the day the applicant is given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision; or

(b) if the Tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that exceptional circumstances exist—such longer period as the Tribunal allows.

(2) However, an application for review of a reviewable decision can be made at any time (subject to this Part) if the applicant is not given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision.

Lest we forget—just three words, but three extraordinarily powerful words. It is the solemn promise we all make to acknowledge and respect the service of Australian Defence Force personnel and our veterans community. The sentence before that is equally poignant. The words are 'we will remember them'. Those words don't come with a use-by date. There's no caveat. There's no 'we will remember them sometimes' or 'we will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years'. We will remember them.

Under this legislation, the government is proposing that we will only remember them, we will only recognise their incredible service, if the action occurred in the past 20 years. That is exactly what this legislation proposes in terms of major medallic recognition of acts of bravery and gallantry that have quite rightly been reviewed by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal over the last 14 years and have resulted in some of the most celebrated Australians receiving due recognition decades—decades—after their brave action. But what this government is trying to do is cut this off at 20 years, saying, 'If your action didn't occur as Australian Defence Force personnel in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force in a more convenient timeframe for us—say, the last 20 years—I'm sorry, but you can't review any decision made by the Department of Defence in relation to honours of such great national significance.'

This is the most extraordinary overreach by the Department of Defence, and it has found a compliant minister to come in here with a rubbish piece of legislation that should not have seen the light of day. I'm sure the Department of Defence could not believe their luck when this government said, 'We'll run this one out for you and see how we go.'

But the legislation presented to us last Thursday, with no consultation, failed at the first test, and every speaker on this side of the House has recognised it. It is a solution trying to find a problem. The member for Indi pointed it out: 'What is the government trying to fix? What's broken?' Other crossbenchers spoke, and members of the Liberal Party and the National Party spoke, but the Labor MPs were missing in action. Now, on this side of the House, we know there are a lot of you. We sit here and we know there are a lot of you. You had a lot of choices—you had more than 90 choices, in fact—and you could only find one person brave enough to back up the minister, and that was the poor first-termer from Sturt! Was there a ballot? Did she get the short straw? How did this poor member for Sturt cop the short straw and have to turn up here? When the division was called this morning on the second reading motion, 90 turned up to vote. They were all here. But then they were missing in action. They had no intention of defending this pitiful piece of legislation, because they know how poorly it will be regarded by their veterans, by their service personnel and by the families in their own communities.

I say to those opposite: before you voted, you should have read the bill. You should have had a good look at it, because I can tell you now that, if you'd read the bill, you wouldn't have turned up here and voted for it. The minister knows there's been no consultation with the major veterans groups, he knows that the Australian Defence Force personnel do not support this bill, he knows the families will be furious, and yet somehow he's convinced his colleagues to come and vote for it. They heard the bells, ran in here, voted and had no idea what they had just voted for.

There would be no shame in the minister withdrawing this bill. There would be no shame in that whatsoever, because he has not given any explanation as to what he is seeking to fix with the legislation before the House today.

Michael McCormack

I ask this question of any member in the House: what were you doing when you were 18 or 19? I can tell you what I was doing, and I think the member for Gippsland was probably doing the same, because he's about the same vintage: rat-tat-tatting away on a typewriter, producing stories for a newspaper. What we weren't doing was rat-tat-tatting away with a gun. What we certainly weren't doing was hanging off an Oerlikon 20-millimetre cannon and firing away.

Teddy Sheean was doing that. Richard Norden was going across no-man's-land, again and again, to rescue comrades. Teddy Sheean, from the Navy, was 18 years young—just 18. It was 1 December 1942; it was the Battle of Timor. He was a Tasmanian—one of the bravest the island state has ever produced. Eighteen years! Richard Norden was 19. As in that famous song by Redgum, he was only 19. They were teenagers, mere boys, lads. As I said, Sheean fought in the Battle of Timor in 1942 and Richard Norden was in the Battle of Coral-Balmoral on 14 May 1968. Years on—decades, in fact—from their gallant actions, those two were justifiably, deservedly awarded Victoria Crosses for Australia—well, their families were, because Teddy and Richard, better known as Dick, were no longer with us. Teddy died on that day; we lost him. Dick died serving in the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, on Hindmarsh Drive in a motorcycle accident at just 24. He continued to serve, even though his days in the khaki were over.

Teddy was given what's called a Mention in Despatches. A Distinguished Conduct Medal was presented, at the time, to Dick. These were honourable awards and very well deserved, but they weren't what they should have received. What they should have received was a VC. We don't present VCs lightly in this country, nor should we, but, when we do, it's special. When we do, all the nation knows that that person, through their deeds of valour, through placing their life on the line and through their gallant actions, has saved others, has won the day and in some cases—in many cases—has caused the loss of their own life. We don't give them out lightly.

Then, of course, we had the 10 members of D Company from Long Tan. Their actions were on 18 August 1966. They were also given medallic recognition years after—half a century after, in fact—their gallant deeds. Yet now we're being told by the minister that all of those dozen awards would not have been awarded in the future. Why? It's a really easy question, but I just don't know why. I've been administering many portfolios. I've been lucky enough to do so. I know departments will often bring you their letters, their recommendations, their suggestions. You don't have to accept them all the time! You can say no—send them packing! You'll often get bureaucrats, public servants and unelected officials wanting you to change legislation. 'No' is an easy word to say when it's a dumb piece of legislation. That's what this is.

Minister, will World War II veterans or Vietnam veterans or Korea veterans have review rights under this bill that you are proposing? Will they? Why, Minister? Why? I just don't understand it. I'm a voice of what I'm sure will be many veterans and many RSL clubs. Good luck when you and members of the Labor Party who've already voted against this go out on any given commemorative day in the future. Good luck. Why, Minister?

Phillip Thompson

To all those that continue to serve, our veterans and your families: the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifice that you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget,' and we reaffirm our commitment to never forget those who've been killed in battle, died in training or succumbed to their war within back here home soil. On Remembrance Day, we say, 'The guns fell silent,' but the guns haven't fallen silent since. In world wars—World War II, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan—our brave men and women have been there. In peace-keeping missions around the world—East Timor, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Fiji—our brave men and women have been there. In natural disasters—cyclones, fires, floods, COVID Assist—our brave men and women have been there.

I don't think it's good enough to push legislation or a bill through this place without going to the veterans and the people that we represent. Politicians are very quick, on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and any other commemorative day, to run to the closest person with medals on their chest to get a photo to put on social media, but then, when it comes to standing up for them in this parliament, they're nowhere to be seen. This bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, should have Labor Defence Force veterans standing up and speaking on it, but today we didn't see that. We didn't see the courage from this government from those who have served, because they know this is a bad bill. They know that there hasn't been consultation. They know that this shouldn't be going through.

I often travel around not just the largest Defence Force electorate in the country, that being Townsville, but the country. I speak to many veterans. I've been fortunate enough to have had a coffee with many veterans who have medals of gallantry, such as Victoria Crosses. I've spoken to families of loved ones who have been posthumously awarded these honours. Today, I thought: 'I'm not just going to get up and speak about this bill, when we are debating it; I'm going to call some of these people. I'm going to call those that have been given a great honour—a great honour for their actions on the battlefield.' A great honour is what they are to this nation. I asked them: 'Have you heard about it? Did your RSL send it to you? Did the ex-service organisation you're a part of circulate it? Did they send out the letter or the transcript or any sort of communication that they may have received from this Labor government?' All said, 'I've never heard of this; this is news to me.'

One person, Justin Huggett MG, who got a medal of gallantry for fighting in Afghanistan with the Brits on Long Look, laughed when I said it. He said: 'That's not real. That's not a thing. You're jigging me up.' He used more colourful language. He was a good platoon sergeant. If you've ever put a bill through this place that he hasn't agreed with, you would definitely know about it. He gives me free advice. But this one bill, this bit of legislation—he couldn't comprehend that this would actually be a thing, because it hasn't been circulated widely throughout the veterans community. And these are people that have the honours.

Now, Afghanistan isn't 20 years past the end of its campaign. But it will be one day. It does take time for people to talk about and remember those significant battles for which these awards would be awarded. My question to the minister is this: what veterans specifically have you spoken to before you brought this bill to this place?

Long debate text truncated.

Long debate text truncated.

Angus Taylor

Last night we saw handed down by this hopeless Treasurer a budget for the next five weeks, not for the next five years. It is a budget for the prosperity and security of two people and their jobs—the Prime Minister and that hopeless Treasurer who is sitting over there. It is only about them. It is absolutely not about the hardworking Australians trying to get ahead, who are going backwards under this government. In 2½ years, Australians have seen the biggest collapse in their standard of living in the history of this country. We've never seen anything like this before. It is worse than any other country in the world. This hopeless Treasurer doesn't understand economics. He has never worked in the private sector—actually, I'm wrong; he worked in the private sector for six months, and he says he absolutely hated it. That's because he doesn't get it. He absolutely doesn't get it. And it's why, in his time as Treasurer, we have seen an eight per cent reduction in the standard of living of hardworking Australians. The truth is, for many Australians, it's far worse than that. If you're running a small business, it has been 18 per cent. If you're working overtime, weekends, because you can't afford to pay for your workers, it has been an 18 per cent collapse. If you are an Australian and you live in Western Sydney and you've got a mortgage, you've paid $50,000 more since this government came to power than you expected to pay just 2½ years ago. That's in after-tax income. That's what you have seen under this government.

Their answer to all of that is 70c a day over a year from now. That's their answer. That is the best this hopeless Treasurer, who simply doesn't understand economics—he's a PhD in spending; he's a PhD in excuse-making. That's the one thing that he focuses all of his time on. The best he has is 70c a day in over a year's time. The Australian people are smarter than that. They know they have been let down by this Treasurer, who is only focused on one job—his own. Actually, no—

Darren Chester

He has got two jobs in mind.

Angus Taylor

I tell a lie. He's interested in two jobs—the one he has got and the Prime Minister's job. They're the only jobs he's interested in.

Darren Chester

He has got a housing plan at the Lodge!

Angus Taylor

Yes, he does have a housing plan at the Lodge. I agree with that. Well said. I thought it was worthwhile having a look and seeing what you can buy for 70c. What is it you can buy with the 70c that the Treasurer thinks is the answer to the economic collapse that he has been behind over the last 2½ years? It turns out it's this: a single lolly at some old-school corner stores or service stations; a bread roll from a major supermarket, if they're on sale; a small coin donation to a charity box—it would be a pretty small coin donation; a single photocopy at libraries or office supply stores; a discounted soft-drink can at a clearance sale—it's probably past the use-by date; and an entry into a guessing competition, like, 'How many jelly beans are in the jar?' That is this Treasurer's solution to the biggest collapse in our standard of living in the history of this country. This Treasurer has no idea when it comes to what it takes to have a strong economy.

I said before the budget we've had three budget flops under this Treasurer—three flopped budgets. I said before this one there are three tests. There are three very simple tests. The first is that this budget needs to restore Australians' standard of living. We've seen in 2½ years, on average, an eight per cent reduction in Australians' standard of living, and we know what is behind that—the homegrown inflation that this Treasurer has driven. The Reserve Bank governor called it homegrown. We see grocery prices, for instance, up 30 per cent. Energy prices, gas prices and electricity prices are up over 30 per cent. Insurance bills and mortgage costs—you name it; this Treasurer has overseen a catastrophe on the cost of living that Australians have had to bear. The truth is, throughout that, our core inflation has been higher than most of our peer countries most of the time because this Treasurer never understood what he needed to do about it.

We've seen interest rates that have been higher for longer in this country. I talked about the average Australian family with a mortgage; they've had to find $50,000 that they weren't expecting to have to find—$50,000! The Treasurer's answer is 70c. You've got to be joking. He has no concept of the pain that they are experiencing. I go to food banks—

Government members interjecting—

You should listen to this. I go to food banks right across this country, and I see working people with mortgages going into those food banks who simply can't feed their families. And this Treasurer stands up here and says: 'It's all okay. You're all okay. I'm okay, so aren't you okay?' This bloke has never got it.

The second thing I will say about the cause of this collapse in the standard of living is the increase in personal income taxes being paid. The average Australian is paying $3½ thousand more in personal income taxes than when those opposite came to power, and that's on its way to $10,000.

Government members interjecting—

Nothing you are talking about is going to change that one little bit—

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! The member for Hume, I'm sorry. If you could just pause—

Angus Taylor

You have been responsible for higher taxes in this country because you have absolutely failed—

Milton Dick

The member for Hume, resume your seat for a moment. There are far too many people interjecting outside of their seats; this is not going to continue. If people wish to interject from outside of their seats, they will leave immediately. There is far too much noise. The member for Hume is going to give his speech, and everyone's going to listen to what he says.

Angus Taylor

As I said, the first test is restoring Australians' standard of living. We look at the budget papers, where we can see whether or not Australians' standard of living is going to be restored under their plan, and the answer is: no time soon. They've seen an eight per cent reduction in their real disposable incomes. That's the goods and services that their incomes can buy—eight per cent down since this Treasurer took on the role. He smashed Australians' standard of living. He smashed household budgets to try and improve his budget. He's found $400 billion more to spend by taking it from Australian households, which was my earlier point about taxes.

The truth of the matter is that, when you look at the budget, there is no pathway back anytime soon to the standard of living that Australians had when we were last in power. The Reserve Bank tell us that they expect our standard of living to get back to that level in 2031. That is a lost decade. And, if you leave this bloke in the role, it will be a lot more than a decade, because he has completely failed in this budget to restore Australians' standard of living.

The second test for this budget is whether it restores the hope of Australians who are losing hope. Aspiration and hope are central to the great Australian dream. The hope and aspiration that, over time, you can buy a house, pay it off, keep it as you approach retirement and use it as the basis for a great retirement are disappearing under this government. Hope is disappearing fast. We have seen them make a commitment to build 1.2 million houses, but there's no sign of that. The experts are telling us we'll be lucky to get to 800,000. There was absolutely nothing in this budget that suggested that that great hope of owning a home is coming back anytime soon.

Of course, the other great aspiration so many Australians have is to start and build a business over time. We know on this side of the House—because, unlike those opposite, so many of us have worked in small businesses—that small businesses are the backbone of our local communities. They are absolutely at the heart of employment and prosperity, ensuring that our communities are strong and that we have rising real wages, rising real incomes and a rising standard of living—something that those opposite don't seem to have much interest in. Again, there is absolutely nothing in this budget to suggest that there is any hope being restored anytime soon for those many Australians. There are 2.5 million Australians who own a small business, and we know there are many more who would like to over time, but they are losing hope. Young Australians are giving up on that hope.

I said the third test for this budget was restoring fiscal integrity and honesty. Peter Costello put in place a series of rules back in the 1990s—

Government members interjecting—

Listen to them crow. They've got a new model of government where they just spend like drunken sailors. That's their approach. Peter Costello put the rules in place that have worked for this country for many, many years, and the first thing that this Treasurer did when he came into the role is he threw them all out. He threw them all out because he knew better. His degree in spin taught him that you don't need fiscal rules. You don't need any discipline over the bureaucracy or your colleagues—who all want to spend like drunken sailors; there's no doubt about that. He decided to throw all of those rules out, and the result of that in this budget is red ink as far as the eye can see.

Since Labor came to power, they have added over $400 billion of spending to the final budget numbers that came out when we were in government. That's $400 billion of extra spending. That's $400 billion of extra taxation and red ink as far as the eye can see. Indeed, if you add up the five deficits the Treasurer announced last night, they add up to $170 billion—that's 6,000 bucks for every Australian—being put on the credit card to save this bloke's job. Actually, it's his aspiration to have another job, I think, as well. That's what we saw.

What we saw in this budget was not just a big-spending, big-taxing Labor budget; we also saw a big Australia budget. The numbers here are totally out of control.

An opposition member: It's jaw dropping.

They are jaw-dropping—absolutely right. They are out of control. Those opposite are going to see a number approaching two million people coming into the country in just five years. Now, we are a great immigrant nation, but you've got to get the balance right. There needs to be a balance between the housing supply in this country—which has been in freefall—and our immigration rate. That has been absolutely out of whack whilst this Treasurer and those opposite have been in power. It has been a complete disaster. Every time we get a new forecast, up it goes. Up it goes. They've added 700,000 to the forecast over just a few years. And the actual outcomes are quite extraordinary: over a million people coming into this country in just two years. They've lost control.

The result of that is that GDP per capita in this country has gone backwards for seven consecutive quarters. The only thing driving this country is Australians working for more hours, and their real incomes have gone backwards. The Treasurer should actually listen to some of this because he should try to get across the economics of what's going on here and not just focus on the spin. He has absolutely no idea about how an economy works. We see, as I say, an immigration rate which is completely unsustainable under this government. And they have lost control of our borders.

Now, there is a better way. There is a better way. We know that the way forward is to beat inflation, to boost growth, to back small businesses with accelerated depreciation. Those opposite reluctantly come to this place each year and say, 'Oh, I suppose we've got to give something to small business.' But I tell you what we've done is we've said, 'No, we're going to change that.' We're going to make this a permanent part of our taxation system. It's a permanent incentive for every small business in this country to invest, create jobs, create opportunities, and create prosperity for every Australian. Those opposite will never come at that. That's lower taxes. That's lower taxes that are going to drive prosperity for every Australian.

And we know, while I'm on this topic, that the worst thing that we could do with our taxation system is to start creating a system where you tax unrealised capital gains. But this Treasurer has absolutely no idea about how wealth is created. The truth is he is quite happy to go after unrealised capital gains of smart farmers and small-business people. And you know what, Mr Speaker? That means that those capital gains are going to have to be realised; that means a farm gets sold, a small business gets sold because they have to find access to that cash.

I said we've got to beat inflation, boost growth and back small business. We've got to fix our housing supply too. That means making sure that we are breaking the infrastructure bottlenecks that we know are holding back housing supply in this country. We also know that we need to deliver affordable, reliable energy. The failure on this has been astronomical. Those opposite promised a $275 reduction. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy promised a $275 reduction. The Treasurer was asked about this the other day, and he couldn't name the number; he couldn't do it. It was like an episode out of Fawlty Towers. Don't mention $275. Don't mention $275, because the truth of the matter is they have absolutely failed on one of their core promises from before the last election.

I know in my electorate and the electorate of the minister for energy Australians are paying $1,300 more than was promised by Labor. This is an absolute disaster, and we know putting more supply into the system is always going to be the answer. A renewables-only strategy is never going to work, but that is the path those opposite are on, and it has been a complete disaster for our country. Australians cannot afford another three years of Labor. Australians are poorer after three years of Labor, and 70c a day in over a years' time is going to do absolutely nothing to change that.

Long debate text truncated.

Tony Burke

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of the debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tanya Plibersek

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the bill be now read a third time.

Tony Burke

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following on Tuesday, 25 March 2025:

(1) after the introduction of Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, debate on each bill being adjourned until a later hour;

(2) Ministers introducing the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 without notice and debate on each bill being adjourned until a later hour;

(3) when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026 is called on, a cognate debate taking place with Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026;

(4) immediately following the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024, Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026 and Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025 have not passed, all questions necessary to complete consideration of the bills being put immediately;

(5) following the passage of the bills listed in (4), the resumption of debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 being called on immediately and all questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill being put at no later than 5.45 pm; and

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

Members would be aware of the different bills that the government is seeking to get through the parliament this week. As members would be aware, the Senate has Senate estimates on Thursday; therefore, the only way of us being able to deal with these different pieces of legislation is to deal with them in the House today, and this motion is to give effect to that. I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question is that the question be put.