Kevin Hogan
Page · National Party · Australia
“Deputy Speaker, you know and we all know on this side of the chamber that Australian families, Australian businesses and Australians generally are despairing right now. We've had 15 interest rate increases under this Labor government. The average mortgage costs have gone up—not total, they have gone up—by $30,000 a year.”
“As I've said earlier, every member over on that side of the chamber should hang their heads in shame by deceiving every single one of their electorates at the last election. You know that, Speaker, and I know that.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, you said that families will be better off under your government, but, under Labor, interest rates have increased 15 times, meaning an average new mortgage holder is around $30 a year worse off.”
“We have always been the country that has driven trade deals, and we have been very successful at it. Members have been talking about fuel security. I want to remind everyone in this chamber right now that we sell about $650 billion worth of stuff overseas every year, and there are four big ones: coal, iron ore, gas and food/agriculture.”
“This is not me saying this; this is actually in the budget paper, so I assume it's Treasury saying this. Why do you think it's a good idea, when we don't have enough housing stock, that tax proposals you announced on budget night will mean that 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next 10 years?”
“I have about three or four questions to the government and to the minister, and the first one is: why did you deceive the Australian public? There's an issue of integrity that's really important here. I understand that people might have opinions on certain policies and might want to do stuff.”
The complete record
Every one of 325 lines we hold for Kevin Hogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“This would allow for the bill to be passed, a proper inquiry to occur and then the legislation to remove the sunset clause if appropriate. We are trying to be constructive. We are willing to support this bill, even without an inquiry, if it is not retrospective and has a sensible sunset clause.”
“(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 12 (lines 1 to 3), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section". The amendments would remove the retrospective application of the bill. The government has introduced this bill with a 1 April 2026 retrospective start date, but we don't have any detail or any explanation of why that date is needed. We're happy to work constructively with the government on these issues, but this is a matter of competition law, and we don't know if there's been a breach of the law that the government is aware of. This amendment would remove the retrospectivity of the law. The amendments would also introduce a sunset clause to the bill. The changes to the bill would sunset on 2 July 2026.”
“by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (6) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4". (2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert: 4 Sunsetting of amendments The amendments made by Schedules 1 and 2 are repealed on 2 July 2026. (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 2), omit "may", substitute "must not". (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 20 to 22), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section". (5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 10 (lines 1 to 3), omit "which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026", substitute "which must not be before the commencement of this section".”
“But suspending competition law and giving the government powers that are immune from Senate disallowance should not be taken lightly. The government wants to limit parliamentary scrutiny. They don't want to give us the courtesy of scrutinising their bill, and we think they should.”
“I get the bill is well intentioned, but it is giving significant new powers to the Treasurer and the ACCC. An inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Economics should test whether the ACCC's powers are generally inadequate, whether the Treasury's declaration for power is too broad, whether the ACCC authorisations should be disallowable, whether transparency requirements are strong enough, whether the retrospective start date is justified, whether the powers are properly limited in time and scope, and whether there should be strong sunset and review mechanisms. I reiterate that we want to work constructively on measures that help manage this current fuel crisis. We support practical steps to protect households, small business and essential supply chains.”
“The ACCC exemptions only need to be made public within seven days. In some circumstances, that may be understandable, but these exemptions can authorise conduct that would otherwise breach competition law. The public parliament and affected businesses should know what has been authorised as soon as possible. This parliament should test whether faster publication, notification and reporting is possible, and transparency should be built into the framework from the start. As I said earlier, the bill is backdated to 1 April 2026. I'm not clear about the reason for that date. Retrospective lawmaking, as we know, should always be very rare. Retrospective competition law exemptions should require a clear and specific justification. Why is an inquiry needed?”
“Once this is made, it opens the door to the ACCC exemptions from competition law. We are very cautious about any attempts to take away parliamentary scrutiny. Our inquiry should test whether the threshold is tight enough. It should also test whether the safeguards are strong enough. The Treasurer's declaration can be disallowed by parliament, but the individual ACCC authorisations made after that declaration cannot be disallowed. A Senate amendment allowed class exemptions to be disallowable, but individual authorisations will not be. This is a significant issue. It means that parliament can reject the broad declaration, but it cannot directly disallow the specific exemptions that may affect competition in particular markets. We believe this weakens parliamentary oversight.”
“Yes, temporary coordination in a crisis may be necessary, but anticompetitive conduct must not become normal. This is the balance and why we want this inquiry to make sure parliament gets it right. The government argue that the current authorisation framework is too slow and too restrictive, and they say that the disallowance and public consultation requirements can get in the way of a rapid crisis response. But I reiterate the point I made earlier: this current framework worked through COVID. It also appears to be working so far during the current fuel supply issue. It's appropriate that we take the time to test whether this framework has been drafted properly. The Treasurer's power to declare exceptional circumstances is extremely broad. It's not confined to the fuel crisis. It can be used at any time the Treasurer so declares it.”
“The Treasurer will be able to declare that exceptional circumstances exist, and this decision will be disallowable. Once that declaration is made, the ACCC can rapidly exempt conduct that may otherwise breach competition law, and their authorisations will be exempt from disallowance. We have some concerns around that, and we would like extra parliamentary scrutiny around this. This goes beyond the current fuel crisis as well. The Treasurer having this would not be limited to the current fuel crisis. We want to work constructively, but we want a proper inquiry. The concern is that competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers, it protects small businesses and it stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition, so any exemption from competition law needs to be treated seriously.”
“That's what some of our concerns are about, and we want to—quite reasonably, we think—refer this to a committee to have a look at some of these issues and to make sure that they don't lessen competition in our community and our society, which would obviously not be good for the consumer. An inquiry by the parliament is the bare minimum, we think, when the government is asking for these powers. This bill also calls for the powers to be retrospectively backdated to 1 April 2026. But, on this side, we're not clear on why it needs to be retrospective. We think the government is limiting parliamentary scrutiny on this. This amendment would give parliament the courtesy of having scrutiny of the bill, a bill that will itself limit scrutiny in the real world. This bill creates a new framework for exceptional circumstances.”
“Some of the supply issues that we have with fuel and many other products were certainly evident through COVID. Given that the proposed government powers would be immune from Senate disallowance, have retrospective application and impact matters as serious as suspensions of competition law, these changes should not be done lightly. I make the general observation that, if there's something we need in this country more than anything else, it's better competition in most sectors. I think we could have better competition across just about every sector of our economy.”
“This bill has been considered in the Senate, and our House amendment aligns with the amendments we moved in the Senate. Sometimes in this chamber the road to ruin is paved with good intention, and I actually understand the good intention of this bill and what it is seeking to potentially deal with. We obviously have a fuel supply issue in this country, and we are looking to make sure that fuel and other things like food and essential services get to where they need to get—and get there as quickly as possible. We will work to support measures that help manage this and protect households and small business. But we have some genuine concerns that this bill gives the ACCC significant new powers, and they're powers that I note weren't needed during COVID.”
“I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 and move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the bill be referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026, with particular reference to whether: (1) the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate; (2) the Treasurer's declaration power is too broad; (3) in addition to class exemptions, ACCC authorisations should also be disallowable; (4) transparency requirements are strong enough; (5) the retrospective start date is justified; (6) the powers are properly limited in time and scope; and (7) there should be stronger sunset and review mechanisms".”
“They don't like people who are successful, they want to tax people who are successful, and they want to hurt people who are successful. I've got so much more to say, but I've run out of time.”
“1 says that, because of the tax changes that were announced Tuesday night, 35,000 fewer homes would be built in this country over the next 10 years. This is a policy that they sell by saying, 'We want housing to be more affordable and easier to access for young people to get into the housing market.' Their own documents refute that. Their own document refutes the idea that this is going to make it easier. The other one, of course, is rents. The budget document also says that rents are going to go up. You can't make this up. The policies and the reasons they're saying are actually having the opposite effect. I don't think this is anything about what's going on in the economy. This is just about Labor's socialist ideology.”
“'You take the risk; we'll take the reward.' That's how it was referred to me, which is very apt. You take the risk but Labor will take the reward if you're going to have a go at trying to create wealth for yourself and your family. We want to encourage that. I say that unashamedly. We want people in our country to take a risk and get a reward for it. We want to encourage that, and this is doing exactly the opposite of that. There'll be ramifications of this that won't be seen today. They won't be seen next week. They won't even necessarily be seen within the next year or so. But over time the culture will change and the behaviour of people will change. The other policy is negative gearing. This actually surprised me, though why would I be surprised? I was surprised by this. I was sitting in the budget lock-up. Page 158 of Budget Paper No.”
“If you are going to start a small business, a lot of small businesses—I know the member for Lyne would know many, and I know them myself—will invest in things and they, especially young people, will often forgo income. Why do they do that? Because they have this idea that they're going to create this asset that they're going to be able to sell and have a capital gain because of the work they do. There are countries like New Zealand, to name one—I name that because it's the closest country that is doing the exact opposite with capital gains. They're actually lowering capital gains taxes because they want to encourage New Zealanders to have a go. It was said to me by someone yesterday that Labor wants you to take the risk, but they'll take the gain. They'll take the reward.”
“He doesn't just undermine his own credibility as Prime Minister, which I think he's done enormous damage to this week, and the Labor Party; he undermines the whole institution of the parliament because of how he's done that. I want to go through a few policies—in particular, the three policies that he did move this week with the budget—and I want to explain why I think the Australian public didn't vote for it last time and the damage that it will do, which the Australian public will never get to vote on before he institutes it through this parliament. The first one is the capital gains tax. We now have one of the highest capital gains taxes in the world.”
“You might say, 'Why was he asked about those three specific policies?' To at least give him credit for this, these were the three policies that the then Labor leader Bill Shorten took to the 2019 election. At least he had the decency to go to the Australian public and say, 'If elected, I am going to institute these three policies.' You may well argue and say, 'If those three policies were taken to the Australian public now at an election, then things have changed and the vote might change,' but we'll never know. We'll never know because this Prime Minister didn't have the guts, the transparency or the honesty to do that, and great shame on him for that.”
“I want to talk about a few things that came out of the budget this week, but, before I do, I think it's important, unfortunately, to remind not only this Chamber but also the Australian public that this budget is built on broken promises. It's important to remind this Chamber of that, because this is the whole issue that people have of trust in the House and trust in this institution of the parliament. The Prime Minister was asked, on record, over 50 times before the last election—which was only 12 months ago, so we're not talking about a big period of time here—whether he would do the three things that he announced in this week's budget.”
“Rest in peace, Sam, and thank you for your service. I'd also like to acknowledge and congratulate John and Fay Hooper, and Fay's brother Alan Child, on their retirement after 30 remarkable years of running the Coutts Crossing General Store. For generations, the store has been the heart of the community. Since taking over, John, Fay and Alan have been remembered for their generosity, having donated to countless charities and community groups. Stores like this—and the help they gave in feeding the community through fires and floods and in times of distress—are legendary for how generous they were. Their impact will be felt for many years—so thank you John, Fay, daughter Kylie and granddaughter Matilda; and Alan, children Tim and Ashley and grandchildren Tate, Joslyn and Rylee.”
“I'd also like to acknowledge Sam Darke, born in South Grafton in 1933. Sam loved his town, he loved a yarn, and, if you ever saw an old 'Bullnose' Morris, you knew exactly who it was. The car was his pride and joy. He also helped start the Grafton vintage car club so others could share the passion as well. As a young man in the Royal Australian Air Force, he was sent out to Emu Field during Operation Totem in 1953. What that involved was Sam transporting scientists into the desert for Australia's first nuclear test, and he held that story in silence for 70 years. Sam is thought to have been the last person alive that stood within five kilometres of the detonation. He said all this was carried out with the utmost secrecy. Sam married his wife, Betty, in 1956 and raised Dennis, Donnie and Carol.”
“I'd like to rise to acknowledge a tragedy that recently happened in my community. On 5 May, Marine Rescue volunteers from Ballina answered a call to assist a boat in distress. Six volunteers launched into dangerous conditions. Tragically, the rescue vessel capsized, and Bill Ewen and Frank Petsch made the ultimate sacrifice. We often speak in this place about courage, service and community spirit. Bill and Frank showed all three. They were volunteers who quietly dedicated their time, skill and compassion to protecting others—men who loved serving their community and never hesitated when help was needed. Their loss has deeply affected the Marine Rescue family and our wider community. I extend my condolences to Bill's wife, Kerry; Frank's wife, Janet; and their extended families. Bill Ewen and Frank Petsch: rest in peace.”
“People will not, because of the taxes, be prepared to take the risk that they once would when they're building businesses, they're building asset values et cetera. I have so much more to say, but anyway I'll sit down.”
“It's exactly that type of behaviour and that type of language and then immediately doing in his first budget exactly the opposite to what he said he would that brings great shame upon himself and great shame upon the government that everyone over there represents, because it is a real mistrust you now have with the Australian public. The first one I want to talk about is the capital gains tax. We now have one of the highest capital gains taxes in the world. We won't notice it this week. We won't notice it necessarily this year. But this is going to change the behaviour of Australians in the sense of taking a risk. As someone said to me yesterday, Labor wants you to take the risk, and they'll take the reward. That is how this is going to filter through.”
“I want to talk about this week's budget. I want to talk about a couple of measures in it that I think are going to be really damaging to our prosperity as a nation. But I really want to remind those opposite that this budget was built on misleading the Australian public. We know that just a year ago the Prime Minister was asked over 50 times—it's well documented—whether he would change the policies of his government in relation to capital gains tax, in relation to negative gearing and in relation to trusts, and over 50 times he said no, he wouldn't.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the Albanese Labor government introducing a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for foreign multinationals investing in renewable energy projects, saving them $450 million, while taxing hardworking Australian mum-and-dad investors more?”
“The courts and lawyers will decide this. This will be a lawyers picnic, and they'll be feasting on small businesses and, again, increasing costs. Again, Labor have promised to cut red tape and to boost productivity. I would say that opening up this new general definition of what is unfair trading is doing exactly the opposite of both of those. This will lower productivity and increase red tape and red tape costs. Treasury estimates the bill will impose more than $123 million a year in regulatory costs. Why would we want to do that right now? Why do we want to have this new general definition of what unfair trading is—”
“Those types of things have merit, and I think that is warranted. But, again, I want to touch on the problem that we have with the general prohibition on unfair trading. Who will define what unfair trading is? What this bill will do is open up the question of what is unfair trading. If it's very broad, then a business may breach the law and not even necessarily know it's breaching the law until that is determined in a court. We think that will unreasonably distort decision-making and cause detriment to the small business, which will be financial but can also be non-financial. There'll be wasted time, stress, compliance costs, red tape costs and inconvenience. Who's going to decide what is unfair? When does normal marketing become manipulation? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? Again, the bill doesn't go into all of this.”
“While the coalition won't oppose this in the House, we are sceptical of this bill, which is why we want to refer it to a Senate inquiry. If I can go into some of the targeted measures that I think have merit in this bill, one is drip pricing. We all know an example of this would be buying something online; you might start off at $12, and, by the time you've clicked 'buy', it's gone up to $24 because of costs that get added as you keep clicking, whether it be booking fees, service fees processing fees, handling fees or et cetera. I think there's some merit in the bill in that area. The other one is subscription traps. To subscribe to something is very easy; 'Just click here and subscribe,' and you're subscribed. But, if you try and get out of it, you've almost got to take your dead grandmother in to prove who you are.”
“There are some things about this bill, which I will go into in a minute, where I think the intention is warranted and good. But, as I mentioned in the amendment, we're concerned that in this bill there will also be a new legal test about what is unfair trading. This will create a lot of uncertainty in the business sector, especially in the small business sector, around what will be considered fair or unfair trading, which I think will be a lawyer's picnic. We're not convinced that this is needed, given we already have the consumer laws. As the amendment mentions, there's $100 million a year in red tape that this is predicted to put onto small business. We know and you know, Deputy Speaker, the pressures that are already on small businesses. Of course, they will pass it onto consumers.”
“The amendment also says that, despite the government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $100 million per year; this will all be worn by small business. The amendment also mentions the additional compliance burdens that will fall on small businesses already under pressure from higher inflation, energy costs, rents, insurance et cetera and that these costs will eventually—obviously, if they're passed on to business—be passed onto everyday consumers in what is already a cost-of-living crisis. The amendment also says that the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny. I often feel it in this chamber; there's an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
“I just want to read, before I go to my speech, some of the essence of what the amendment is—firstly, 'that the opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices'. The amendment also notes that Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. The amendment also says that the bill's broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices will create risks through significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years.”
“(): I rise to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, and I move the amendment circulated in my name: 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 notes that: (1) the Opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices; (2) Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms; (3) the Government has failed to clearly identify the gap in existing law that the bill is intended to address; (4) the bill's broad new prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' risks creating significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years; (5) despite the Government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $124 million per year, including more than $100 million per year on small businesses; (6) these additional compliance burdens will fall on small businesses already under pressure from high inflation, rising energy costs, higher rents, higher insurance premiums, the Government's new taxes, and a slowing economy; (7) these costs will be passed on to everyday Australian consumers; and (8) the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny, stakeholder consultation and consideration of its impact on small businesses".”
“I also want to recognise the under-13 surf team of Reed Batinovic, Ziggy O'Brien, Leo Dean and Clarry Dougherty, who secured the club's first ever gold medal in this event. Leo Dean and Clarry Dougherty also placed third in the under-13 board rescue. These excellent results reflect the hard work and dedication of not only the athletes but the members and coaches of the surf lifesaving club and their families. For a small regional club, these are truly remarkable achievements. Congratulations to everyone.”
“I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate a group of outstanding young athletes from the Yamba Surf Life Saving Club who achieved wonderful results at the recent Australian Surf Lifesaving Championships at North Kirra. Mostyn Brown was recently selected in the New South Wales Surf Interstate Pathways team. He is the first from the Yamba surf club since 2006. This is a fantastic achievement and a great reflection of his training. At the championships he won gold in the under-14 beach flags, marking the club's first medal in that event since 1966. Mostyn also recently competed at the NSW Surf Life Saving Championships near Newcastle, where he won the under-14 male beach flags, as well as the flags as part of the New South Wales team, claiming the interstate cup. Congratulations.”
“Organised crime is moving into that industry, having a big say controlling that industry—along with vaping, which brings a whole lot of other questions. We question whether some of that is the reason the government is looking at this and at the R&D incentive. There are lots of questions around tobacco that need to be answered, but we would just make that point. Earlier I mentioned the video game sector and whether some kids games could be captured, in these changes, as a form of gambling. There are games like the Untitled Goose Game, by House House; Fruit Ninja; and Hollow Knight, which all give rewards for certain things and certain processes when you play.”
“There are very important questions here that we think need to be answered. I would also make a point about the tobacco one. We're happy to look at whether the tobacco industry should be able to get this R&D incentive, but we need to make the point here that the tobacco industry itself is in complete disarray at the moment. We've lost billions of dollars in tax revenue. In 2022, when the government came to office, projected tobacco excise for 2025-26 was $13.3 billion, and the estimated collections now are down to $7.3 billion and are going to be $6 billion in 2025-26. So there's a lot going on in that industry. Illicit tobacco is now being made, and illicit cigarettes are far cheaper than they've been in recent history, and they're showing up in wastewater data. We think that this industry needs to be looked at a bit more widely.”
“One is that the government—for the first time, really—is now starting to have a subjective opinion on which business or sectors should be able to apply for this R&D incentive. We're happy to have that debate, but, obviously, once you open this door, you open the door to the government, if it doesn't like a certain sector—for whatever subjective reasons—saying that they can't apply for this incentive. We want that to be further investigated. With the specific one of gambling, we also want some further investigation about what is going to be termed, or what is going to be recognised as, a gambling activity. There are definitions around that. There is the discussion about whether some kids games, in the way that they might give prizes to a winner or what have you, be looked at.”
“The coalition is not opposing this bill—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026—in this chamber, but in the Senate we are looking to refer it to the economics committee for further scrutiny. The bill contains a range of technical tax measures. Many of the measures are sensible and many of them are non-controversial. The most significant part of this bill is the exclusion of tobacco and gambling activities from the research and development, or R&D, tax incentives. When we look at this measure, we're not necessarily opposed to it but we do want closer scrutiny. Where we're going with this is that there are two issues we need to look at here.”
“As I said, the productivity of the country back then was enormous, but also it was the last time where we had a string of surpluses that were put to good use for the future of this country. The Future Fund is a very important part of our super fund industry. It's a very important of the sovereign capability and the sovereign investments that we have in this country. I applaud the coalition government that brought that in. It was a great achievement.”
“It was so important for their superannuation. It's lovely always to get up and talk about, and I do acknowledge the reforms of the Hawke-Keating years in establishing parts of our superannuation fund industry. I'm gracious enough to do that. Labor aren't. They never are, but I will acknowledge that. But I will also acknowledge the very important part that a coalition government had. One of the most important things—there were many achievements of coalition governments, but, certainly of the Howard-Costello and John Anderson years, I would say it is one of the most important things that was done, besides broadening the tax base with the GST and some of the other productivity reforms.”
“They invested in what was then our first sovereign fund of that size to invest and get returns to fund public servants' superannuation. It was a really important reform, Labor MPs. What has it done since then? It's grown to about 250 to 260 billion bucks. The returns on it in a year can be around $30 billion, which is now nearly as much as what was initially ceded by the then coalition government that established this fund. I encourage—I dare almost any Labor MP in your future careers in this chamber or in the House of Representatives to one day mention the Future Fund and one day mention the public servants whom you say you have a lot of respect for. I encourage the member for Bean, a Canberra MP who has a lot of respect for public servants, to mention the Future Fund as a coalition initiative.”
“It came from the Howard-Costello years and the John Anderson years. Do you know what the coalition government was doing then? Productivity was increasing. Productivity was going through the roof. Do you know what else we had? We had surpluses. We had government surpluses. And rather than just splurge the government surpluses, the Liberal-National parties said, 'We have a whole lot right here; don't mention it.' We won't mention the poor public servants who had unfunded superannuation liabilities. You won't hear them mention that. That won't come out of their mouths ever! The coalition government said, 'We need to fund public servants' superannuation liabilities.' From that time, the coalition government ceded between 50 to 60 billion bucks.”
“Productivity actually grew under some of the Hawke and Keating years, and there were obviously some of these super reforms. But not one of the Labor MPs has spoken on this. They obviously don't care. No Labor MP cares about public servants' superannuation. And do you know what none of them have mentioned? The Future Fund. They can't mention the Future Fund—no Labor MP will let the words Future Fund come out of their partisan mouths, because it wasn't their idea. We can talk about the superannuation industry; we can talk about some of the things that Hawke and Keating did that were a good idea, but no-one mentions the Future Fund. It's pathetic! It's pathetic that not once has a Labor MP ever talked positively about a coalition policy. Let me tell you where the Future Fund came from.”
“There's a sad fact about every Labor MP in this chamber. If you listen to them, you would think nothing good ever happened when any coalition government existed and that every cathartic good idea that happened in the Australian parliament since 1901 was on the Labor side of politics. There's one thing that no speaker, just with this motion, has mentioned with regard to superannuation. It's really quite bizarre. I often hear my coalition colleagues talk about some of the reforms of the Hawke and Keating era that were pretty good. They say: 'Look, Hawke and Keating did some good reforms during that period. Some of the privatisation was helpful for the economy.' There was a lowering of taxes. The member for Lyne remembers.”
“In the parliament the next week, we were all down here asking questions of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. We were highlighting supply issues that we saw. That whole first week, we heard, 'Nothing to see here,' from him. There were no issues; everything was under control. Then suddenly, a week later, we heard, 'Well, yes, we don't have a fuel reserve issue, but, yes, there are 500 petrol stations across the country who don't have enough fuel.' Again, we came up with the solution. The price issue was causing, and will still cause, massive inflationary impacts across this economy. We were saying, 'You need to do something about it.' Finally, they followed our commitment to halve the fuel excise. They need to lead on this.”
“In a time of crisis when there's an emergency with things going on, either you see real leadership or you don't, and what my community feel right now is that we are not seeing real leadership in this country in what are very extenuating circumstances. I acknowledge that obviously these circumstances aren't the doing of the Australian government or people in Australia, but they have ramifications, obviously, all around the world and very severe ramifications in our economy. Within four to five days of the conflict in Iran starting, I was getting calls from major agricultural players, processors and the like who already were being told that fuel supplies were going to be cancelled or that they weren't going to get them when they normally would, which was causing immediate problems.”
“Cancer is something he holds close, having lost loved ones, and that's what is driving his fundraising. Last year he completed a 12-hour marathon, raising over $25,000. This year, after 12 months of training, he is taking up the 24-hour challenge. Through initiatives like Aces for the Community and Bridges of Hope walks, Darren continues to bring people together to support others in need. I'd like to acknowledge his wife, Karen; his children, Natasha, Nick, Josh and BJ; and their partners for their support. Darren, this is a remarkable effort, and the community is right behind you.”
“I'd also like to acknowledge the dedicated branch executive and president, Jane Flick; secretary, Janet Henderson; treasurer, Jennifer Baker; and cultural officer, Denise Crouch, along with all the Casino branch members. I'd also like to recognise two life members: Rita Nicholls, for 40 years, and Anne Bailey, a CWA Far North Coast Group patron and life member of 69½ years, celebrating her 100th birthday in September. Thank you to all the members, past and present, for your leadership and dedication to the Casino CWA. I'd like to acknowledge Darren Crispin from Grafton, who this weekend will take on a 24-hour tennis challenge in support of the Love Your Sister charity. Darren is a generous coach at the Junction Hill Tennis Club and a driving force behind the club, always giving his time to students and backing those doing it tough.”