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 6 of 7.
“The second bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025, amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to give effect to the preferential tariff treatment applicable to goods covered by the CEPA between Australia and the UAE, signed on 6 November 2024, being for goods referred to as UAE originating goods. Specifically, the amendments in the bill will amend the Customs Tariff Act to provide for a 'free' rate of customs duty for UAE originating goods not listed in new schedule 16. The 'free' rate will have effect from entry into force of the agreement for Australia.”
“There are two bills in this package. The first bill, the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2025, amends the Customs Act 1901 to introduce new rules of origin to determine if goods imported from the UAE into Australia are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Australia and the United Arab Emirates. The amendments also give effect to the requirements for verifying claims for preferential tariff treatment of goods exported from Australia to the UAE.”
“I want to congratulate and thank Haley Hodgson, the owner and director, and her team: Linda Goodwin, Maxine Percival, David Richards, Hamish McPherson, Samuel Schuler, Cassandra Holland, Rachel Bennett, Jessica Blackmore, Rebecca Connolly, Jessica Rooks, Rebecca Marker, Lucy Rogers, Sophie Goodwin, Jennie Bunworth, Jessica Zibbens, Lucy Rogers and Mairi McSweeny. Again, congratulations to all the winners. From reports that I've heard, it was a wonderful night for all the wonderful small businesses doing great work in the Clarence Valley.”
“I'd like to acknowledge the recent winners of the Clarence Valley Business Awards: Grafton Jacaranda Festival, Dimattia & Co, Bridge Knowledge Pty Ltd, Elite Brands, HoneyBee Hives, Lions Club of Maclean, Original Sound Lounge, Phytocopia Herbal Balms Australia, Your Choice Support Services and Provenance Propagation. Individuals who were recognised were Sharon Ross, who was named the Outstanding Employee of the Year; Natalie Porter and Jack Mooney, who were both named Outstanding Young Business Leaders; and Bethany Smith, who was awarded Apprentice of the Year. The major award of the night was won by Maclean Medical, who won Business of the Year, Excellence in Innovation and Excellence in Small Business—part of the Maclean community since the 1950s.”
“My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Can the Assistant Treasurer confirm how many farmers and small and family businesses will be impacted by the government's superannuation tax on unrealised gains?”
“I think when people get a good chance to read and digest these amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business there's going to be a light bulb moment on our side as well as the other side of the chamber. These are good amendments. They are going to protect and strengthen parliamentary democracy in this chamber and therefore this country, and I highly recommend them to the House.”
“Whether it be iron ore, gas resources, coal resources or agricultural products, I remind this House—and new members, who may not be aware—that coal, iron ore, gas and food are the four biggest exports of this country. Resources is an important sector of our export sector, and northern Australia is a very important part of that. So, hopefully we'll get the opportunity to move a motion later to make sure we have a House committee with the terms 'resources' and 'northern Australia' included. I will finish my seconding of this motion with great optimism, Speaker, remembering your words yesterday that we want to protect and we want to strengthen parliamentary process and parliamentary accountability in this chamber.”
“A House committee in the last parliament included the phrase 'resources and northern Australia'. We on this side of the chamber are happy to talk about resources; we on this side are happy to talk about northern Australia. In my role as shadow trade minister, I'm very happy to talk about those two things, too. The export powerhouse of this country is the resources sector. Northern Australia plays an important part in that resources story. It's a very successful story. So, in the House committee that was formed and that existed in the last parliament, we thought it was very important to have that focus of language. Again, I'm sure you have been up there to northern Australia, Speaker.”
“In Senate estimates, if a minister gets asked a written question, there is a process for how that is answered and the timeliness of that, and we're seeing that there's no timeliness with that. So, in this amendment ministers are compelled to talk about the reasons they may be delaying answers to questions and having overdue responses to questions. We agree, we are supporting—again, the bipartisan thing, because this is not all opposition to the proposals by the government today—that in talking to bills the time should be reduced to five minutes. We just think that will increase efficiency and timeliness in the chamber. I think that in talking to a bill most people would be able to say what they need to say in 10 minutes and not 15. I want to finish off on a change to the name of a House committee.”
“The Federation Chamber is important, and one of the things we do support the government on is the constituency statements within the Federation Chamber. That's important and gives the opportunity, especially for a lot of new members, to talk about your electorate and people in your electorate and things happening in your electorate. We support that. However, in the last parliament, we saw a lot of things flicked through the Federation Chamber and some important bills were debated up there. The important bills in this place should be debated in here, so putting up changes to this standing order for motions moving something to the Federation Chamber is, again, a very modest request. The other thing the opposition has been growing concerned about is those who fail to respond with written questions. This is really common in the Senate.”
“Again, I don't think that's earth-shattering. If ministers are happy with their decisions and happy with how things are going, you would think that they would be happy having more opportunity to get questions from the opposition to explain what's going on, and to have a cap of eight a day doesn't sound a lot to me. Going back to your words, Speaker, it is all about strengthening parliamentary process. I congratulate the Manager of Opposition Business on his appointment, and I know that, in every chat that I've had with the Manager of Opposition Business about his new role, the only words he mentions to me are that he wants to protect and strengthen parliamentary process. Again, having a minimum of eight a day is a very modest ask. I know that an issue was raised about the Federation Chamber.”
“I know how well the Leader of the House answers his questions and I'm sure that, if you gave him the opportunity to double up and explain his answer even better by asking him a supplementary question, he'd enjoy that. I'm sure he may well change his mind on this amendment and support it to get the opportunity of getting a supplementary question and maybe giving the clarity to an answer that he may not have given, even though he may have thought he had. As the Manager of Opposition Business also highlighted, the other amendment was a really important process to do with questions, in the sense that the amount of questions that were asked in the last parliament wasn't high by historical standards. We're putting in a proposal here that there be at least eight questions by opposition members in question time.”
“Question time changes are really important. I think that the supplementary question amendments of the Manager of Opposition Business are exceptionally important. This is what happens in the Senate. This is not earth-shattering, and I'm sure the government, when they were in opposition, would have felt this. You might be surprised, but sometimes, when you've asked a question of a minister, you don't really feel as though they've answered the question, and you would like to have the opportunity just to reinforce or to follow up with some extra availability for the minister to answer the question more clearly. The great thing is how good that would be for strengthening parliamentary democracy, so I think the supplementary question idea is a great idea.”
“We saw a lot of goodwill yesterday and they heard your words when you said that you want to protect and strengthen parliamentary process and parliamentary democracy, and I think that they will agree with the Manager of Opposition Business and his amendments, when they read them, because these amendments will do exactly that. They're going to protect and strengthen parliamentary process. There was goodwill and the optimism shown in that chamber yesterday at the start of the new parliament, and I know that the government, when they were elected—not the last time but the time before—wanted to increase parliamentary transparency. They wanted the sun to shine in, and I think that that's what these amendments will do. Let's just go through a couple of them. I just want to pick up on some of the more important ones.”
“There was a time limit on it and it stopped, and the legislation went through without necessarily the thorough parliamentary processes and the checks and balances that happened in previous parliaments. I think this is what's happening again with some of these standing orders that are being proposed today, especially in relation to the questions. I'm going to be really optimistic. I'm going to have the attitude that people on the government side and on the crossbenches are now reading through the amendments and they're going to support this.”
“New members may not be aware that how it used to work when you suspended standing orders was that debate, that process, would happen immediately. The government moved that process be deferred. You lose the impact and you lose the importance of what you're trying to suspend standing orders over when those things are deferred. The other thing that happened in the last parliament was the change in the standing orders so that legislation could be rushed through. The government put in the proposal that, if things were important, they needed to be moved quickly. It was basically a gag order, and what we saw in the last parliament, really for the first time, and it happened more often than not, was that important legislation was gagged.”
“As the Manager of Opposition Business said, there are many things in what the Leader of the House has proposed here that we do support, but there are some things here that will not strengthen parliamentary democracy; they will, in fact, weaken it. Before I start speaking on the amendments that we are talking about today, I will give some context. Even in the last parliament, some of the changes that were made to the standing orders then by the current Leader of the House didn't protect parliamentary democracy but actually weakened parliamentary democracy in this place. Two that I remember were the changes to the standing orders for the suspension of standing orders and the process of how that works.”
“I do rise to second these amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. Before a start, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election yesterday to Speaker, again, with bipartisan support. I think that says a lot about the respect you have in this chamber. Mr Speaker, I'll start by paraphrasing something you said yesterday that I thought was quite important—I won't quote you because I can't remember the exact words. You spoke about the importance of this chamber to our parliamentary democracy—how important democracy is and how important this chamber is. And you said that you would look to protect and strengthen the democratic processes in this chamber. I firmly believe that's your thought process and that's what you would like this chamber to do.”
“We have been proven through many decades of being in government to be strong economic managers. We have national security concerns as well, which we think we will be stronger on. We know we need cost-of-living relief, which is why the petrol excise is important to us. We know it's important to family budgets. We know 70c a day a year or two out isn't going to cut the mustard. Again, I'm very excited about Sam Farraway in Calare and many others. We need strong representation in this chamber for the Australian people, especially in regional communities, not a Labor-Greens-teals-Independents minority government.”
“We were very disappointed that he left, but we are asking the good people of Calare. We are very worried about the election if, after the election result, we were to get a minority Labor-Greens-teals-Independents government. We think that wouldn't be good for the people of Calare. We don't think that would be good for the people of Australia. We're asking the people in Bullwinkel, the people in Bendigo, the people in Calare, the people in Whitlam, the people in Hunter and the people in Richmond, where Kimberly Hone is running. We have some great candidates around the country. We're asking all those local communities to support their Nationals candidate, because, as I said, we want strong representatives, and I think the best result for this country after the next election is to have a majority Liberal-Nationals coalition.”
“As he says, if we don't have a nuclear generator there, where are we going to put the 1,500 wind turbines that we would otherwise have to have? As for other things that I know are important to Sam, he speaks with great passion about the Great Western Highway. He was very disappointed in the Labor-Greens-teals-Independents budget this week in the sense that there was no new money for the $2 billion needed for the Great Western Highway. The $15 million Bathurst integrated medical centre is a very big passion of his. There was no money for that either. There was also no money for local roads in Calare. As Sam said, that's what you get when you get an Independent. At the last election, Calare did elect a Nationals MP. He, for his own reasons on the voice referendum, left the Nationals.”
“We're really excited about Sam being a candidate for the Nationals in Calare as well. Sam is an ex state MP, has a great record as a state roads minister and is a really strong local person. I was talking to Sam this morning. He knows that cost-of-living issues are the important issues for the people of Calare. We spoke this morning about the petrol excise cut, the tax cut on petrol, and Sam is very supportive. He's also very excited about our nuclear plan cutting energy bills. There is a proposition to have a nuclear generator at Mount Piper, and he says he wants that because it's reliable base load. We support and like renewables, but we need secure base-load power. He says he wants to know where all the candidates stand in Calare on this nuclear generator.”
“She is a wonderful candidate and was actually the Leader of the Opposition in the WA parliament in the last term. Her father, too, was a Nationals legend. She has real Nationals pedigree. She is standing in the seat of Bullwinkel and will be a great representative given the fact that she has been in the state parliament and has represented her seat over there very well. We are excited about Mia potentially being in the chamber. We also have a great candidate in Bendigo. You might say, 'Bendigo? The Nationals?' but yes, we have a strong candidate in Andrew Lethlean, a really well-known small-business man in Bendigo. He's running a great campaign. He has strong local support, and we're excited about his candidacy in Bendigo. We're looking forward to him joining. We also have Sam Farraway running in Calare.”
“I want to get up and speak quickly about the cost-of-living relief that we're going to be giving in tonight's budget-in-reply, as some have alluded to, but also about some of the wonderful Nats candidates who are standing in this general election. As we saw, 70c a day, Labor's plan a year or two out, isn't cost-of-living relief. You wouldn't even get two-minute noodles on special at 70c. But ours is going to be immediate cost-of-living relief. If you fill up your tank, it's about 60 litres. You're going to be saving 15 to 20 bucks every time you fill up the tank. That's real cost-of-living relief. I know our candidates are excited about this. I wanted to go through a number of our candidates that are standing for us. We have Mia Davies in Western Australia standing in the seat of Bullwinkel.”
“That's just another cut. The other thing going on is the reckless renewables-only policy that Labor, the Greens and the teals have. I've said it before in this chamber—don't do it on North Head; the member for Warringah will not have any wind turbines or solar panels there. The 60 million solar panels and the 20,000 turbines can go in regional and remote Australia. I can tell you right now that the Nationals don't want to see places like Sunny Corner, Oberon and Lithgow ruined by thousands of wind farms. It's only the Nationals candidate Sam Faraway who will show up and look at these communities, and he will not support them. Let's go to the budget. You might ask, 'What was in the budget for regional Australia?'”
“They don't like the fact that cows pass wind, and they don't like the fact that a cow's hoof system apparently isn't good for Australian soil. I said to a Greens candidate once, 'What do you want us to eat?' He had an answer. He wants us to eat kangaroos—try mustering those!—and grasshoppers, I think he said. Again, they actually demonise what we do. The other thing I will just touch on briefly, another atrocious policy, another cut—and I know it was a really sombre day for a lot of Nationals MPs and regional Liberal MPs when this happened—was when they gutted and cut the water we can take from our rivers and streams. Even though that grows all of our fibre and food, the inner-city elite MPs over there and over there want all the fresh water just to go out to the ocean because that's better than growing food and growing fibre.”
“I went with the member for O'Connor and Nola Marino to some parts of their regions, and those communities who are into live export and supply that industry are gutted by the ban of live exports. Why did they do it? Because the inner-city elite MPs said it's not okay. I'd love for them to go to those communities and talk to those people. But this is an insult not just to us, to our sheep farmers and to our remote communities who relied on that industry. It's an insult to every country who we sell live exports to. Those opposite are saying, 'If you want live export, you shouldn't.' What an insult that is to the countries who want that. I've had a Greens candidate run against me as well. I don't think it's Greens policy, but I've certainly had a lot of Greens candidates say to me that they don't want cows in Australia.”
“We've told them; many MPs on this side of the House have told them about this issue, but they seriously don't care. The other thing is that—besides the fact they don't care and besides the fact they don't say thank you for the wealth that's created in regional and remote communities—they go further than that; they demonise us. I see some shaking heads, so I'll go through some examples. I'm going to give you a few of them right now. They say, 'What you're doing is not okay.' God help us if, after the election, this government is in minority government with the Greens and the teals, because they don't like mining, they don't want coalmining and they don't want us to sell gas overseas. But let's go to farming. One of the things this government has done—you can't shake your head, because it's a fact—is ban live sheep exports.”
“The first thing he did was change the formula for the distribution priority areas, which is where those Commonwealth sponsored students and foreign GPs have to go. What that meant was that you could work in Hornsby, just a little bit further out of Sydney. You could literally live in the Sydney CBD, travel to Hornsby and look as though you work in a distribution priority area. What did that mean? I see the member for Parkes, and he's told me this, actually. They lost doctors overnight, and those communities didn't have any doctors after those doctors left. I know communities in my electorate who lost doctors almost instantaneously. Do you know what the sad thing about that is? Those opposite don't care. They actually don't care, because, if they did, they would have changed it.”
“If you were a GP that came from another country, it was the same thing; you had to do some time in regional and remote Australia because that's where the real shortage of GPs was. I won't even mention his name, but, when the Minister for Health and Aged Care gets up in this place, he's very confident. But what was one of the first things he and those opposite did when they got into government? If they were aware that $400 billion of our export wealth comes from the regions, you'd think they would have said thank you. When they charge their electric cars at night, using coal fired power, and go for a drive in the country on the weekend, you'd think they would drive out there and say thank you to the miners and thank you to farmers for the wealth they're creating. But what do they do? Let's go back to the health minister.”
“If you live in Rose Bay or Vaucluse, on one of those lovely tree-lined streets, you've probably got a rate of one GP for about every 500 or 600 people. In the regions, it's about one GP for every 5,000 or 6,000 people, and in some communities it's actually worse. There were some schemes we had in government to try and help that. What were they? If you were a Commonwealth sponsored student—that is, the Commonwealth government had helped you through your studies to become a GP—you had to, at the end of your studies, through a fair contract, go to a regional or remote community when you first became a GP and got your Medicare provider number. That seems fair enough, doesn't it?”
“I remind everyone—especially those opposite because they're very poorly represented in those regions—that all of that is from regional and remote Australia. None of it is with our sanctimonious and righteous teals and Greens. None of it is with the elite inner-city MPs, which the Prime Minister and the environment minister are. None of that comes from them. None of that comes from their communities. They don't understand us. They don't get us. That is why as a government they neglect regional Australia. I'm going to go through some examples here, Deputy Speaker Claydon, because you might say, 'Well, give me some concrete examples of how they neglect regional Australia.' The first one—it was a decision made so early—was in the health area.”
“It causes me great sadness to get up and speak to this MPI because, unfortunately, the title is very true about the neglect under three years of a Labor-Greens-teals government. As we know in the Senate, the Labor government is in coalition with the Greens and the teals, and that has meant absolute neglect for everyone who lives in regional Australia. I do this nearly every time I get up in this chamber because I don't think that those opposite can be reminded of these statistics enough. Last year, we in Australia sold $650 billion of goods and services overseas, and over $400 billion of that came from just four things—they're roughly about $100 billion each: $100 billion from iron ore, $100 billion from coal, $100 billion from gas and call it $100 billion from agriculture and food.”
“What could you buy for 70c a day? I had a quick Google. Unfortunately, you can't even buy a packet of two-minute noodles for 70c a day. But never mind. We have a better tax cut. Our tax cut of cutting petrol taxes means that the average—”
“Deputy Speaker Claydon, you know it, and we all know it—you know it too, Speaker, as you arrive: there is a cost-of-living crisis in this country. We know that, since three years ago, when the Albanese Labor government was elected, the average family has been about $35,000 a year worse off, with $20,000 of that being increased mortgage costs. Speaker, you know interest rates went up 12 times. The rest is things like rent, groceries and energy—a whole lot of other lists. So the average family is $35,000 a year worse off. You might have missed it—I know a lot of the Australian public have missed it or been completely underwhelmed by this Labor government—but the solution to being $35,000 a year worse off is, wait for it, 70c a day in tax cuts. That's what the solution is to a $35,000 cost-of-living increase for the average family.”
“I'm told that taking a metre to two metres off a flood would cost about $2 billion. Before you go, 'Oh my God, $2 billion,' let me remind you and this chamber that that 2022 event was a $15 billion event. The federal and state governments spent all the money on disaster recovery, not on prevention. A metre and a half would cost $2 billion and mean that Lismore, the wider Northern Rivers region and the whole Richmond and Wilson catchments—so you're talking about places like Kyogle, Casino, Ballina and all the villages—would be part of this, making this region safer. That's what we have to start talking about. At the moment we have a dog's breakfast of a situation. We're spending a billion dollars for a marginal return. It's why some of these people have moved on, and good luck to them.”
“A lot of business owners and a lot of personal friends of mine were almost in cathartic positions on their beds on Saturday, terrified about what this event might have been. Anyway, there is a solution to this, and I encourage people in charge of the state entities here and the state government, which will have to request this. When in government federally, we commissioned through the CSIRO a flood mitigation hydrology report about what the options are here. Basically, without going into where and how this would happen, the options are that you can hold back water, and, if you hold back water for a couple of days, you can let the water get away or then let it go so the flood is lower that it otherwise would be. I think a metre to two metres off a flood would make our community safe and give it a future. People would invest in confidence.”
“This is their business; this is their livelihood, and they've had to reinvest. But nothing has happened yet that has made their business safer in the CBD or in any of the industrial estates, and a lot of the people in those 2,000 homes will not get an offer for a buyback either. So we have a real dog's breakfast of a situation. This event triggered what a dog's breakfast it is, because not much has really happened to make a lot of people safer. My community has been traumatised by this. I think we have collective PTSD, because this was the biggest disaster in Australia's history. The biggest disaster in Australia's history was what this region went through. All that got triggered—kids get triggered when it rains heavily.”
“So you can buy back a house for $300,000 and have $300,000 left over to renovate it, because you want to stay there because your kids go to the school up the road and you work down the road. I don't blame people for doing that, but it's obviously a huge flaw in the scheme. I know a number of people who've done that. They sold on the flood plain and bought back on the flood plain and had a bit of money left over to renovate the house. What has that achieved for people's safety? Nothing. Three years on, we have a situation where the CBD isn't more protected. A lot of people have had to go back into their businesses in the CBD and in the industrial estates. They've spent a lot of their own money to do that, and they did it because, in some cases, they had nothing else they could do.”
“The ridiculousness of it—this might make you, Deputy Speaker, cranky as it makes me—is that nearly a billion dollars has been spent to identify these houses, and they're going to buy back about half. It will be co-funded by the state and federal governments. You may well say, 'What does that achieve if you are moving only half of the houses?' and I would say: 'That's a very good question. It's not as much as that money should be doing.' Another joke about this is the way this was designed to run. Work it out. If your sell your house as a buyback—they're buying back the houses for around $600,000—guess what? That doesn't stop you from buying a house that someone who can't wait for the buyback is selling on the private market for, say, $300,000.”
“So a decision had to be made—what were we going to do? There were two choices. It's not rocket science. You either move everyone or you mitigate. What do I mean by mitigate? You do something that means the next flood will be lower because of the work that you've done than it otherwise would be. A very poor decision was made three years ago. A decision was made by the NRRC, a state corporation, to move everyone. What did that mean? They identified 2,000 homes that they thought were endangered and needed moving. Three years on, if we are lucky, maybe half of those homes will get moved. What does that mean? If this tropical cyclone had been another event similar to what we had, people wouldn't have been any safer.”
“You had children having to do this. You had people swimming underwater, literally, to get out of their house and then to get on top of it. You had pets. You had all sorts of stuff. To this day, it's quite a miracle for me and my community that only four or five people, very sadly, drowned, but one of them died before that night. The fact that only four people died was very sad but still a miracle. Post that event, the community had a big decision to make. It was like, 'We now have to look at 14½ metres as the level that this can happen at.' The town is built for 12½ metres. There is a levy that is only built for 10½ metres that does some protection for the CBD. There are a lot of industrial estates. With all due respect, in my mind Lismore is a bit too big to fail and a bit too big to move.”
“As the member for Flynn would know, when you live with these things you know what to do, you know what to expect and you have plans. Everyone had their flood plan. Everything was built for a flood of around 12 to 12½ metres. Houses had been lifted. People had flood plans for their businesses. They had mezzanine levels in a business or they took cars or trucks or whatever to levels above the 12 to 12½ metres. Everyone did that in 2022—and everyone did that in this event too—but what happened was the water went two metres higher, which meant that people were sleeping in their beds when water started coming in at two in the morning and they were in danger. They couldn't get out of their houses. They couldn't go anywhere except to scramble to their roofs, which was dangerous. You had old people having to do this.”
“That's why a lot of people were in danger and a lot of people were at risk of drowning through that event. This event that we just had was 9½ metres. So 9½ metres versus 14½ metres is a big difference. It's why the event certainly didn't cause the carnage that it could have. I want to now talk about the 2022 event, what this event did and what it triggered and where we're still at with this in relation to disasters. What happened after the 2022 event was that we had two choices to make. Get your head around this: we had thousands of homes that were flooded—not a hundred, not a few hundred, but thousands of homes. In many thousands of them the water came up to the gutter, and people had to scramble out of their homes. Remember: water had never reached these levels before. We've had floods.”
“The good news was that, when the event hit, although there was certainly a fair bit of rain—on my property I probably had about 400 or 500 millimetres over four or five days—we had breaks in between that which meant that the water could get away and the flooding wasn't severe. There was still major flooding. All rivers got to their major levels or categorisations, but certainly the water got away and there wasn't as much severe damage as there could have been. To give you some perspective on this, in the 2022 event—and I'll talk about Lismore at this stage—the flood was forecast to come through at 11½ metres when everyone went to bed, and it came through at 14½ metres. And that changed at two in the morning when everyone was asleep. Three metres of extra water was a lot of water and it was two metres higher than we had ever seen.”
“For them to come down that far south is unusual. They happen about every 20 or 30 years, and some of the ones that have come down have caused quite severe havoc, so we were very, very concerned about it. A lot of work went into preparing for it. The great thing is that we were preparing for the worst, but we were certainly hoping and praying for the best. As to the type of work we had done, we had the SES; we had Scott Tanner, who started to lead the recovery or the first responders for this event; Brendan Moon from NEMA arrived. A lot of politicians arrived from both state and federal governments. Everyone was actioning everything they could and getting prepared for what may or may not happen.”
“Tropical Cyclone Alfred came down the coast, as we know, and certainly affected my area just an hour or so south of Brisbane where the eye of the storm was. I want to go through a bit of a sequence of events there. I'll also get on to what this did and what the event that we had in 2022 in my region triggered, some of the consequences of that and where we're still at with that. The big difference for us with this tropical cyclone that was moving down the coast was that, unlike the event we had in 2022, we had a lot of warning. We were talking about this for four or five days, waiting for this to maybe occur. I know the member for Flynn, here from Central Queensland, is probably thinking, 'What were you worried about?' You have these things all the time, but tropical cyclones aren't that common in our area.”
“My question's to the Treasurer. Under the Albanese Labor government, the cost of groceries has now increased by 30 per cent. This means, for the average family, they are around $3,000 a year worse off. How will 70 cents a day in 15 months time help cash strapped families like these, which are paying thousands of dollars more at the checkout?”
“You would think that, when the teals, the Greens and the inner-city Labor MPs charge up their EVs overnight with coal fired power and they go for a drive in the country, they'd be driving out there to say—guess what— thank you. You'd think they'd be driving to the country to say, 'Thank you, regional Australia, for the wealth that you produce for this country and the jobs that you provide across Australia.' But, no, what we get from the inner-city teals, Greens and Labor MPs is demonisation. It's not good enough.”
“As a regional MP, what I like to remind everyone in this chamber when I get up—everyone opposite and especially on the crossbenches—is that regional Australia is the economic powerhouse of this nation. To give you some examples, the four biggest exports from Australia are all from regional Australia. Coal is one of our four biggest exports, iron ore is one of our four biggest exports, gas is one of our four biggest exports, and, obviously, food/ag is one of the four biggest exports. None of them are produced in the cities. Of our $650 billion of exports, $400 billion of those come from regional Australia. It's actually more than that, but it's $400 billion just from those four exports.”